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.

 

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 


I have read several foreign commentators who say America has one right wing party, the Democrats and a FAR right wing party, the Republicans.




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 


Wrong, fox. A socialist economy can survive in governments other than a democratic or republic. I'm not sure why you and others attempt to combine economic philosophy with governmental ideas.

Some people hate wikipedia, but here is an excerpt for those that don't turn their head from it,

Socialist economics is a term which refers in its descriptive sense to the economic effects of nations with large state sectors where the government directs the kind and nature of production. However, this definition is controversial because forms of socialism such as libertarian socialism are against government ownership and instead desire social ownership by producers and consumers in direct democratic cooperatives and workers' councils, which contradicts the idea of socialist economics as state ownership. In a normative sense, it applies to economic theories which advance the idea that socialism is both the most equitable and most socially serviceable form of economic arrangement for the realization of human potentialities.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, there are many ways to implement socialism that are heatedly debated. Notice how the author uses "directs" and "large state sectors" this is because socialism isn't about the government ownership and control of ALL industry, but rather directing some of it. I don't know anyone that would agree that the NAZIs were a democratic socialist unit, but they were socialist in their understanding of the economy. Xpert should read a bit more about socialism also.

The state controlling all industry and private property is NOT socialism.


Xpert, you have done nothing of the sort regarding logic. I haven't even made an argument. Rather, I'm disproving yours. Socialism isn't communism; government does not control all private property, nor all industries. The united states leaning towards being a socialist country (hey, even donwhite agrees to that point, and I've rarely agreed with him).

The NAZI government did everything a socialist government would do (see encarta, excerpts about market socialism, wikipedia), they had the platform of a socialist party, they called themselves socialist. And the best you guys can come up with is ... "well.. they weren't democratic.." - socialism has nothing to do with the style of government. Nor does capitalism. It's possible to have capitalism with a dictator!








[edit on 3-1-2008 by radardog]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   


Nazi economic policies:

On 2nd May, 1933, Adolf Hitler ordered the Sturm Abteilung (SA) to arrest Germany's trade union leaders. Robert Ley formed the Labour Front (DAF), the only union organization allowed in the Third Reich.

A pay freeze was introduced in 1933 and this was enforced by the Labour Front. Wages were now decided by the Labour Front and compulsory deductions made for income tax, and for its Strength through Joy programme. The Labour Front issued work-books that recorded the worker's employment record and no one could be employed without one.

The government banned the introduction of some labour-saving machinery.

Employers had to get government permission before reducing their labour force.

The Nazi government gave work contracts to those companies that relied on manual labour rather than machines. This was especially true of the government's massive autobahn (motorway) programme.

The Nazis concentrated on rearming. Thousands of Germans worked in factories producing weapons.

Conscription into the German armed forces helped to reduce the numbers of unemployed.

Hitler also encouraged the mass production of radios. In this case he was not only concerned with reducing unemployment, but saw them as a means of supplying a steady stream of Nazi propaganda to the German people.

Youth unemployment was dealt with by the forming of the Voluntary Labour Service (VLS) and the Voluntary Youth Service (VYS), these planted forests, repaired river banks and helped reclaim wasteland.

Women in certain professions such as doctors and civil servants were dismissed, while other married women were paid a lump sum of 1000 marks to stay at home.

In the summer of 1935 Adolf Hitler announced the introduction of Labour Service (RAD). Under this measure all men aged between the ages of nineteen and twenty-five had work for the government for six months. Later women were also included in the scheme and they did work such as teaching and domestic service.


Nazi Economy 1933-1939

Hey guys, continue reading into the NAZI economy, and you'll go deeper down the rabbit hole. I really do not understand how you consider that right wing, or not socialist. Seriously.




Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


education.yahoo.com...


Everyone says hitler hated socialists. NOT TRUE. He hated Marxists!
They get that idea from Mein Kampf because of poor translation. Some reasons authors translated "Marxismus" to "Socialist."

