Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

page: 28
9
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


India is a socialist country. Look it up.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 22-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
That wasn't the only view that Engels, Marx and HItler had in common. They had very similar standpoints in a lot of things, and differed in others.

They may have liked the same kind of tea but it didn't make them the same? Having some things in common and not others is the reason why those things don't make a person left or right wing.


One of the other members claimed that having a military standpoint made Hitler rightwing, and this is why I pointed out that socialists/communists are also very militaristic...

That person is wrong.


Wow, how many times do I have to repeat myself? Do you not know the fact that Stalin and Lenin both had very different standpoints on what form of socialism/communism should exist?...

Did you not know that Stalin ordered the murder of nearly all of his Bolshevik comrades, including Trotsky, and Lenin?... Stalin had ordered several times the death of Trotsky, and other socialists/communists, until they succedded.... Stalin claimed that if other communists didn't back him 100% that they were his enemies...

...Stalin wanted international communism, meanwhile Lenin wanted national socialism/communism, for this and other different ideas Stalin ordered the poisoning of Lenin...

Did that make Stalin any less socialist/communist?...

Yes. Since dictators, which is what Stalin became, are not part of communism then Stalin was not a real communist. Trying to have Trosky killed just drives the point home.


Do you not know the fact that socialists/communists who differed in opinion with other socialists/communists did similar things to what Stalin did?...

Even castro, and che guevara did things like these to other socialists/communists who did not back them 100% or who they saw as a threat to their power.

See above.


Not really, only through one or other form of socialism/communism certain people seek to have all control in the hands of a few "for the good of the revolution, and the good of all" or some other excuse such as "the good of the Earth, the planet and all humankind"...

BS even the founding fathers of the US forced the people into war with England when only 40-45% actually supported it. Then they passed the constitution that you are forced to abide by so no it isn't only socialism/communism that are guilty of this.



Even fascism is a leftwing ideology, and even a leftwing source like wikipedia admits it.

Wrong again. Mussolini, the Father of Fascism, states in the Doctrine of Fascism:



A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century.



edit on 22-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82

So I see you have linked socialism to genocide ,
then surely you can see the link between capitalism and genocide , well america / britian , france have all committed crimes against humanity and killed millions all in the name of free market and profit .

Socialism/ communism . is just as bad as capitalism !


Wrong, Britain, France, and other similar countries committed attrocities to have more power. Consolidation of power is socialist and or communist in nature.

Trying to make a monopoly of the free market is corpocratism, or what socialists communists call cooperative enterprises, which is of course socialist and or communist in nature.

In a FREE MARKET there is no monopoly, and noone has more power over others.

BTW, you would have to SPECIFY the crimes to humanity you say were caused by capitalism. I am pretty sure I can show it was for other reasons, and not because of capitalism...

Again, a FREE MARKET does not give MONOPOLY to anyone over anyone else...




edit on 22-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Free markets don't exist on any large level. If so can you point one out?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

India is a socialist country. Look it up.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 22-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


Wow, and you keep doing the same thing...

I am pretty sure my question was something like "show me a socialist system that helps the people"?...

And you want to claim India?...Really?...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Free markets don't exist on any large level. If so can you point one out?



They don't exist because monopoly over the market has been given to a few. This is consolidation of power which is a tenet of socialism and or communism.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


And a tenet of fascism. It's called state capitalism.

They don't exist because as soon as someone makes enough he starts manipulating the market. That is really independent of the type of government because things always seem to end up that way.

edit on 22-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I wasn't even responding to you.
Wasn't even talking about that.

and that wasn't your original question. It was show me a socialist system run by the people.
edit on 22-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
dbl post
edit on 22-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

India is a socialist country. Look it up.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 22-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


Wow, and you keep doing the same thing...

I am pretty sure my question was something like "show me a socialist system that helps the people"?..


