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.

 

Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

page: 22
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


You know, the ignorance shown by so many people in regards to socialist systems is EXACLTY what caught off guard so many people in the past, just to wake up under one, or another socialist dictatorship...

People will not learn in these matters by what other people tell them, and i am certain many in here will even go to their deaths in gulags claiming "socialism is fantastic"...

Ignorance is rampant, even in this day-and-age...


edit on 5-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

That is no proof, and that link educates no one... Anyone can create a program and claim whatever they want to...


Then WHY ask for proof on the internet? Are you for real? At least I TRIED to show you the difference, yet you ignored the god damn link.




BTW, your PROOF is to claim that because there are differences in fascism and other socialist ideologies that they are not thbranches of socialism?...





First of all, of course they are not EXACTLY the same... It is why they have DIFFERENT names for each branch of socialism/communism....


I never said they were exactly the same. I said they were different,



What you are claiming then I guess then means that national socialism/communism are not socialism/communism neither?...


No because one is national socialism which endorses a stricter idoeology of nationalised centralism, whilst the other is communism, which is NOT the same as socialism. - Socialism allows for a little bit of free market economy. Communism is about sharing and redistributing the resources amongst those that inhabit the communal workforce.



Your proof is what makes no sense...


No, your lack of understanding makes no sense.



There are DIFFERENT branches of socialism just becaus ethey have DIFFERENCES... otherwise they wouldn't be DIFFERENT branches of socialism/communism...


Yes, state the bloody obvious. Like there are different branches of anarchism, capitalism, it doesn't equate to the same thing.



Seriously, you guys need to think a bit more...


Ditto.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
]

That is no proof, and that link educates no one... Anyone can create a program and claim whatever they want to...



And anyone can hole out under bridge in ATS and be consistently wrong for 22 pages...

Maybe, you can write a thread about what thats like.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
WOW... i guess nobody told you...communists and other socialist dictatorships have BANNED religions...

WOW .. i guess nobody told you .. having an official gov't religion IS a religion.
Having an official gov't religion be 'no religion' IS a religion. It's called .. secular humanism.
Having an official gov't edict that religions have to have gov't approval before they can be practiced is in itself a religion ... a human centered religion.

POLITICS and RELIGION/SPIRITUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS... Neither leads to the other...

That's so wrong I don't even know where to start. :shk:

For crying out loud...

Backatchya.
This is all basic stuff ya' know ...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You claim to be so informed yet you show that you don't know anything of what you are arguing about...

And backatchya again.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
AGAIN, I am not the one trying to use Jesus, God, and the bible to promote political BS...

AGAIN, no one here is.
And AGAIN, your assumptions are very comical.
You are so off the mark it's hilarious.

I KNOW that neither Jesus, God, or the bible are socialist.

You "KNOW' that eh? Then you are wrong. Just like you said Jesus was the Father. WRONG.

I was in a Catholic group known as Opus Dei,

And I was a 3rd Order Carmelite for 10 years (and 10 years of 3rd order Franciscans)
.. which is one step 'higher up' from Opus Dei.
Opus Dei isn't consdiered a religious order .. however, 3rd orders are.
1st order = Priests. 2nd order = nuns. Then there are the 3rd orders.
3rd orders are NOT fraternal organizations like KofC, Opus Dei, Blue Army, etc.

None of them are trying to make us strive to a POLITICAL life...but rather a SPIRITUAL/RELIGIOUS life...

Wrong. It's both. Spiritual is the groundwork. Political is the natural by product.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
... AGAIN... and AGAIN I am not the one trying to use God, Jesus and religion to spout some POLITICAL BS... ..

... AGAIN .. and AGAIN ... no one here is doing that. Get off it. You sure don't listen at all. :shk:
edit on 12/5/2011 by FlyersFan because: fixed word.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
okay because from what I read in Dan Brown's novels,it seemed that Opus Dei were mass murderous freaks.So you are a Jesuit?.

