Anarchists want no government and progressives want a lot while libertarians want only a little. You don't know what you are.
wrong again anarchists and libertarians are very nearly the same thing and can be progressive too and all progressives only want more government in the small minds of neo-conn's like you
btw some neo-conn's build ever bigger goverments like BuSh2 did
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 05-16-2009).]
wrong again anarchists and libertarians are very nearly the same thing and can be progressive too and all progressives only want more government in the small minds of neo-conn's like you
btw some neo-conn's build ever bigger goverments like BuSh2 did
Bush did build bigger government. And it was the wrong thing to do. So what does that have to do with the facts that Anarchists are not nearly the same as libertarians. One wants no government and one wants limited. Thats like saying 1 and 10 are nearly the same thing. The progressive movement is for bigger government. And I'm not a neocon you ****tard. I tried to refrain from calling you out but you really are stupid. You ignore facts and make things up as you go. You have had your ass handed to you over and over again in this thread and you can do is point out what Bush did. You really don't have a clue about politics at all. You are so intellectually bankrupt direct quotes are brushed aside because Hitler lied about everything like all politicians do.
Originally posted by ray b: Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism
Yeah except for the whole socialism aspect of nazism that you don't find in fascism and economic models of fascism that were not part of nazism. I can see where they they are just alike except where they are completely different. But these are probably the same scholars who told you that nazis aren't socialist and leftists.
IP: Logged
06:33 PM
PK Member
Posts: 1249 From: Oxford, England Registered: Sep 2001
Yeah except for the whole socialism aspect of nazism that you don't find in fascism and economic models of fascism that were not part of nazism. I can see where they they are just alike except where they are completely different. But these are probably the same scholars who told you that nazis aren't socialist and leftists.
NO WRONG AGAIN
The Nazis initially attempted to form a corporatist economic system like that in Fascist Italy, and created the National Socialist Institute for Corporatism in May 1933, which included many major economists who argued that corporatism was consistent with National Socialism.. In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke enthusiastically about the "National Socialist corporative idea" as one which would eventually "take the place of ruinous class warfare" However, the Nazis later believed that corporatism was not beneficial to Germany because they deemed that it institutionalized and legitimized social differences within the German nation and instead the Nazis went on to promote economic organizations that emphasized the biological unity of the German national community.
so the italians had a little more socialism then the germans not less but both were far more captalist then socialist
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
The Nazis initially attempted to form a corporatist economic system like that in Fascist Italy, and created the National Socialist Institute for Corporatism in May 1933, which included many major economists who argued that corporatism was consistent with National Socialism.. In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke enthusiastically about the "National Socialist corporative idea" as one which would eventually "take the place of ruinous class warfare" However, the Nazis later believed that corporatism was not beneficial to Germany because they deemed that it institutionalized and legitimized social differences within the German nation and instead the Nazis went on to promote economic organizations that emphasized the biological unity of the German national community.
so the italians had a little more socialism then the germans not less but both were far more captalist then socialist
You said your self that nazis didn't take over and nationalize industry and they didn't. That is a key component of fascism. And where Italy and Germany differed greatly. So they were very different. You also swore up and down that they weren't socialist in nazi Germany but now you are saying they are. Yet you still get wrong when you say they had more then Italy. You simply aren't smart ray. You aren't even smart enough to keep your made up crap straight. Maybe you can tell me how a government that based it self on hating capitalism and blaming it for class warfare is more capitalist then socialist? Facts ray. Try them out some time so you wont make your self look like a moron. Fact is that the socialist nazi leftists were more left then the not as socialist fascist leftists. But don't let the facts get in the way ray.
Or it is asking if the "OFFICIAL" Nazi party is L or R wing? If so, does this imply there is/was an unofficial Nazi party?
Confused I am.
There was and still is official nazi parties in the US and parts of Europe. They are leftists as evident to any person with half a brain who looks at there platforms and what they did when in power.
