It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

page: 30
23
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

1. "Godwin's law starts at the Holocaust?" Could you at least have some idea what terms mean before you bring them up?

2. Again I ask ... name the means of production that the Nazis turned over to the German working classes.




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Again I ask ... name the means of production that the Nazis turned over to the German working classes.


None. In socialism, the state usually controls the means of production, not the working classes.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




Again I ask ... name the means of production that the Nazis turned over to the German working classes.


None. In socialism, the state usually controls the means of production, not the working classes.


No, that's "Scientific Marxist-Leninism." In true Socialism, the workers control the means of production.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



That was the Nazi Party platform. It was the political group he aligned himself with. That party was socialist.


The party did not espouse socialist ideals. The word "socialism" in the party name, Volksgemeinschaft, referred to the collective people. It did not stand for anything economic or otherwise that would indicate socialism.

I get so tired of people being so ignorant and misinformed. Do the research people.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




Again I ask ... name the means of production that the Nazis turned over to the German working classes.


None. In socialism, the state usually controls the means of production, not the working classes.


Perhaps you'd like to explain that the Nazis were Marxists? Leninists? Stalinists? Heck, why not Maoists?

As long as we're fabricating out of whole cloth ...



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

We've quoted historians, we've quoted standard word definitions, we've even quoted Hitler and the Nazis.

Facts don't make a bit of difference.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko



That was the Nazi Party platform. It was the political group he aligned himself with. That party was socialist.


The party did not espouse socialist ideals. The word "socialism" in the party name, Volksgemeinschaft, referred to the collective people. It did not stand for anything economic or otherwise that would indicate socialism.

I get so tired of people being so ignorant and misinformed. Do the research people.





Nazi Volksgemeinschaft

In the aftermath of the November Revolution of 1918 that marked the end of the German Empire and the beginning of the Weimar Republic, there was strong animosity amongst many Germans towards the Weimar Republic and the social democrats who sponsored its creation.[2] This was combined with anxiety in the 1930s with the severe economic crisis in Germany and abroad, in which many Germans faced unemployment.[2] This situation resulted in increasing popularity for the Nazi Party, including amongst workers who desired a government that would resolve the economic crisis.[5] While ascending to power, Hitler promised to restore faith in the Volk and to bring wholeness while accusing other politicians of tearing at German unity.[6]


Richard Walther Darré addressing a meeting of the farming community in Goslar on 13 December 1937 standing in front of a Reichsadler and Swastika crossed with a sword and wheat sheaf labelled Blood and Soil (from the German Federal Archive)
Upon rising to power in 1933, the Nazis sought to gain support of various elements of society. Their concept of Volksgemeinschaft was racially unified and organized hierarchically.[7] This involved a mystical unity, a form of racial soul uniting all Germans.[8] This soul was regarded as related to the land, in the doctrine of "blood and soil".[8] Indeed, one reason for "blood and soil" was the belief that landowner and peasant lived in an organic harmony.[9] Germans who had sexual relations with non-Germans were excluded from the people's community.[10]

The Nazis solidified support amongst nationalists and conservatives by presenting themselves as allied with President Paul von Hindenburg who was considered a war hero of World War I in Germany.[11] The Nazis sought to gain support of workers by declaring May Day, a day celebrated by organized labour, to be a paid holiday and held celebrations on 1 May 1933 to honour German workers.[12] The Nazis stressed that Germany must honour its workers.[13] The regime believed that the only way to avoid a repeat of the disaster of 1918 was to secure workers' support for the German government.[12] The regime also insisted through propaganda that all Germans take part in the May Day celebrations in the hope that this would help break down class hostility between workers and burghers.[13] Songs in praise of labour and workers were played by state radio throughout May Day as well as an airshow in Berlin and fireworks.[13] Hitler spoke of workers as patriots who had built Germany's industrial strength and had honourably served in the war and claimed that they had been oppressed under economic liberalism.[14] Berliner Morgenpost that had been strongly associated with the political left in the past praised the regime's May Day celebrations.[14]

Bonfires were made of school children's differently colored caps as symbolic of the abolition of class differences.[15]

The Nazis continued social welfare policies initiated by the governments of the Weimar Republic and mobilized volunteers to assist those impoverished, "racially-worthy" Germans through the National Socialist People's Welfare organization.[16] This organization oversaw charitable activities, and became the largest civic organization in Nazi Germany.[16] Successful efforts were made to get middle-class women involved in social work assisting large families.[15] The Winter Relief campaigns acted as a ritual to generate public feeling.[17]

edit on 24-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Note the phrase "racially worthy." The Nazis provided bread and circuses for the "Aryan" proletariat. That is not Socialism.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




No, that's "Scientific Marxist-Leninism." In true Socialism, the workers control the means of production.