Dan Brown is a fundamentalist who is notoriously anti-Catholic. (I think he gets his education about Catholics from Jack Chick tracts or something). His books and the movies are all fiction. Totally made up. There is no conspiracy about Mary Magdellen in the painting .. etc etc.

Opus Dei aren't mass murderers. They are regular people who go to Mass daily (when able), pray their rosaries, and have daily scripture readings. They get together - usually once a month - and get a 'lesson' - about spiritual things. It's fraternal. It's supposed to be an 'everything for God' theme to their lives.

They are lay people .. not priests .. not nuns .. not 'religious'. They are 'religious' in so much that they are strict about the Catholic faith, but they are not considered to be 'religious' ... In the Catholic church a 'religious' is a noun - a priest or nun or 3rd order - like Carmelite, Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

The last American Socialist Party Presidential Candidate said, in 1948, that there was no reason for him to run because all of the socialist party platform exsisted in either major party. We are certainly headed for overt socialism with any presidential candidate other than Dr. Ron Paul.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


A NATIONAL socialist, should say enough! First own people first (meaning only healthy and able Arians).
edit on 5-12-2011 by QueenofWeird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


His teachings could be attributed to any political system.
Give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar.
Oh and he healed the sick, last time I checked that was not free government run healthcare, but I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. I beg of you to find anything that is supportive of your outrageous claim.
edit on 30-11-2011 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)


Acts 4: 32-35

"32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."


I don't know about you but that sounds pretty much like socialism to me. Hate to be the one to break it to you.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jzenman
 


Actually that sounds like communism to me. But not practical communism, more communism on paper (if that makes sense?)

Good debate though.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Hitler had a lot of left-wing and right-wing about him.

Some of his leftist stuff:

* Collectivism (The hive-minded "we" over the "I")

* The hatred of Bankers ("Jews and Zionists") (see also: OWS)

* Positioning himself as an advocate of workers (see also: The Communist Party)

* The glorification of a human as the messiah (see also: Stalinism and Obamamania)

Some of his rightist stuff:

* Technocracy and Corporatocracy (see also: Modern Right-Wingers)

* Emphasis on superiority and cultural as well as racial superiority (see also: Fascism)

* The emphasis on dominance over other nations and violent agression (see also: The Bush Clan)

Hitler taught the world the dark sides of the right and left.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I think the main fundamental points of socialism are quite good but people, politicians kinda get mixed things up becaus words simply can be interpret in many ways.

I come from a "socialist" country and I think it is more capitalist than never before. The whole thing of having nationalised companies, all companies is not good. Economies should have small, medium and big business because they all contribute in many ways to the economy and having a "nationalised everything" can create a huge monopoly in the country which can also create a lot of corruption.

It also depends in what aspects of socialism you are talking. I like the fact that healthcare is nationalised and its paid thorugh taxes IF IT WORKS. In my country (Venezuela) it doesnt work. The hospitals are worst than every without even penicilin, paracitamol, alcohol or cotton stocks.

I think that public transport should be nationalised as well, again IF IT WORKS AND ITS RUNNING SMOOTHLY. In Venezuela, we have very poor transport, very poor roads (ironically as we have a LOT of petrol) and very poor transport systems: not veyr good buses, no trains, no trams, etc.

In Venezuela we have laws like, "Ley Habilitante" which makes the president have enough power to create and pas a law without going thorugh a congress, assambly, etc. He wants, he approves it, he is the law.
marval.ve.tripod.com...

Also, there are laws like: if you have 2 properties or more, the goverment can take a property and put a family in there. I dont know how you would interpret that but in my view, if I want to have a holidays hosue because I worked to pay and have the house, why someone would come and take it from me?
A very popular case was of a journalist who had her 30 something holiday house (of the family) taken and invaded then, they didint even lived there the squatters and destroyed the entire house. Because the journalist was not with Chavez, no one did anything about it.