There was and still is official nazi parties in the US and parts of Europe. They are leftists as evident to any person with half a brain who looks at there platforms and what they did when in power.
the neo-nazi's [current nazi's] are 100% extreme rightwing not a leftest in there at all IN FACT THEY HATE LEFTESTS sorry but your just 100% WRONG
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
wrong again anarchists and libertarians are very nearly the same thing and can be progressive too and all progressives only want more government in the small minds of neo-conn's like you
btw some neo-conn's build ever bigger goverments like BuSh2 did
Cherry picking political spectra, especially Slomps modern EUROPEAN model, to attempt to bolster your gossamer thin argument regarding U.S. politics only further demonstrates how far out of your depth you are Ray. You do know there are some fundamental differences don't you? I suppose that Nolan, Pournelle, or Englehart didn't have much to suppot your contentions, or did you just stop at Slomp?
IP: Logged
08:39 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
Or it is asking if the "OFFICIAL" Nazi party is L or R wing? If so, does this imply there is/was an unofficial Nazi party?
Confused I am.
No, this is the "OFFICIAL" thread for right wingers to desperately try to re-write history and distance themselves from Hitler and the Nazi party of WW2 Germany.
Perhaps we should have a corresponding “OFFICIAL” thread for left wingers to try and convince PFF members that Josef Stalin was actually a misunderstood right wing extremist.
No, this is the "OFFICIAL" thread for right wingers to desperately try to re-write history and distance themselves from Hitler and the Nazi party of WW2 Germany.
Perhaps we should have a corresponding “OFFICIAL” thread for left wingers to try and convince PFF members that Josef Stalin was actually a misunderstood right wing extremist.
Leave it up to you to get it wrong. Why am I not surprised you don't understand it? That's right its because you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions. No you are so intellectually dishonest you will ignore any facts. Honesty isn't your strong suit now is it.
IP: Logged
09:18 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 37674 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
Cherry picking political spectra, especially Slomps modern EUROPEAN model, to attempt to bolster your gossamer thin argument regarding U.S. politics only further demonstrates how far out of your depth you are Ray. You do know there are some fundamental differences don't you? I suppose that Nolan, Pournelle, or Englehart didn't have much to suppot your contentions, or did you just stop at Slomp?
AND HE PLACES NAZI THEN FASCIST THEN CONCERVATES IN THE SAME AREA just like Slomps so is that gossmer thin or getting thicker dude two for two nazi = rightwing your charts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND HE PLACES NAZI THEN FASCIST THEN CONCERVATES IN THE SAME AREA just like Slomps so is that gossmer thin or getting thicker dude two for two nazi = rightwing your charts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lots of versions of this one but I can't find one with hitler or nazi's placed
englehart lots of books but I just can't find his chart or a riff on nazi's
but two for two your charts not my picks support nazi = rightwing what was your point again???????????????????????????
You're nothing if not predictable Ray.
After you got to Pournelle you didn't go past the chart on Wikipedia did you? I pretty much knew you wouldn't. Your past history in political debate has never shown you to be much of a study. Catch phrases, buzz words and simple propagada appear to be more your strong suite.
In short Ray, you fell for it.
All you saw was that Pournelle made the graphic grouping you were looking for and that was all you needed to see wasn't it? Pournelle had them on the right side of his chart and PRESTO!, you equated that to the one dimensional "right-left" spectrum you can't get past. By offering you Nolan, Englehart and others, I essentially led you by the nose to the Wikipedia article, and gave you the chance to discover the vast array of varying political spectra other than the one dimensional "left-right" one you seem fixated on. Did you really think I didn't know what Pournelle's chart looked like? I included him for a reason Ray. Hell, you could have even gone further with Pournelle and discovered more about how and why he created that spectrum and why it's been heavily criticized, but again I knew you wouldn't once you simply saw the chart.