Oo, Oo, Ooooo, ask me! Venezuela is one.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Hitler was also a vegetarian! Therefor vegetarians are racist. If we go by cop out arguments with no substance. Which by the way so and so was this or that so there for so and so must be good/bad is the oldest one in the book.

I can think of many arguments for/against socialism/capitalism or whatever ism what have you. Falling back on Hitler is lazy debate good sir.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

I wasn't even responding to you.
Wasn't even talking about that.

and that wasn't your original question. It was show me a socialist system run by the people.
edit on 22-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


And you still actually think it is run by the people, or it helps the people?...

You need a reality check.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

And a tenet of fascism. It's called state capitalism.


State capitalism in essence is socialism, because in state capitalism the state manages all productive forces, and what are all productive forces but the infraestructure of a country? When the state manages/owns all means of production/infraestructure that is called socialism... Or at least it is one of the several forms of socialism that can exist.



Originally posted by daskakik
They don't exist because as soon as someone makes enough he starts manipulating the market. That is really independent of the type of government because things always seem to end up that way.


You can only manipulate free market if you have some sort of state, or global control over that market. But when the government/state, or a global organization gets involved in the free market it stops being a free market.

edit on 23-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise

Oo, Oo, Ooooo, ask me! Venezuela is one.


And you have a large mayority of the population in Venezuela protest the "socialist/communist" system that chavez has been setting up...

But I guess you are one of those people who have been claiming those protestors are CIA agents...even if they number at least a million if not more in at least one protest...
edit on 23-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
State capitalism in essence is socialism, because in state capitalism the state manages all productive forces, and what are all productive forces but the infraestructure of a country? When the state manages/owns all means of production/infraestructure that is called socialism... Or at least it is one of the several forms of socialism that can exist.

It's already been shown in this thread and many others that socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production not the state. It doesn't require government so you again are wrong. In any case that would be rightwing stateism which is rightwing and not left. Which means capitalism and not socialism.



You can only manipulate free market if you have some sort of state, or global control over that market. But when the government/state, or a global organization gets involved in the free market it stops being a free market.

The market can be manipulated if you control the supply even in the absence of government. A government does make it easier so those with the resources make sure one gets put in place. Doesn't matter what ism they use those with the money are the ones pulling the strings.

This is the reason why Hitler was not a real socialist and why capitalists are not real capitalists and communists are not real communists. In the end only the fascist are honest because they have no problem telling the people that they will be completely controlled.

edit on 23-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

It's already been shown in this thread and many others that socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production not the state. It doesn't require government so you again are wrong. In any case that would be rightwing stateism which is rightwing and not left. Which means capitalism and not socialism.



WRONG... You are confusing socialism with communism.


Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

www.merriam-webster.com...

So you see, YOU are WRONG...

I know leftwingers want to live in their fantasy world of pink clouds, and streets made from gold, where money grows from trees and everyone loves everyone else, but that is just in your head, and it is not reality...

Now let's read from an EXTREMELY biased leftwinger what socialism is...


Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership[dubious – discuss] of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous State enterprises.

en.wikipedia.org...

So according to EXTREMELY BIASED AND IDEALISTIC LEFTWINGERS socialism includes the means of production by the state, cooperative enterprises (which are businesses and means Corpocratism is socialism) and the idealistic but extremely naive idea by leftwingers that socialism includes "common ownership by the public"...

BTW, before leftwingers decided to rewrite history, again, it was known for a long time that in socialism the means of production is owned by the state, meanwhile in communism it is CLAIMED the people own the means of production. But how can the people in communist nations own the means of production when NO ONE has the right to private property? NO ONE can own ANYTHING, hence a few elites claim to represent the people own everything even in communism...

Can leftwingers even articulate how it would be possible for EVERYONE to own EVERYTHING and NOTHING at the same time?...

This is the reason why socialist and communist nations become at the end dictatorships. Because it leaves the door open for a few people claiming to represent the people to hold all power and without the ability to balance that power owned by a FEW...