I didn't realize that, thanks for the clarification. I always thought the goal of socialism was public control over the means of production, meaning the public at large and not just the workers. By "state" I meant the nation, and not the government.

Do you know of any good reading materials on the distinction between "true" socialism and "scientific Marxist-leninism?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko



That was the Nazi Party platform. It was the political group he aligned himself with. That party was socialist.


The party did not espouse socialist ideals. The word "socialism" in the party name, Volksgemeinschaft, referred to the collective people. It did not stand for anything economic or otherwise that would indicate socialism.

I get so tired of people being so ignorant and misinformed. Do the research people.


Parts of the party platform were posted and words like "collectivize" and "communal" and other terms used often in similar socialist and other party platforms feature prominently.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

When you try to shift the conversation away from the system of governance in order to make attacks on what a bad man Hilter was, then yes, "Godwin's Law" takes effect.

Also, re: Hilter's Christianity. There isn't much to address. In the very same post where you say Hitler said he was Christian, you go on to call him an unreliable source. So you again talk out both sides of your beak, but this time you did it the very same post. Tsk!


edit on 24-8-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

We've quoted historians, we've quoted standard word definitions, we've even quoted Hitler and the Nazis.

Facts don't make a bit of difference.


You've also quoted Wikipedia ...

Oh, and now that you want to claim him for your facts ... Hitler is a reliable source?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is that no matter what the source some people just don't want to accept that there is a difference.

I don't even know what Hitler being socialist or not has to do with Fascism.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

When you try to shift the conversation away from the system of governance in order to make attacks on what a bad man Hilter was, then yes, "Godwin's Law" takes effect.

Also, re: Hilter's Christianity. There isn't much to address. In the very same post where you say Hitler said he was Christian, you go on to call him an unreliable source. So you again talk out both sides of your beak, but this time you did it the very same post. Tsk!



Funny, I wasn't aware that it was "Ketsuko's law" ... but I guess if you can make Nazis into leftists and socialists in your head, you can believe anything. Godwin's law, like the political persuasion of the Nazis, is well-known.



As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.


That's from Wikipedia ...



Godwin’s Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”


... that's from knowyourmeme.com, and ...



A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.


... is from Urban Dictionary.

Notice that "the holocaust" isn't a part of any of the definitions nor are any of the other silly takes on it you're trying to cover up your ignorance with.

But, you can twist it into anything you want ... because most recognize that you're generally clueless, because you're generally just chiming in on someone else's debates with no facts, no backup, no evidence, just Ketsuko's Law, which is apparently "I will say whatever stupid garbage I want."

Hitler was quoted to prove that he was "a socialist" above. Most people who have any knowledge of history, economics, or politics know that is ridiculous. However, IF someone is going to cite Hitler as a source with no restrictions on socialism then they should also accept what he says about being Christian (which he talks about a lot more than being "socialist.")

That was the point. Not surprised that you're trying to twist your own duplicity around and hang it on someone else.

Also, not surprised you are unable to see something so simplistic. And sister (or whatever gender you are) you are the LAST PERSON ON ATS to talk to me or anyone about which side of your mouth you're talking out of. Did you ever look at your posts and count how many times you say "so, what you're saying is..." You not only lie outright when it suits you, you try to restate what others say into your lies. Then whine that you're "being attacked" when your crap is called on you.

Seriously, get a grip. And feel free, once again, to ignore me ANYTIME.
edit on 15Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:54:07 -050015p032015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

We've quoted historians, we've quoted standard word definitions, we've even quoted Hitler and the Nazis.

Facts don't make a bit of difference.


You've also quoted Wikipedia ...

Oh, and now that you want to claim him for your facts ... Hitler is a reliable source?


What a waste of screen space ... you couldn't add this to your screed above?

You've even got the argument that you just MADE backwards. Let me help; you're trying to cite me for "believing Hitler" in our previous discussions about his Christianity, and not believing him now ... not vice-versa.

LOL ... you even botched that reference.

Hitler wasn't a socialist; the Nazis weren't leftist; I know these things because I understand what words mean and what history relates.

That's all. /shrug
edit on 15Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:56:11 -050015p032015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is that no matter what the source some people just don't want to accept that there is a difference.

I don't even know what Hitler being socialist or not has to do with Fascism.



He's more fun to talk about than Mussolini?


We've defined all the necessary terms. We've reviewed their historical context. We've cited historians and political scientists who have spent their LIVES studying the Nazis, and still we get an argument like "but they were National SOCIALISTS."

This stupidity is going to go on and on until we all get tired of it.

Why don't we tackle WHY the right-wing wants so badly to tag Democrats, liberals and progressives as communists, socialists and fascists? Eh?