They have nationalised many companies that were very productive in Venezuela and many left before this happened to theirs. PDVSA which is supposed to be a company only for petrol is now producing from washing machines to foods that end up putrified and not working.

They employ people if they are with the goverment. In Venezuela talking against Chavez is a crime, there isnt any freedom of speech.
My mom was talking with some politicians against teh goverment to help with their campaigns and this are municipal politicians, no one high or important and the goverment called my mom that if she kept doing that she will regret it! Just like a movie!

I think socialism could work but it can become really dangerous because it can easily be twisted and it has ben twisted in many countries. I dont think its fair that a doctor gets paid the same as a labor worker, I really dont think thats fair and this happens in Cuba and in the public sector in Venezuela.

They are a bunch of impostors, repressing the people below and they are getting richer. Venezuela produces enormous quantities of oil barrels everyday, we are talking millions of millions of dollars, which is a lot of money the greenies there and still, we have a lot of poverty, a lot of safety issues (CAracas is the most dangerous city in the world), awful roads that caused deathly accidents everyday; milk, eggs, bread is very hard to find and coffee (another irony) all foods now are imported from Nicaragua :s, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina; from meat, milk and eggs to pads, shampoo, towels, everything is imported! Its ridiculous!

I dont believe in socialism but the very few aspects I live in England. I think education, heath and transport should be free and the goverment should take that as a fundamental of society and thats why we pay taxes. This is why countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland work very well.


I havent visited my country for 4 years and I havent seen my family because Im scared that if I bring my white boyfriend he is going to get killed because the criminals want his shoes or blackberry.

In Venezuela we call the Chavez family the monarchy because they have Cadillacs, Hummers, massive mansions in Venezuela, Cubva, Argentina, Brazil, Spain and US. They have a lot of money reserved. Also for the army to keep quiet, they get paid a lot of money and went you see supporters on TV, its because they got something promised too. BREAD AND CIRCUS HAVE WORKED FOR MORE THAN 2000 YEARS!



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
and I can add also:

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Best reply of the thread. Seems the best way to have an argument on ATS is to combine sematics and politics. If you want a really good argument throw in religion as well.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by azulejo
I think the main fundamental points of socialism are quite good but people, politicians kinda get mixed things up becaus words simply can be interpret in many ways.

I come from a "socialist" country and I think it is more capitalist than never before. The whole thing of having nationalised companies, all companies is not good. Economies should have small, medium and big business because they all contribute in many ways to the economy and having a "nationalised everything" can create a huge monopoly in the country which can also create a lot of corruption.


Obviously not everything should be nationalised as with the USSR, because that is communism rather than socialism. But when you nationalise something it becomes a public monopoly rather a private monopoly like microsoft.

A public monopoly is always better than a private monopoly for the workers and lets face it everyone is a worker and consumer at the same time. Why should profits, even if they are made 100% ethically which is rare, should go to a minority of stockholders rather than the public totality? Do people like getting exploited for their labor eventhough they do all the hard work day-in and day-out? That doesn't make sense imo!

In any capitalist structure the wealth goes upwards and they use their enormous wealth to affect the politicians, who in turn make laws to favor the elite. This is why/how private monopolies form. He who has the most to bribe gets favorable treatment.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by azulejo

It also depends in what aspects of socialism you are talking. I like the fact that healthcare is nationalised and its paid thorugh taxes IF IT WORKS. In my country (Venezuela) it doesnt work. The hospitals are worst than every without even penicilin, paracitamol, alcohol or cotton stocks.


That is because private pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to export their drugs to cuba. venezuela, africa, and every other poor or highely nationalised economy. Wall Street is about profit so naturally investors encourage the corporate management to sell in america, australia, and other free market capitalist nations, to make the most profit.

The goals of the capitalist are not the same of the socialist "humanitarian". There exists a huge conflict of interest which is easy to spot.