Originally posted by daskakik
The market can be manipulated if you control the supply even in the absence of government. A government does make it easier so those with the resources make sure one gets put in place. Doesn't matter what ism they use those with the money are the ones pulling the strings.

This is the reason why Hitler was not a real socialist and why capitalists are not real capitalists and communists are not real communists. In the end only the fascist are honest because they have no problem telling the people that they will be completely controlled.


The lies people like yourself have to tell yourselves to live with your idealistic but never practical ideology...

Hitler was socialist, fascism is a socialist ideology, and communists are as communist as they come... Just because the final fantasy of communism can never happen doesn't mean communists are any less communists...

Part of the socialist/communist stage to the final communist goal is for the state, or a few ardent communists, to hold all power "in the name of the people"...

That's the stage where communism gets stucked EVERY TIME, because it is impossible for EVERYONE to own NOTHING and EVERYTHING at the same time...

Since there is no private ownership, it means that NO ONE can own ANYTHING, hence why the part of "public ownership" is NEVER really owned by the people...but by the communist party elite who claim to represent the people...

The day leftwingers put on their thinking caps perhaps you all will realize that in order for Human Rights to exist for all, we must have INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and NEVER should individual rights be sacrificed even in the name of "everyone and the Earth". Because the day we give up our individual rights, we give up the Human Rights of EVERYONE, hence why socialist/communist countries which embrace socialism/communism become dictatorships...



edit on 23-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


We keep exchanging different definitions of socialism. The original meaning, as far as I know, is the workers ownership of the means of production. Anything else is a twist made by dictators to fool the people into following them. Your the one who keeps using communism and socialism interchangably which shows that your stuck in the twisted definition of socialism.

I don't have to tell myself lies you are just choosing to ignore the facts. You post a wikipedia snipette claiming the fascism is a leftist ideal and I link to the Doctrine of Fascism which states that from its inception it is a rightist ideal. From the horses mouth isn't good enough for you?

Maybe this: Economic Fascism


Government-business partnerships. A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government "partnership." As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating "partner."


Sounds alot like the US. You are free to start any business you want as long as you get all the permits and the government signs off on it but it is still capitalism so no, fascism isn't a leftist ideal.

ETA: Here is a bit more from that link which shows exactly what I am talking about:

A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called "fascism" but "planned capitalism." The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym "industrial policy" is as popular as ever.

Using labels to make people believe one thing is in fact another is what governments do. The Nazi Party did the same when they used the word socialist in their name.


edit on 23-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ANOK
 


India is a socialist country. Look it up.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 22-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


I don't care what you can find in a link. Does India have an economy ran and controlled by the workers?

No it doesn't, thus it is not socialist. Around 80% of India's economy is privately owned. Even IF it was it would be 'state socialism', which once again is not the only way to implement socialism. Socialism is the only economic system that is truly libertarian. We will never have freedom with capitalism.


Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality Mikhail Bakunin


edit on 12/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Hitler was also a nazi. THAT was the bad thing about him. Not that he was a socialist, because his motivation for trying to commit genocide was not that he believed government should be involved in major populas factoring matters such as healthcare, but it was the fact that he was a NAZI!!



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mynameisdylan
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Hitler was also a nazi. THAT was the bad thing about him. Not that he was a socialist, because his motivation for trying to commit genocide was not that he believed government should be involved in major populas factoring matters such as healthcare, but it was the fact that he was a NAZI!!


But he wasn't a socialist.


Free health care is not socialism, welfare is not socialism. Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production. It has nothing to do with government, and free anything. Government health care is national health care. The US uses the term 'social', not because it's socialism, but simply because it pertains to people.

Private ownership was maintained in Nazi Germany, but the economy was heavily controlled by the government.
That is nationalism, which is central to fascism not socialism.


The politics of Nazism

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.


Myth: Hitler was a leftist. Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join