Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

page: 16
19
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
BTW, the "socialist/communist uprising" in Spain was called the RED TERROR for a reason...and it wasn't because the "regular people loved it"...



The Red Terror in Spain (Spanish: Terror Rojo en España) was a semi-organized activity carried out by sections of nearly all left-wing groups involved in the Spanish Civil War against people associated with right-wing groups or the Catholic Church, including arrest and executions.[3] It included the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy).[4] A process of political polarisation had characterised the Spanish Second Republic – party divisions became increasingly embittered and questions of religious identity came to assume a major political significance. Those who sought to lead the 'ordinary faithful' had insisted that Catholics had only one political choice. " Voting for the CEDA was presented as a simple duty; good Catholics would go to Mass on Sunday and support the political right."

en.wikipedia.org...(Spain)

BTW... Do remember that wikipedia is VERY biased towards leftist ideas, and they have been found many times to fudge, and "re-invent" history and facts to fit their leftist ideologies...

www.conservapedia.com...

socialists/communists in Spain murdered tens of thousands of "regular people" for being religious, which the majority was and still is, and for not conforming to the leftist ideals...

This has happened in every country were socialism/communism has been implemented.
edit on 15-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments and errors




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 





No it can't. Socialism is down to the people, not governments, or other authority. It fails because people like you fail to realize the truth. Since WWII you have been lied to by your state system. Intellectual people realise this.....


I listened to my brother explain Marxism to my father and figured out for myself it was a very flawed system.... at the age of 9.

What I find interesting is no one seems to actually know what capitalism really is. It certainly isn't the travesty we are living under now.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 




No it can't. Socialism is down to the people, not governments, or other authority. It fails because people like you fail to realize the truth. Since WWII you have been lied to by your state system. Intellectual people realise this.....


"Those intellectual people" who fall for the lies of socialism/communism" are called "USEFUL IDIOTS" by the socialist/communist hardliners because they never see the truth until it is too late...

www.redstate.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

When the socialist/communist hardliners get in power, and they always do, they execute or imprison "the intellectuals who fell for the lies"...

In EVERY true socialist/communist country the "intellectuals, authors, poets, etc, etc" are either executed or imprisoned so they cannot rise up again, because they can help to raise the morale of the rest of the population against socialism/communism once they realise the failure of their choice to beleive the lies of the socialists/communists...
edit on 15-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Now, the following video of Yuri Bezmenov shows exactly in what point of the "demoralization and indoctrination" of America we are in.

Yuri was a KGB agent who was demoralised by the socialist/communist reality (not the fantasy beleived by most leftists) and defected to the west.

He talks about the phase of "crisis", in which we are in, and when "the messiah figure with all the answers will appear"...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





In EVERY true socialist/communist country the "intellectuals, authors, poets, etc, etc" are either executed or imprisoned so they cannot rise up again, because they can help to raise the morale of the rest of the population against socialism/communism once they realise the failure of their choice to beleive the lies of the socialists/communists...


That is so true.


In the years immediately following their accession to power in 1917, the Bolsheviks took measures to prevent challenges to their new regime, beginning with eliminating political opposition...

In 1919, he began mass arrests of professors and scientists who had been Kadets, and deported Kadets, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Nationalists. The Bolshevik leadership sought rapidly to purge Russia of past leaders in order to build the future on a clean slate.

These harsh measures alienated a large number of the intellectuals who had supported the overthrow of the tsarist order. The suppression of democratic institutions evoked strong protests from academics and artists,who felt betrayed in their idealistic belief that revolution would bring a free society.....
www.ibiblio.org...


As far as the true Marxists are concerned it is always a dictatorship. I see no difference between feudalism and the various flavors of Marxism.


“What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control...” search.marxists.org...


We have had over a century of TPTB trying to turn us into god little socialists. I find it amusing that the Socialist seem to think they are the "intellectuals" when in reality the oposite is true. They are just brainwashed sheep.



Dewey's philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin -- that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the "social spirit" needed to bring about a collectivist society. Dewey wrote in Democracy and Education, published in 1916:



When knowledge is regarded as originating and developing within an individual, the ties which bind the mental life of one to that of his fellows are ignored and denied.

When the social quaility of individualized mental operations is denied, it becomes a problem to find connections which will unite an individual with his fellows. Moral individualism is set up by the conscious separation of different centers of life. It has its roots in the notion that the consciousness of each person is wholly private, a self-inclosed continent. intrinsically independent of the ideas, wishes, purposes of everybody else.


