Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/8/2002 11:12:32 AM EST
[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/712728/posts[/url] The merge between corporations and government, the hallmark of the fascist system, is actually corporate socialism not free-market capitalism. This system differs with communism in that communism abolishes the corporation outright. The communist government itself becomes the corporation with monopoly control over all areas of industry. Among the first orders of business for a communist government is the abolition or "nationalization" of all corporations under their control along with their assets and property. Communism also calls for the abolition of all labor unions, as the communist government itself becomes one massive labor union operating in the name of "the worker." Private property " is also transferred to the communist state which assumes control in the interests of "the common good." In a real sense, fascism is not as radically left-wing as communism, but both are socialist in that both govern on the principle of "public ownership of the mode of production," the dictionary definition of socialism. Fascism isn't as far left as communism to the extant that fascism allow for at least a pretense of private ownership while the government, de facto, controls everything through monopolistic corporate combines. In this regard, communism is the more honest of the two socialist systems. Communism makes no pretence regarding private ownership, they own everything openly and as a matter of state policy.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:18:45 AM EST
Yes, read the first documents out of the NAZI party, very populist and very socialistic, meant to appeal to the common man, unemployed during the depression.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:21:59 AM EST
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death. The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after. Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxist Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage. Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress.... Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:22:35 AM EST
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone. For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it. Benito Mussolini, 1932
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:24:23 AM EST
There is no significant difference between the National Socialists and the International Socialtists. There is no significant difference between Herr Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin. We continue to say that these two political philosophies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and that is just another wornout hand-me-down from liberal college professors. It is bizarre to base such things on the [u]seating[/u] arrangements of the [i][b]Estates General[/b][/i] just before and during the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution! Eric The(Sensible)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:28:39 AM EST
OTOH, look at the economic and technological accomplishments of Nazi Germany and compare them with those of commie East Germany: the ME 262 and the ME 163 jet planes, the first computers (Z3 by Konrad Zuse), the highway system, the Mercedes SSK, the BMW 328, a public transport system that worked, inflation stopped.... ...and cars built in the 1990s based on 30s technology, driving on the 1930s highways, trains that still used model 1901 steam engines in the early 80s, a currency that was worthless even in East Germany, and much less accepted abroad... Other than that, the nomenclatura, propaganda, philosophy, and narrow-mindedness were pretty much the same. Both systems are totalitarian, but I'd rather classify communism as right-wing than the other way 'round.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:32:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/8/2002 11:49:37 AM EST by garandman]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: There is no significant difference between the National Socialists and the International Socialtists. There is no significant difference between Herr Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin. >]:)]
View Quote
I know what you mean, but consider this: The reason those Liberal college professors bad mouth National Socialism and swoon like a pre-pubescent schoolgirl over INTERnational socialism is the "National" component. They hate Hitler NOT because he killed Jews, or becasue he advocated many of the EXACT same things as INTERnational Socialism does, but because he loved Germany. He saw Germany as a sovereign nation, independent of the Internationalists schemes. In short, Hitler was a Patriot. Who killed Jews. And advanced socialism. So, those of us who view America in a patriotic light, as a sovereign nation, unwilling to kneel to the UN and to INTERnational Socialism can expect the same rought treatment as Hitler gets. Cuz if there's ONE thing the one worlders can't tolerate, its a mustang nation.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:47:00 AM EST
In the words of Mussolini himself... [b]The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.[/b] hmmmmmmmmmmm
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:57:33 AM EST
Post from Kar98 -
Both systems are totalitarian, but I'd rather classify communism as right-wing than the other way 'round.
View Quote
Left wing, right wing, as I said, is nothing more than holdover terms based simply upon the peculiar seating arrangements in the French [i][b]Estates General[/b][/i]. The real political spectrum is not one with National Socialism at one end and International Socialism at the other, but with [u]both[/u] those totalitarian systems at one end of the spectrum and pure anarchy at the other end. We should strike somewhere between the two extremes, but a great deal closer to the pure anarchy end of the spectrum, than the other! Eric The(ImpureAnarchist)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:13:55 PM EST
So Eric, you are advocating total anarchy as your preferred social structure?
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:14:27 PM EST
Very very good! Nazism was based in socialism but no it's not "left wing" The hole idea of left and right is based on a sys. with Commies on one side and nazis on the other and all good people in the middle.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:22:38 PM EST
Fascism is a form of socialism, the only thing that is "right" about fascism is that it is right of communism. But it is still classified as "Left" in the sense that socialism would fit in the left margin if you were using a chart do describe the balance of the ideologies.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:24:58 PM EST
I didn't know there such a thing as "nazism". I just thought it was called fascism. At least that's what they taught at my university.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:27:45 PM EST
Post from BenDover -
So Eric, you are advocating total anarchy as your preferred social structure?
View Quote
Sure, why not, that's what I posted isn't it?[:D] Uh-oh, looking back over what I [u]actually[/u] posted, there is no hint or allusion that I preferred 'total anarchy' as my preferred [u]social[/u] structure. First, I was talking political systems, not social systems. Second, I never said that I preferred anything like pure anarchy, did I? If so, please show me where! I said precisely [u]this[/u]: 'We should strike somewhere between the two extremes, but a great deal closer to the pure anarchy end of the spectrum, than the other!' Are you advocating striking a balance closer to the totalitarian end of the political spectrum? Given just two choices, I would much prefer living under a system of pure anarchy than one of pure totalitarianism, wouldn't you? Eric The(IDidn'tMumbleOrStutter,DidI?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:31:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from BenDover -
So Eric, you are advocating total anarchy as your preferred social structure?