[edit on 3-1-2008 by radardog]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


yeah, america doesn't really have a "mainstream" left wing party. though kucinich could be considered a truly left candidate and there is the green party and nader, but there's nothing of real substance in the USA to stop conservatism from killing it



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The following came from another post on this thread.


The Nazis concentrated on rearming. Thousands of Germans worked in factories producing weapons. Conscription into the German armed forces helped to reduce the numbers of unemployed. Hitler also encouraged the mass production of radios. In this case he was not only concerned with reducing unemployment, but saw them as a means of supplying a steady stream of Nazi propaganda to the German people. Youth unemployment was dealt with by the forming of the Voluntary Labour Service (VLS) and the Voluntary Youth Service (VYS), these planted forests, repaired river banks and helped reclaim wasteland.

Women in certain professions such as doctors and civil servants were dismissed, while other married women were paid a lump sum of 1000 marks to stay at home. In the summer of 1935 Adolf Hitler announced the introduction of Labour Service (RAD). Under this measure all men aged between the ages of nineteen and twenty-five had work for the government for six months. Later women were also included in the scheme and they did work such as teaching and domestic service.


This must be found in one of the many links offered here. From a UK source I judge by the spelling of labor etc. and its temperate recitation of what I know from other sources to be factual.

I'm really want to ask a question I have not seen addressed before. In 1932-1933 the nation-state of Germany was bankrupt. How did the new NAZI regime finance the internal improvements - autobahn etc - the rearmament including shipbuilding and aircraft and the expansion of its armed forces?

Got any ideas, Mr buddhasystem? Who bought German bonds in the mid-1930s?

[edit on 1/3/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by rockets red glare
 


Sorry but, the shoe fits like a glove. Read the Nazi gun control act of 1938 . .


Isn't that an NRA sponsored urban legend? First, without having any data I know enough about Europe to know it is not gun-crazy like the US. Nowhere in Europe. Even Finland where private gun ownership is probably highest. Llet's leave the Swiss out of this, too. I know the Swiss stir chocolate with one hand and hold their assault rifle in the other hand. Say hello NRA.

Yes, long guns were available in Europe. Rifles and shotguns. All guns were expensive, comparatively speaking. But usually it was the R&Fs - rich and famous - who owned them. Ordinary folk had no place to use a long gun. It would have been a "dead" liability. As for pocket pistols or such, owning one was counter-cultural.

I reject that any gun laws passed in Germany had anyting to do with disarming the citizenry. the German citizenry were NEVER armed. No drive by shootings in Der Fatherland. ONLY in the US 0f A can that happen. Or in a 3rd world country. Thank you NRA. Over 10,000 US citizens are murdered by guns every year. What a record!

But see this

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existence of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. www.guncite.com...


I hope this puts to rest the NRA (unsupported) claim of German gun control laws facilitating the downfall of the Wiemar Republic.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Well, we have to be number one at something!


More seriously, got a source debunking the claims of the pistol-polishers regarding the nazis and gun regulation? I hear a lot of it, and I have yet to see any proof provided either way.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
What liberals have you ever met that espoused racism, oppression and that the citizen serve the government??


Uh, pretty much all of them. We have Al Sarpton, Jesse Jakson and Lois Farrakhan all conspiring to keep black Americans feeling disenfranchised for the sole purpose of lining their own pockets. That takes care of racism and oppression all in one statement. I've also known a lot of liberals that said they felt really sorry for the oppressed, but never personally knew one or tried to help one. As for citizens serving the government, to the left, that's are citizens are for - tax cows.


Liberals are always lobbying for freedom, lower taxes, equality for all, which in fact brings me to another definition of fascism - that of espousing inequality for citizens under fascist rule.


Liberals want lower taxes?
Excuse me, but what planet did you spend Christmas and New Years on? Note: I didn't go PC like a liberal and say "the holidays". Also note that being PC is just a form of thought control and thus a major loss of freedom.