And he wrote in School and Society in 1899:

The tragic weakness of the present school is that it endeavors to prepare future members of the social order in a medium in which the conditions of the social spirit are eminently wanting ...

The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of merely learning, there is no clear social gain in success threat.


It seems incredible that a man of Dewey's intelligence could state that the sort of traditional education that produced our founding fathers and the wonderful inventors of the 19th century lacked "social spirit" when it was these very individuals who created the freest, happiest, and most prosperous nation in all of human history. www.ordination.org...


No wonder we have no true leaders to choose from anymore. They were stunted from the day they hit school.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
...
No wonder we have no true leaders to choose from anymore. They were stunted from the day they hit school.


You are completely right. Thanks for the extra links, they are very informative.


You see, for the socialists/communists who have been brainwashed, and accept such brainwashing "individuality = selfishness"... this is why all individual rights, which means the rights of EVERYONE, are taken away in socialist/communist nations. This is something those who have been brainwashed will not understand until they are put behind bars, or the moment before their execution by the communist hardliners.

Americans, and westerners in general have been warned for a couple decades by several KGB and former Russian spies yet they have fallen asleep for the most partand many have fallen for the lies of socialism/communism.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





....Americans, and westerners in general have been warned for a couple decades by several KGB and former Russian spies yet they have fallen asleep for the most partand many have fallen for the lies of socialism/communism.


I remember 15 years ago when the Soviet Union fell, the Wall Street Journal had a back page article (April 1994) It stated that KGB files from the Kremlin showed groups here in the USA were not only funded by but were LEAD BY KGB agents.

My spouse actually knew one of the guys in Massachusetts who published a "Socialist" news paper and was on the KGB pay roll.

Notice this news never made it to headline news in any other paper AND it was only a 2" on the back page in the WSJ!

I wonder WHO all those enemy groups were....


It seems to support the fact that the politicians in this country and their propaganda Media are actually traitors to the USA.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Personally, I don't hate socialism, but I do hate communism. The idea is lovely on paper, but pure communism is simply unrealistic. Much like pure capitalism, it simply cannot work. Pure communism and pure capitalism both wind up turning into little more than economic feudalism after a few generations.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
...
It seems to support the fact that the politicians in this country and their propaganda Media are actually traitors to the USA.


All leftists in power to this day in the U.S.A. were indoctrinated and brainwashed into following the leftist stance/socialism/communism, and to this day these people are working on transforming the U.S.A. into a socialist/communist state.

Leftists who have fallen for the indoctrination do not beleive it even when they have been warned about this for a couple decades and even though the U.S. government has found SOME KGB/communists who have infiltrated universities/colleges/schools, and even have acquired government positions, and still to this day you get Americans who don't beleive any of this even when the evidence is right in front of them.

I have said it many times, a One World Government can only be implemented if every country turns socialist/communist, and this has been part of the goal of the communist hardliners who have grouped and infiltrated the rich elite's circles.

Look at every major organization such as the UN and you will find SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST doctrines ingrained in their groups.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Socialism and Communism rob from Peter to pay Paul. They rob the incentive of the masses to work which eventually leads to the elimination of personal property rights. Despite the merits of collectivism on paper such systems usually morph into into tyrannical totalitarian states that live in opulence. Socialistic democracies flourish because the majority can "legally" vote to take (tax) from the rich to give to the less well off. However, such systems ultimately fail when the wealth of society is sucked dry and there is no more excess to "redistribute."



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
clarification: "live in opulence": leaders of the ruling party Not the masses
sorry about that.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by gnosticquasar
 


Sorry but you are wrong. If you look at how and why capitalism in the U.S. and around the world has turned into "feudalism" you will see that it has been because of socialist doctrines.

In the U.S. it was Woodrow Wilson a "PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT" who formed and signed the Feds into existance and the IRS as it exists today.

The Feds is a socialist idea of centralization which is the building block for socialism/communism.

You even get leftists claiming that past socialist dictators were "rightwing" when in fact they were "leftist", such as Hitler's Germany and even dictators such as Mussolini were leftist.

"Centralized power/Centralization of power" is a socialist idea. The extreme of rightwing is "no government at all" almost a form of anarchy "which also doesn't work.

Rightwing = less government control, and not centralization of power. When there is an attemp to consolidate all power to the government that is "socialism".