Because then they don't have to ADDRESS THE ISSUES. They just dismiss us with a term that means nothing, and then, as we see here, simply continue to repeat the same lies over and over and over.

They don't have any logical standing on most of their issues ... they rely ENTIRELY on belief-based BS.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is that no matter what the source some people just don't want to accept that there is a difference.

I don't even know what Hitler being socialist or not has to do with Fascism.



Italian Fascism



Fascists identified their primary opponents as the majority of socialists on the left who had opposed intervention in World War I.[104] The Fascists and the Italian political right held common ground: both held Marxism in contempt, discounted class consciousness and believed in the rule of elites.[107] The Fascists assisted the anti-socialist campaign by allying with the other parties and the conservative right in a mutual effort to destroy the Italian Socialist Party and labour organizations committed to class identity above national identity.[107]

Fascism sought to accommodate Italian conservatives by making major alterations to its political agenda;– abandoning its previous populism, republicanism, and anticlericalism, adopting policies in support of free enterprise, and accepting the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchy as institutions in Italy.[108] To appeal to Italian conservatives, Fascism adopted policies such as promoting family values, including promotion policies designed to reduce the number of women in the workforce limiting the woman's role to that of a mother. The fascists banned literature on birth control and increased penalties for abortion in 1926, declaring both crimes against the state.[109] Though Fascism adopted a number of positions designed to appeal to reactionaries, the Fascists sought to maintain Fascism's revolutionary character, with Angelo Oliviero Olivetti saying "Fascism would like to be conservative, but it will [be] by being revolutionary."[110] The Fascists supported revolutionary action and committed to secure law and order to appeal to both conservatives and syndicalists.[111]


From Wikipedia "Fascism" Source

Emphasis mine.
edit on 16Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:16:35 -050015p042015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Benito Mussolini Quotes:



"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail."




Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy.


(I have heard this said by ATS right-wingers multiple times over. They usually phrase it "raw democracy" to suggest that the People need watchers, like the State Legislatures, to choose their representatives for them.)

Source for the Above: Brainy Quotes - Mussolini




“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”




“State ownership! It leads only to absurd and monstrous conclusions; state ownership means state monopoly, concentrated in the hands of one party and its adherents, and that state brings only ruin and bankruptcy to all.”


If this doesn't answer the question ... NOTHING WILL:



“I do not intend to defend capitalism or capitalists. They, like everything human, have their defects. I only say their possibilities of usefulness are not ended.

Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of the war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace. ...

It is not simply and solely an accumulation of wealth, it is an elaboration, a selection, a co-ordination of values which is the work of centuries. ...

Many think, and I myself am one of them, that capitalism is scarcely at the beginning of its story.”



Source for the above: Benito Mussolini quotes, GoodReads
edit on 16Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:23:36 -050015p042015866 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Like the old saying goes....

Watch what they do, not what they might say to gain power. But never forget what they said before they had the power they sought.




In 1912 Mussolini was the leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI). Prior to 1914 he was a keen supporter of the Socialist International, starting the series of meetings in Switzerland that organised the communist revolutions and insurrections that swept through Europe from 1917. Mussolini was expelled from the PSI due to his opposition to the party's stance on neutrality in World War I.



now he seeks power after being jilted ..


Mussolini denounced the PSI, and later founded the fascist movement. Following the March on Rome in October 1922 he became the youngest Prime Minister in Italian history until the appointment of Matteo Renzi in February 2014. After destroying all political opposition through his secret police and outlawing labor strikes,[5] Mussolini and his fascist followers consolidated their power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship. Within five years he had established dictatorial authority by both legal and extraordinary means, aspiring to create a totalitarian state. Mussolini remained in power until he was deposed by King Victor Emmanuel III in 1943. A few months later, he became the leader of the Italian Social Republic, a German client regime in northern Italy; he held this post until his death in 1945.

Il Duce



The original maniacal Jealousy !!


You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me.

Quote by Mussolini after he was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party in 1914.

Benito Mussolini




The major similarities outweigh the minor differences.




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Just going to throw some more quotes by one Joseph Goebbels into the mix, explaining what it means to be a Nazi. After explaining the nationalist angle of the party, he better explains the socialist angle according to him.

Source: Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932).





Why are we socialists?

"We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state."




We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.



Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.



We call ourselves a workers’ party because we want to rescue the word work from its current definition and give it back its original meaning. Anyone who creates value is a creator, that is, a worker. We refuse to distinguish kinds of work. Our only standard is whether the work serves the whole, or at least does not harm it, or if it is harmful. Work is service. If it works against the general welfare, then it is treason against the fatherland.


It should be noted, however, that his views are vehemently anti-liberal, and he opposed the Marxist route to socialism. He was also opposed to the bourgeoisie and capitalism.

research.calvin.edu...

edit on 24-8-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join