I think socialism could work but it can become really dangerous because it can easily be twisted and it has ben twisted in many countries. I dont think its fair that a doctor gets paid the same as a labor worker, I really dont think thats fair and this happens in Cuba and in the public sector in Venezuela.


Granted knowlegde should command a higher price than brute labor, but in practice only the extremes exist. In other words you either get a smart person who makes 10 times what a dumb peson makes or you get "everyone gets paid the same". I don't believe in extremes.

Supply and demand should kick in with everything and just because someone is extremely smart should not guarantee top wages. If one profession is lacking employees and the demand is high, then yes you should make much more. If the opposite is true than you make much less. I DO NOT believe in planned economies because it is impossible for a big government to make all the necessary decisions on time and correct.

For this reason free market socialism is ideal because it limits government control to the public sector with banking and major industry, while allowing the freedom to private entrepreneurs in other less critical sectors to enjoy the fruit of their labor.


I dont believe in socialism but the very few aspects I live in England. I think education, heath and transport should be free and the goverment should take that as a fundamental of society and thats why we pay taxes. This is why countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland work very well.


Technically nothing is free. I see this misnomer being perpetuated by right wing fanatics so they can claim "handouts" is a big problem. We get what we pay for, minus any government corruption, so the more we pay the more we get.

If we pay few taxes then the government HAS TO BORROW to make ends meet and that means the credit rating of such nations goes down and then the privatisation hawks jump in to make a killing on all the failed government programs.

The real issue is not that ordinary citizens refuse to pay taxes, it is the mega rich who hoarde millions or billions to non-traceable offshore bank accounts, which shortens the money supply and forces borrowing. The rich are ALWAYS the problem, but not everyone who is rich. There are some honest rich folks I believe.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Then WHY ask for proof on the internet? Are you for real? At least I TRIED to show you the difference, yet you ignored the god damn link.


You are not the first one to give out that link, first of all...

Second of all, I know the difference, and I know that the mayority of the members in ATS are leftwingers, and a lot of you are against all sorts of religion. Quite a few are atheists, and I suspect flyersfan is an atheist, which is why he doesn't understand the difference between religious/spiritual life and politics. One DOESN'T lead to the other...


Originally posted by mr-lizard
I never said they were exactly the same. I said they were different,


They are not entirely different, which is why they are part of the same tree of socialism.
Fascism, Nazism, Corpocracy, national socialism, national communism, and other forms of socialism and communism ALL vie to implement CENTRALIZATION of power. To consolidate all power to a few "in the name of the whole". This is the main reason they are all LEFTWING.



Originally posted by mr-lizard
No because one is national socialism which endorses a stricter idoeology of nationalised centralism, whilst the other is communism, which is NOT the same as socialism. - Socialism allows for a little bit of free market economy. Communism is about sharing and redistributing the resources amongst those that inhabit the communal workforce.


Are you out of your mind?... in communism there is also centralization of power... Obviously you have never lived in, and experienced a communist, or other form of socialist dictatorship. in communism the people do not own anything, but the state owns everything, and it is the state that supposedly tells people what they can have, and how much they can have...




Originally posted by mr-lizardNo, your lack of understanding makes no sense.


No, my understanding comes from experience, and not from reading leftwinger books claiming some form of socialism is "the best the world could have"...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
...
Some of his rightist stuff:

* Technocracy and Corporatocracy (see also: Modern Right-Wingers)

* Emphasis on superiority and cultural as well as racial superiority (see also: Fascism)

* The emphasis on dominance over other nations and violent agression (see also: The Bush Clan)

Hitler taught the world the dark sides of the right and left.


I am sorry but that is not true. Corporatism/Corpocracy is a leftwing ideology.

Heck, I have posted proof time and again, even from a leftwing source, wikipedia, and from other leftwing sources that "cooperative enterprises" which are businesses/corporations, are also part of the leftwing ideology and are part of the socialist branch.