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Because under socialsim/communism, you do not have any free will or thought. Everything is given and provided too you by government. A guy i worked with 5 years ago, older guy a pharmacy tech here, was from romania. Under communism, they would give you just enough money to pay rent, buy food, ect. everything was price fixed* but you were never ever given enough, to bank on. If you did, and you not some big shot banker, expect a seized and confescated bank account via KGB and communist goerment, interogating you where yuo got the money from.
Its sad today the generation leans more towards socialism. they dont really know what patriotism is, and how important democracy is. democracy is corrupt i its own ways, NO thanks to CEO's getting in congress, but at least under democracy yuo have free will, the right to do and say as you please, and the right to have 2 or 3 jobs if you wish, the right to make as much money as you want.
For the ecord, i do not assocoate democracy with capitalsim. Capitalism has bought unhealhty greed and murder with it. Democracy has never done that!



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





....I have said it many times, a One World Government can only be implemented if every country turns socialist/communist, and this has been part of the goal of the communist hardliners who have grouped and infiltrated the rich elite's circles. Look at every major organization such as the UN and you will find SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST doctrines ingrained in their groups.


The elite FUNDED Lenin and the revolution! Paul Warberg, a German banker, drafted the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. In 1914 he was appointed to the Federal Reserve Board, and became a director of the Council on Foreign Relations at its founding in 1921.

Meanwhile his brother Max funded the Bolseviks.


In the Soviet Union, as in every Communist country (or as they call themselves -- the Socialist countries), the power has not come to the Communists' hands because the downtrodden masses willed it so. The power has come from the top down in every instance. Let us briefly reconstruct the sequences of the Communist takeover.

The year is 1917. The Allies are fighting the Central Powers. The Allies include Russia, the British Commonwealth, France and by April 1917, the United States. in March of 1917, purposeful planners set in motion the forces to compel Czar Nicholas II to abdicate. He did so under pressure from the Allies after severe riots in the Czarist capitol of Petrograd, riots that were caused by the breakdowns in the transportation system which cut the city off from food supplies and led to the closing of factories.

But where were Lenin and Trotsky when all this was taking place? Lenin was in Switzerland and had been in Western Europe since 1905 when he was exiled for trying to topple the Czar in the abortive Communist revolution of that year. Trotsky also was in exile, a reporter for a Communist newspaper on the lower east side of New York City. The Bolsheviks were not a visible political force at the time the Czar abdicated. And they came to power not because the downtrodden masses of Russia called them back, but because very powerful men in Europe and the United States sent them in.

Lenin was sent across Europe-at-war on the famous "sealed train." With him, Lenin took some $5 to $6 million in gold. The whole thing was arranged by the German high command and Max Warburg, through another very wealthy and lifelong socialist by the name of Alexander Helphand alias "Parvus." www.modernhistoryproject.org...



That is what is so laughable about our naive socialist friends. The elite WANT Communism/Socialism. When you think about it there is really very little difference between feudalism and Communism. Dictatorship and no property rights for the serfs.


I show how "socialism" here in the USA does nothing but rob from the poor and give to the wealthy in this Thread



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
American don't hate communism at all, most of them probably don't even know what it is. It's just become another word here that people use to describe someone they do not agree with, much like "terrorist"

The rich, conservative people don't like universal health care because they love their money so much, they'd rather see it used on themselves or sit in the bank than help poor people get medical attention, because they think that's what "redistribution of wealth" is.

It's really just selfishness and ignorance.

But at the same time, by their standards, what do I know? I am a liberal (I am not, but how many times have I been accused of that? Let me count..). I clearly have no idea what is going on. I am no better than a terrorist (or a communist?)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFlowers
American don't hate communism at all, most of them probably don't even know what it is. It's just become another word here that people use to describe someone they do not agree with, much like "terrorist"


Obviously you don't know that Americans have been fighting socialist/communist expansionism for decades, and most people who have escaped socialist/communist dictatorships have fled to the U.S. and have become U.S. citizens...

communism/socialism has been around for a long time, and it is nothing new to Islamic extremism, since you brought up Islam and socialism, although if you had searched about it you would have found that most, if not all Islamic nations are socialist in one form or another, just in case you didn't know.

Hitler saw in Muslims allies, and Muslim extremists saw/see Hitler not only as an ally, but as someone to look up to.

www.jstor.org...
www.isesco.org.ma...
sheikyermami.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.socialismtoday.org...



