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.

 

Socialism: Legal Plunder Premised on False Philanthropy

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

He lied about many things, but I don't expect you to blast through the Bollocks when you can't even differentiate between actually socialist worker unions and the later 'Arbeiterfront' under the NSDAP.

Kinda funny though.


Trade unions are not socialist, despite your verbal tricks.




posted on May, 18 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Worker unions must be communist then.
Way to avoid an answer with more crap, I'll give you that.

#QualitativelyEasy



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Unions are still voluntary which makes them not socialist but something else.

Socialism and communism are not voluntary and state run.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You say Rosa Luxemburg wasn't murdered by the states henchmen, aka the Freikorps? The Spartacus Revolt was essentially "state-run", eh?

Why can't we have this in the pit, Rosasuko? Sad. Soo SAD!



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

In the US, unions are still voluntary. Even if the workplace is a union shop, you still have the choice to join or not.

As for the Night of the Long Knives, I did not answer that question.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The Night of the Long Knives has nothing to do with the Spartacus Revolt. Focus!



Socialism and communism are not voluntary and state run.


Historyflash: socialists and communists were murdered by the state, hence your whole reasoning is flawed. Look up Noske in case of doubt.

Next?



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Worker unions must be communist then.
Way to avoid an answer with more crap, I'll give you that.

#QualitativelyEasy




It’s true. Trade unions are a product of the industrial revolution, not socialism. “Socialist unions” is just another verbal swindle, the attempt to appropriate something from capitalism.

Hitler was opposed to Marxism and Bolshevism, sure, but he no less wanted to implement his own brand of socialism.

I don’t know the answer your question, or even what you’re trying to ask.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You'll probably never understand national-socialism within it's context of eugenics. Why bother?

I'd rather look at quantitative easing as socialism for the rich. With that in mind your whole legal plunder angle could be somewhat tangible. Right?



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You'll probably never understand national-socialism within it's context of eugenics. Why bother?

I'd rather look at quantitative easing as socialism for the rich. With that in mind your whole legal plunder angle could be somewhat tangible. Right?


Eugenics, another progressive invention.

But yes, I think any legislation that plunders the money from some and gives it to others is legal plunder. As Bastiat said, those who receive the money are not to blame, but those that steal and give it are.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: chr0naut

Hitler declared himself a socialist, said it was inseparable from anti-semitism, said it would only work in Aryan countries. He was anti-capitalist. He was anti-liberal.

He was just another in a long line of socialist dictators, duped by his own false philanthropy.


Hitler wasn't anti-capitalist (He established the New Deutschmark to stabilize the German economy after the effects of hypinflation) or socialist (in the sense of left leaning pro communist ideology of socialism).

State Socialism (Germany) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany's 'Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei' (National Socialist party, commonly abbreviated to Nazi) was not socialist in the terms of following Marxist collectivism.

At the rise of Nazism, the party that was left leaning and socialist, in terms of how we define socialism, was the opposition Social Democratic Party.

Capitalism and Nazism

Political views of Adolf Hitler From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are repeating the untruths of some right-wing propagandists who are trying to excuse themselves from comparison to the thoroughly evil ultra-right, with whom they are inextricably tied.

The Nazis had systematic processes of rounding up and killing innocents. They are the epitome of evil and were undoutably ultra-nationalist, anti-communist and extreme right wing. Their governing leader was a dictator. Hitler was never elected to either chancellor or führer by the vote of the citizenry.
edit on 18/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I’m only reciting his words, which are the only evidence of his thoughts and intentions despite what you far left rags wish them to be.

He was definitely anti-Marxist and Bolshevist, because that’s what he said. but only because it was international in scope. Socialism precedes both Marx and socialism. He believed in National Socialism, which is evident in his words, his party, and the implementation. He scorned materialism. He scorned the Social Dems. He scorned the liberal order of the West in order to forge his version of socialism.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: chr0naut

I’m only reciting his words, which are the only evidence of his thoughts and intentions despite what you far left rags wish them to be.


When you are extreme right, everything in the world is left of you.

But are you suggesting that the Encyclopedia Britannica is a left-wing rag? For reference, I posted this previously: Were the Nazis Socialists?. You can dismiss some of my reference sources but not all of them. This 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' argument isn't valid.


He was definitely anti-Marxist and Bolshevist, because that’s what he said. but only because it was international in scope.


The Nazi party was bolstered in it's early days by the SA (brown shirts) and there was open fighting in the streets against communist sympathizers (and those assumed to be so). It had nothing to do with internationalism. It was local and violent, from the outset.


Socialism precedes both Marx and socialism.


So, you can name me a socialist government that existed before Marx?


He believed in National Socialism, which is evident in his words, his party, and the implementation. He scorned materialism. He scorned the Social Dems. He scorned the liberal order of the West in order to forge his version of socialism.


Hitler's version of socialism did not socialize big business, it's schemes of public works, employment and financial aid took jobs, homes, wealth and handouts from one group of people and gave it to another.

Nazi 'socialism' divided, and declared some of its citizens as non citizens and even non-human. The Social Darwinism of Nazism requires survival of the fittest and therefore non-survival of the 'unfit'. The actual outcomes of the Nazi government were not socialist but concentrated power and wealth by removing them from others.

Actually, it doesn't really matter what labels we give things. In the long view, we can see what the outcomes of the ideologies are:

If the ultimate effect of a political ideology ends with persecution or prosecution of the innocent, it is evil.

If the goals and procedures of Nazism lead to the deaths of those who had committed no crime (and you have to remember, that genocide, the goal of Nazi anti-Semitism, requires the murder of babies and children - even eugenically, because humans breed anyway, despite political dictates).

If the goals of the Obama administration leads to the separation of children from their parents and incarceration of those children. Then it is evil.

If a wall, or impossible to fulfill legal requirements of asylum, prevent those innocent of any crime from escaping from mortal danger and therefore causes injury, slavery or the loss of life of those innocents, it is evil.

It is as simple as that. The labels don't really matter.

edit on 19/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf




I’m only reciting his words, which are the only evidence of his thoughts and intentions despite what you far left rags wish them to be.


Sure, why judge anyone by their actions if we could rely on their lies instead?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... we could still call it a goose! Right? Next item on the list: eugenics, another progressive invention. Cuz.... well... Hitler said so?





top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join