"The notion of a "left" and a "right" has been with us a long time. It originated in the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly during their revolution. The delegates marched into the Hall of Machines by traditional precedence, with the aristocrats and clergy entering first, then the wealthier bourgeois, and so on, with the aristocracy seated on the Speaker's right. Since the desire for radical change was pretty well inversely proportionate to wealth, there really was, for a short time, a legitimate political spectrum running from right to left, and the concept of left and right made sense.
Within a year it was invalidated by events. New alliances were formed. Those who wanted no revolutionary changes at all were expelled (or executed). There came a new alignment called "The Mountain" (from their habit of sitting together in the higher tiers of seats). Even for 18th Century France the "left-right" model ceased to have any theoretical validity."
"Nor is this all academic trivia. "There is no enemy to the Left" is a slogan taken very seriously by many intellectuals. "Popular Front' movements uniting "the Left" (generally socialists and communists) have changed the destinies of nations. Conservatives swallow hard and treat kindly other members of "the Bight" even when the others seem despicable by Conservative standards. The left-right model, although nonsensical by any theoretical analysis, has had very real political consequences.
Some years ago I set out to replace the old model with one that made more sense. I studied a number of political philosophies and tried to see what underlying concepts separated them from their political enemies. Eventually I came up with two variables. I didn't then and don't now suggest these two are all there is to political theory. I'm certain there are other important ones. But my two have this property: they map every major political philosophy and movement onto one unique place."
Jerry Pournelle
All you managed to do was demonstrate that you are FOLLOWING in this debate and not leading.
You're out of your league Ray. Were you a willing student, I'm sure your enthusiasm for things politic might make teaching you productive, but somehow I think you're happier just bending over and grasping into your nether regions for your "facts"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-17-2009).]
No, this is the "OFFICIAL" thread for right wingers to desperately try to re-write history and distance themselves from Hitler and the Nazi party of WW2 Germany.
Let me see if I understand you. You're saying that right wingers - persumably including U.S. Republicans - are kin to Nazis?
Originally posted by Patrick: Let me see if I understand YOU (and others in this thread). You're saying that left wingers - persumably including U.S. Democrats - are kin to Nazis?
Let me see if I understand YOU (and others in this thread). You're saying that left wingers - persumably including U.S. Democrats - are kin to Nazis?
I can only speak for myself, but that's precisely the fiction I've been attempting to dispell. On BOTH sides of the argument. Everyone seems to be fixated on the old one dimensonal "left-right" scale, furiously trying to tar the other side with an objectionable political and historical heritage. In my own, admittedly obtuse, way I've tried to point out how simplistically erroneous, not to mention just plain juvenile and absurd that is. Alas, there are *agendas* here that override honest political science and just good common sense.
It's more than a little notable that the OP tossed the "molotov cocktail" and immediately fled the thread thus far.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-17-2009).]
Nazis are socialists. Democrats and republics to a slightly lesser extent are socialists. On the scale most commonly used of left being more government and right being less government socialists are to the left.
After you got to Pournelle you didn't go past the chart on Wikipedia did you? I pretty much knew you wouldn't. Your past history in political debate has never shown you to be much of a study. Catch phrases, buzz words and simple propagada appear to be more your strong suite.
In short Ray, you fell for it.
All you saw was that Pournelle made the graphic grouping you were looking for and that was all you needed to see wasn't it? Pournelle had them on the right side of his chart and PRESTO!, you equated that to the one dimensional "right-left" spectrum you can't get past. By offering you Nolan, Englehart and others, I essentially led you by the nose to the Wikipedia article, and gave you the chance to discover the vast array of varying political spectra other than the one dimensional "left-right" one you seem fixated on. Did you really think I didn't know what Pournelle's chart looked like? I included him for a reason Ray. Hell, you could have even gone further with Pournelle and discovered more about how and why he created that spectrum and why it's been heavily criticized, but again I knew you wouldn't once you simply saw the chart.