Originally posted by SFlowers
The rich, conservative people don't like universal health care because they love their money so much, they'd rather see it used on themselves or sit in the bank than help poor people get medical attention, because they think that's what "redistribution of wealth" is.


Again nothing more than an ignorant comment ingrained by the leftist mentality... I am not rich, and neither are the majority of Republicans/conservatives, but this again goes to show how brainwashed people like you are...

In case you didn't know MOST democrats, liberals and even progressives in power ARE RICH...just like most of the Hollywood crowd are rich liberals or socialists or even communists... But to people like you it is only Republicans/conservatives who are rich...


Not too long ago the Republican party was the party of the middle class and poor people, but it changed just like they changed the red color which used to represent the Democrat Party, meanwhile blue was the color for the Republican Party, but since Democrats, and the rich elites, realized that they were giving away their socialist propaganda machine, which is the Democrat Party, and since the Democrat party policies resemble too close the doctrines of socialism and even communism, TPTB made some changes, more so using the media, and have been trying to indoctrinate the American public into beleiving that the Democrat Party is the party for the poor, when in fact it has been the Republican Party which fought against slavery, fought in favor for the poor and middle class, and was the champion of issues now erroneously being labeled as "Democratic"...




Originally posted by SFlowers
It's really just selfishness and ignorance.


The ignorance sorry to say comes from people like you, and like I said, for people who have been brainwashed, such as yourself "individualism = selfishness"... This goes to show that even though you are not a communist, you have accepted their brainwashing willingly.

You don't have to be a communist to have been brainwashed by their socialist/communist doctrine, but when you mistake individualism for selfishness it shows how ingrained the socialist/communist doctrine has become in the western world.



Originally posted by SFlowers
But at the same time, by their standards, what do I know? I am a liberal (I am not, but how many times have I been accused of that? Let me count..). I clearly have no idea what is going on. I am no better than a terrorist (or a communist?)


Again, you don't have to be a socialist/communist to have been indoctrinated by the socialist/communist doctrine...but this is something many Americans, and westerners in general are unfortunately ignorant about.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


... Nice try... How about talking about how many people they murdered in Spain mostly for being "religious" which a majority of Spaniards were?...


Huh who are you talking about? Who killed religious people and when?


I love how leftists continuosly love to tell lies or don't tell certain facts that show what socialism/communism really does to a country and it's people...


What lies? What communist countries? First you have to explain to me what countries you are talking about, and then we can discus them, because as far as I know there has never been a truly socialist country, just dictatorships or totalitarian governments. There has been no 'socialist' economy, in any country, in our known history that socialists would agree with. In Spain workers tried to implement socialism, as I explained in my other post, and were successful under very difficult circumstances, until TPTB (the capitalists) won when they put their dictator Franko in power. Spain became just like Russia after their revolution because the worlds PTB will not allow the people to gain power.


socialism/communism CLAIMS to represent the people and that all means of production are owned by the people, but this is not true... In fact it is the PARTY/GOVERNMENT that owns all means of production in socialist/communist countries.


Socialism is what WE make it. If there is a party/government then WE allowed it. True socialism puts the power in your hands, it's then up to you what you do with it. If you allow an authority to control you then it is your own fault. This is what happened after the Russian revolution, the people became passive and allowed themselves to be ruled over by a dictatorship that had nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism requires NO government. It is an ECONOMIC system that is ran by the people. This is why Anarchists have traditionally supported a socialist economic system.


Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)

There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement.

Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.

Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.


flag.blackened.net...


Not to mention that socialism/communism is more materialistic than capitalism because under socialism/communism all religions and spiritual paths are shunned and banned. Individuality itself is frowned upon which means all individual freedom is lost.


This is not true at all. You are basing your idea of what socialism is on what happened in other countries, with different cultures than yours. Ironically there a a lot of people in capitalists countries that would be happy to ban religion. Capitalism does not grantee you freedom of any kind.


socialism/communism goes against the natural spiritual answers and paths that mankind has been seeking since time immemorial.


It does? Could you explain how and why?


It should be the decision of every individual if they want to follow any spiritual path or not, socialism and communism seek to take this choice, among others, away.


It does? Could you explain how and why?


Even ancient tribes used to trade with other tribes, not to mention that people would seek to band with others who had different skills to survive and live better lives, and they would trade their different skills for money or for other services some other person was able to provide, this is capitalism.