[edit on 1/7/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan. And some "liberals" that we have to take your word for. Two marginalized preachers, one cult leader nobody's heard from in ages, and anecdotal liberals. The argument is strong with you. But hey, that's three.

Shall we talk about Tom "Shoot the Mexicans" Tancredo? How about Ron "Only 5% of blacks have rational political thoughts" Paul? Oh, I know, we can do the Mike "Round up the Paki's" Huckabee investigation. Perhaps we can go back in time to talk about Strom "The only thing a black girl is good for is sating my pedophiliac lust" Thurmond? And his big-grinning arm-pumper Trent Lott? More recently the 2000 campaign had the Dubya campaign calling voters to let them know that John McCain had a "black baby" - which surprisingly happened just before McCain tanked in the polls. Wonder if there's a correlation there. And let's not forget Bill O'Reilly's surprise upon visiting a black-owned restaurant that the customers weren't running around with plates in their lips and chucking spears. And of course there's the entire Evangelical voter base which believes every Jew on earth needs to be rounded up and deported to Israel, then killed, to make Jesus reappear.

Guess they don't really count, do they?


I don't think I've ever seen any liberal calling for citizens to be "state servants." And to be fair I don't think I've seen it from any conservatives, either. Seems to be a scare tactic from either side.

Speaking of, you know what's ironic about your opinion of liberals and "PC"?

Liberals don't use "PC" phrasing. I've only ever seen it or heard it from conservatives. Who then attribute it to Liberals and claim - to other conservatives - that those liberals want to use this made-up talking to control everyone. What's the end result? More control over conservatives by the fear mongers. It's amazing how well conservatives respond to control through fear. What must it be like, to live in abject mortal terror of whatever someone else tells you to be afraid of?

As for taxes, yes, liberals want lower taxes. For you. See that's the amazing thing about the current tax system. The Republicans talk about lowering taxes - and they do lower the taxes, from the guys who are already stowing their money in Switzerland and the Azores. The tax burden is shifted to you as they do so. But don't worry, they call the corporations peeing on your head "trickle down" and it's a good thing. Liberals on the other hand, want to move taxes the other way. Net result, fewer people being taxed at the same percentage, lower taxes for the consumers of the nation, more buying power, and thus less impact towards the people taking most of the tax burden - stable prices and more money for you.

'Course I'm talking to a guy who wholeheartedly supports the party that wants to halt taxes and welfare - but wants a trillion-dollar war with an indefinite schedule that results in no-bid contracts to their donors with no oversight or liability for waste.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by The Walking Fox]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan. And some "liberals" that we have to take your word for. Two marginalized preachers, one cult leader nobody's heard from in ages, and anecdotal liberals. The argument is strong with you. But hey, that's three.
[edit on 7-1-2008 by The Walking Fox]


I work for a living - not a student or on welfare - so don't have time to list the literally thousands of other examples. Regarding the "preachers", you can call them "marginalized", but when they get something like 92% of black voters to vote for your side in a block for every election I'd say that was pretty significant. Same goes for union members block voting as they're told for the dems. After all, how many dems would have been defeated without that level of blind support?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
They need some taxes Walking Fox, how else can they pay to run the Pedophile Sex Rings? They don't run cheap, just ask the guys caught up in the Franklin Exchange Scandal in the 80's. Or ask Alberto Gonzales who had to make a plane trip to Texas to cover up the one in Texas under Bush43.

Also, GOP is for taxing the little guy then giving it to Billionaires(Already done under Bush) while the Libs are for taxing the billionaires and giving it to the poor while Conservatives are for taxing little but not giving billions to Billionaires or starting trillion dollar wars.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Your work keeps you from doing five minutes of research to back up your claims? What the hell are you, a professional doorstop? 'Cause I don't know what kind of other jobs there are for people too lazy to even back themselves up.

Ever thought that the black and union votes go to Democrats because the Republicans have time and again expressed gross amounts of racism and hatred for the very concept of organized labor, while the Democrats, well... Haven't? It's not brainwashing, my friend. Your team just sucks.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join