"The notion of a "left" and a "right" has been with us a long time. It originated in the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly during their revolution. The delegates marched into the Hall of Machines by traditional precedence, with the aristocrats and clergy entering first, then the wealthier bourgeois, and so on, with the aristocracy seated on the Speaker's right. Since the desire for radical change was pretty well inversely proportionate to wealth, there really was, for a short time, a legitimate political spectrum running from right to left, and the concept of left and right made sense.
Within a year it was invalidated by events. New alliances were formed. Those who wanted no revolutionary changes at all were expelled (or executed). There came a new alignment called "The Mountain" (from their habit of sitting together in the higher tiers of seats). Even for 18th Century France the "left-right" model ceased to have any theoretical validity."
"Nor is this all academic trivia. "There is no enemy to the Left" is a slogan taken very seriously by many intellectuals. "Popular Front' movements uniting "the Left" (generally socialists and communists) have changed the destinies of nations. Conservatives swallow hard and treat kindly other members of "the Bight" even when the others seem despicable by Conservative standards. The left-right model, although nonsensical by any theoretical analysis, has had very real political consequences.
Some years ago I set out to replace the old model with one that made more sense. I studied a number of political philosophies and tried to see what underlying concepts separated them from their political enemies. Eventually I came up with two variables. I didn't then and don't now suggest these two are all there is to political theory. I'm certain there are other important ones. But my two have this property: they map every major political philosophy and movement onto one unique place."
Jerry Pournelle
All you managed to do was demonstrate that you are FOLLOWING in this debate and not leading.
You're out of your league Ray. Were you a willing student, I'm sure your enthusiasm for things politic might make teaching you productive, but somehow I think you're happier just bending over and grasping into your nether regions for your "facts"
sure the whole mess is complex the cube model [3D] is better then the simple right left or square chart or even a circle or the horseshoe is way better the the simple right left line but we were debating is hitler right or left and do the neo-conned use ''some of his ideas'' nobody thinks the GOP wants to kill jews or follow all of the nuts nazi ideas
so lets make this simple hitler was on the right side of the chart and the charge he was a socialist is false any group can be split in to members on the right left or center even the nazi's but history shows the leftest nazi's were purged [ night of the long knives ] with hitler leading the purge that led to a rightest party who were fascist not socialist mostly except for the name
point two all post war neo-nazi partys groups and gangs are rightests
sure everyone has pet issues and few people totally can be pigonholed to pure right or left in all things at all times
I am mostly left BUT I donot like big governments or the nanny state big debts too much federal control of most things any censorship of anything
I like ike and AuH2O didnot think much of JFK I hated nixon and LBJ about the same liked carter hated ronnie raygun liked bush 1 but not 2 clinton was sort of ok but no liberal
and am unsure about obombsaway
have never joined the democrats but was a yippy
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
01:47 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I donot like big governments or the nanny state big debts too much federal control of most things any censorship of anything
Those would be traditional Republican values. Note I said "traditional." I really hope the GOP takes a look at what it has become and gets back to being the party of small government and fiscal responsibility.
sure the whole mess is complex the cube model [3D] is better then the simple right left or square chart or even a circle or the horseshoe is way better the the simple right left line but we were debating is hitler right or left and do the neo-conned use ''some of his ideas'' nobody thinks the GOP wants to kill jews or follow all of the nuts nazi ideas
so lets make this simple hitler was on the right side of the chart and the charge he was a socialist is false any group can be split in to members on the right left or center even the nazi's but history shows the leftest nazi's were purged [ night of the long knives ] with hitler leading the purge that led to a rightest party who were fascist not socialist mostly except for the name
point two all post war neo-nazi partys groups and gangs are rightests
sure everyone has pet issues and few people totally can be pigonholed to pure right or left in all things at all times
I am mostly left BUT I donot like big governments or the nanny state big debts too much federal control of most things any censorship of anything
I like ike and AuH2O didnot think much of JFK I hated nixon and LBJ about the same liked carter hated ronnie raygun liked bush 1 but not 2 clinton was sort of ok but no liberal
and am unsure about obombsaway
have never joined the democrats but was a yippy
Ray, it actually looks like you might be trying on this one. I have to admit, you have surprised even me in some ways.