See this is your fundamental mistake, that is NOT capitalism. Capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production'. It is NOT markets as socialism allows free markets.

Capitalism is exploitation because the majority of what the worker makes through their production is taken as 'profit' for the private owner. The private owner produces nothing and uses their privilege of ownership to exploit those that don't. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, so the 'profits' made go to the workers. It is just a more fair way to distribute the wealth we all help make.

The real reason so called 'communist' countries were demonized in the west is because they refused to be part of the world market and preferred to keep to themselves. This has changed now Russia and China are part of the world market, there are only a few countries left in the ME and North Korea. It has nothing to do with socialism or communism.

You should really try to educate yourself instead of just believing the propaganda dished out by your capitalist state system. If you understood the history of labour struggle, especially leading up to WWI and WWII, you would have a better understanding of what happened.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Wally Hope
 





No it can't. Socialism is down to the people, not governments, or other authority. It fails because people like you fail to realize the truth. Since WWII you have been lied to by your state system. Intellectual people realise this.....


I listened to my brother explain Marxism to my father and figured out for myself it was a very flawed system.... at the age of 9.

What I find interesting is no one seems to actually know what capitalism really is. It certainly isn't the travesty we are living under now.


Marxism is not socialism, Marxism is Marxism. I am not a Marxist, I don't support communism.

He was a man with his own ideas. He didn't invent socialism, he wanted to use a form of state socialism as a stepping stone to communism.

All he gave us was some useful terms, such as 'means of production'.

You are right most people don't know what capitalism is either. It is not free-markets, it does not guarantee freedom of any kind. It is simply the 'private ownership of the means of production'. Under this system the only truly free are the capitalists, the rest of us are at their mercy. The system will always be ran to their benefit, not ours.

BTW Not be rude but at age 9 how do you know your brother understood what he was talking about? Have you as an adult ever actually tried to find out for yourself? You have second-hand hearsay and you think you know all about it? Socialism, communism and Marxism are not all the same thing.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Obviously you don't know that Americans have been fighting socialist/communist expansionism for decades, and most people who have escaped socialist/communist dictatorships have fled to the U.S. and have become U.S. citizens...


No you haven't. America has been fighting to bring certain countries into the world market. Those countries were not socialist. They were not fleeing communism, they were escaping countries with brutal authoritative systems.


communism/socialism has been around for a long time, and it is nothing new to Islamic extremism, since you brought up Islam and socialism, although if you had searched about it you would have found that most, if not all Islamic nations are socialist in one form or another, just in case you didn't know.


Why do you insist on joining socialism/communism, they are two different economic systems.

There are no socialist countries, only capitalist countries with different cultures and forms of government.

For socialism the workers have to own the means of production, regardless of what the 'government' calls itself.
Socialism is a system devised by workers during the industrial revolution in direct opposition to capitalism, no governments need be involved.


Hitler saw in Muslims allies, and Muslim extremists saw/see Hitler not only as an ally, but as someone to look up to.


What has Hitler got to do with it? He was a fascist, his system was based on the right wing fascism of Mussolini.
Franco was the same. The socialists were the workers, the people. They were fighting the fascists in Spain.

You really do seem confused with stuff you've picked up here and there from the net, or whatever. I am assuming you think Hitler was a socialist because of National Socialism? Such a naive view. Nationalist he was, socialist he obviously wasn't.


Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

www.huppi.com...

Wake up people!



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, the "socialist/communist uprising" in Spain was called the RED TERROR for a reason...and it wasn't because the "regular people loved it"...



The Red Terror in Spain (Spanish: Terror Rojo en España) was a semi-organized activity carried out by sections of nearly all left-wing groups involved in the Spanish Civil War against people associated with right-wing groups or the Catholic Church, including arrest and executions.[3] It included the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy).[4] A process of political polarisation had characterised the Spanish Second Republic – party divisions became increasingly embittered and questions of religious identity came to assume a major political significance. Those who sought to lead the 'ordinary faithful' had insisted that Catholics had only one political choice. " Voting for the CEDA was presented as a simple duty; good Catholics would go to Mass on Sunday and support the political right."

en.wikipedia.org...(Spain)


You do realise that there was not only a revolution, but a civil war against the fascist government? That is what this is talking about, it was WAR with the Spanish right wing fascist government who were helped by the Nazis (they bombed cities daily with Stukas). This should also clues you in as to who was the 'right wing'.

This was not the result of the workers revolution.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: typo






top topics



 
19
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join