The emphasis of superiority can be found in EVERY leftwing dictatorship around the world. From Cuba, China, Russia, they all claim to hold superiority over others, and they all claim capitalism has caused all the problems in the world when in fact it has been socialist ideas which have caused the suffering of people and the destruction of nations.

As for racial superiority...that has NOTHING to do with rightwing ideology,,,

As for violent aggression?. What the hell do you call the communist Russians taking over Afghanistan in the 80s, and that was a REAL occupation, one where the Afghan people could not vote or have any autonomy?

What about China sending their troops to Vietnam, murdering hundreds of thousands of south Vietnamese who would not accept socialism/communism?...

What do you call the incursions of Cuba to nations like Angola?... fidel castro sent many Cubans to fight in other countries "for the revolution". I have uncles in Cuba who were sent there and to other nations to spread communism by force...

Hitler was the prime example of leftwing dominace, and what happens when a nation embraces the main socialist ideas.


edit on 6-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I think a good option should be a central goverment.. I dont really like Capitalism or communism or Socialism because "purely" this or that doesnt work.

I agree, its better to be a public monopoly but only if the goverment is not corrupted and does the best for its people which it happens rarely..

I dont believe in goverments, politicians and the media.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


BTW, flyerfan, I could be wrong but I am beginning to think that you are an Atheist.

Your claims that Religious/Spiritual life can lead to politics is not true at all.

You are thinking very similarly to the socialist/communist Chinese who imposed their socialist ideas to Tibet, and to Tibetan monks.

Tibetan monks do not get involved in politics, just like early Christians, yet the socialist/communist Chinese imposed their politics and their ideas on the Tibetan people...

To this day the Tibetans do not want the socialist/communist doctrine of China, and to this day there are even monks who demonstrate against the tyrannical rule of the socialist/communist Chinese.

The early Christians were similar to the Tibetan monks, in that they did not want to meetle in politics. They just want to lead a religious/spiritual life...

BTW, the early christians did have private properties, last i checked not even Mary and Joseph gave their donkey "to the community"...

There is a big difference between FREE WILL, and giving out FREELY food to those that do not have any food, and the imposition of socialism where everyone MUST partake in the ideas of a socialist society.

The early Christians did not IMPOSE by FORCE their ideas. They did have private properties, they led a religious/spiritual live, and exercised free will, which are anathema to true socialist systems.


edit on 6-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I agree with you but the proble in South America is that the people in power has absolute power and can really do whatever you want... I like the way you think, I give you a star!

Venezuela has one of the best constitutions I have read but its not followed at all ande they keep passing laws at 3am, 4am so people can do anything about (like they can)

so, it may be good but at the same time if the goverments gets absolute power by propaganda and giving free stuff to people then it would be very easy for then to do whatever they want.

Centric stuff are good, balance and everyone is happy.. truth is with us humans, thats impossible because power corrups, absolute powers corrups absolutely...

That has to do with ecucation.. poorly educated people are easier to controlled... in Venezuela oil is the cheapest in the world, you can fill your tank for 30p or 60cents, who wouldnt be happy with that? Its crazy! Also, beer is cheap and alcohol, travel to America is relatively affordable between the middle class and up...

In Venezuela they kill you for a blackberry, for your nike shoes... In venezuela people prefer to have a satellite television in a favela that actually looking for a better home. they prefer to have an iphone than a good quality of life...
and it wasnt like this 15 years ago...

Its a bit related, let the population "afford" their material cravings and they will give you less hard time about your corrupted ways...

I invite you to Venezuela, you wil probably love the culture, the food, the weather, the landscapes... but you will be very shocked about the ways of life, the corruption, the madness of Caracas, the "valley of the bullets" and the paranoia everyday.. its mental
edit on 6-12-2011 by azulejo because: adding a bit more of info




top topics



 
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join