You still have some critical things garbled though.
The "Night of the Long Knives", (It was never called that in Germany), was ALL about Hitler and the SS eliminating a threat to their power through the execution of Ernst Rohm and the SA. It had nothing to do with any perceived "left" or "right" politics. Rohm and his "brownshirts" were allies of Hitler in his rise to power until they were a direct challenge to that power. The SA was every bit as Nationalist as Hitler was. The Rohm-Putsch, as it is still known in Germany, was the "politics" of thuggery, not ideology.
Despite any attempts to educate you otherwise, you're obviously entitled to your otherwise "simple" view of politics Ray.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-17-2009).]
IP: Logged
02:13 AM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20686 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
The one thing that you leftist are leaving out is that Conservationism has nothing to do with or associated with being close to Nazism or Facisim.
Conservatism
Conservativism is generally based on the view that current values should be upheld and little should be changed. In the United States specifically, Conservativism generally holds the government should have a limited role in the lives of citizens and the operation of society. Conservatives do not interfere with corporations as do liberals, tending to tax them less heavily and allowing them to operate on their own, seeing interference as a step toward socialism. In the United States, conservatives tend to side with the Republican Party, and are traditionally elected during times of economic stablility.
What scholars believe what Nazisim was:
According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the "far right" or "extreme right."
Nazi publications and speeches included anti-capitalist rhetoric. (hmmmm... like today's leftist).
The Nazi Party’s “Twenty-Five Point Programme” demanded:
…that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens… the abolition of all incomes unearned by work… the ruthless confiscation of all war profits… the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations… profit-sharing in large enterprises… extensive development of insurance for old-age… land reform suitable to our national requirements…
hmmmmm... still goes hand in hand with today's leftist.
Hitler said in 1927, “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.”[75] However, Hitler wrote in 1930, “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[76] In a confidential 1931 interview, Hitler told the influential editor of a pro-business newspaper, “I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State… The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.
Ya gotta wonder what motivates certain people here who feel a need to "educate" the rest of us about who's left and who's right in (what appears to be) every second O/T thread.
It gets old real fast.
I honestly don't care if anyone agrees with me or not in regards to politics or women or choice of hair shampoo. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I appreciate that we're able to express ourselves here in an open forum.
Some people unfortunately can't handle the audacity of anyone disagreeing with them. What a sad way to go through life, insulting and fighting with everyone who has their own differing view of the world.
Sometimes I’m pretty glad that it’s so easy to sever ties to the internet...
IP: Logged
03:29 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
I can only speak for myself, but that's precisely the fiction I've been attempting to dispell. On BOTH sides of the argument. Everyone seems to be fixated on the old one dimensonal "left-right" scale, furiously trying to tar the other side with an objectionable political and historical heritage. In my own, admittedly obtuse, way I've tried to point out how simplistically erroneous, not to mention just plain juvenile and absurd that is. Alas, there are *agendas* here that override honest political science and just good common sense.
It's more than a little notable that the OP tossed the "molotov cocktail" and immediately fled the thread thus far.
The problem is, you're trying to explain complicated concepts to some people who aren't capable or willing to look past the easy-to-understand, sound-bite-style labels. Most people don't want to look beyond the simple stuff, because doing so might force them to re-examine their own belief structure, as well as question those who they politically support. That's why blind partisanship is encouraged by those in power, and why there are so many wedges driven into the public. If we sit and bicker with each other over the superficial stuff, we don't really pay attention to what's going on behind the scenes.
Ya gotta wonder what motivates certain people here who feel a need to "educate" the rest of us about who's left and who's right in (what appears to be) every second O/T thread.
It gets old real fast.
Indeed, it does get old.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
No, this is the "OFFICIAL" thread for right wingers to desperately try to re-write history and distance themselves from Hitler and the Nazi party of WW2 Germany.
Pray tell, What is your motivation?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-17-2009).]