View Quote
Sure, why not, that's what I posted isn't it?[:D] Uh-oh, looking back over what I [u]actually[/u] posted, there is no hint or allusion that I preferred 'total anarchy' as my preferred [u]social[/u] structure. First, I was talking political systems, not social systems. Second, I never said that I preferred anything like pure anarchy, did I? If so, please show me where! I said precisely [u]this[/u]: 'We should strike somewhere between the two extremes, but a great deal closer to the pure anarchy end of the spectrum, than the other!' Are you advocating striking a balance closer to the totalitarian end of the political spectrum? Given just two choices, I would much prefer living under a system of pure anarchy than one of pure totalitarianism, wouldn't you? Eric The(IDidn'tMumbleOrStutter,DidI?)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I know what you wrote. But I also wanted to know what you really thought. I happen to agree with you.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:39:56 PM EST
They didn't name it the National Socialist Workers Party for nothing...
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:41:20 PM EST
Crap, [b]BenDover[/b], you scared the dickens outta me with that last post! I thought you would be just as close to 'pure anarchy' as I would be. In 'pure anarchy' I would be responsible for me and mine, unlike 'pure totalitarianism', where you have to wait for the Brownshirts to come and rescue you and your family! I would much rather rely on my own wits than on some 'Ernst Roehm-wannabe.' Eric The(I'llWearTheBrownshirtOnMyBlock,ThankYou!)­Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:44:18 PM EST
Anarchy can only exist as a temporary form of government. Even Tribes have a form of govt. such as counsel to make decisions on what a tribe will do concerning a vareity of issues. even whether or not someone in their midst is guilty of offending another. A sense of "fair play" is the founding of a legal system or "natural" law. All other things being considered, i'd prefer Anarchy over Tyranny. A constitutional Republic is just to the left of true Anarchy. I dont like "middle of the road" politics. I walk slighty off to the side and mind my own buisness and manners. Herr lib
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 12:48:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Crap, [b]BenDover[/b], you scared the dickens outta me with that last post! I thought you would be just as close to 'pure anarchy' as I would be. In 'pure anarchy' I would be responsible for me and mine, unlike 'pure totalitarianism', where you have to wait for the Brownshirts to come and rescue you and your family! I would much rather rely on my own wits than on some 'Ernst Roehm-wannabe.' Eric The(I'llWearTheBrownshirtOnMyBlock,ThankYou!)­Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Anarchy can never exist. Human nature will see to that.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 1:01:33 PM EST
One of my high school history teachers explained differences between the left extreme and the right extreme like this: Left wing and right wing do not exist, it is in fact a circle. For in the end the results are the exact same, the masses are slaves to the party, and the dead are the lucky ones.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 1:44:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By DPeacher: One of my high school history teachers explained differences between the left extreme and the right extreme like this: Left wing and right wing do not exist, it is in fact a circle. For in the end the results are the exact same, the masses are slaves to the party, and the dead are the lucky ones.
View Quote
"To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy. Gen. Wm. T. Sherman Jan. 31, 1864
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 1:58:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/8/2002 2:01:43 PM EST by GodBlessTexas]
Originally Posted By BenDover: So Eric, you are advocating total anarchy as your preferred social structure?
View Quote
Anarchy, as it is defined for this purpose as the absence of any form of supreme political authority, is closer to what many Libertarians believe in than what we have now. Unfortunately, Anarchy is also a utopian viewpoint and not practical because someone always wants to be captain of the ship. Anarchy does not equal chaos, nor does chaos appear in the definiton of anarchy, at least not in the American Heritage dictionary. Edited to add: N/m. I see that you were just playing devils advocate. Man, I always miss the good ones. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 2:35:02 PM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: The reason those Liberal college professors bad mouth National Socialism and swoon like a pre-pubescent schoolgirl over INTERnational socialism is the "National" component. They hate Hitler NOT because he killed Jews, or becasue he advocated many of the EXACT same things as INTERnational Socialism does, but because he loved Germany. He saw Germany as a sovereign nation, independent of the Internationalists schemes. In short, Hitler was a Patriot. Who killed Jews. And advanced socialism. So, those of us who view America in a patriotic light, as a sovereign nation, unwilling to kneel to the UN and to INTERnational Socialism can expect the same rought treatment as Hitler gets. Cuz if there's ONE thing the one worlders can't tolerate, its a mustang nation.
View Quote
You're right that Hitler's nationalism is the reason that socialists despise him, but you're wrong to call him a patriot. He was a staunch nationalist of course, in that he put Germany in political pre-eminence, but part and parcel of the word "patriot" is the idea of wanting the BEST for your particular nation. Hitler most certainly did not want what was BEST for his people...he wanted his people to be pre-eminent under him, but he did not want them to be free.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 2:46:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:00:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: There is no significant difference between Herr Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin.
View Quote
What a pile of crap. This is what happends when you need to prove that the Jews got it worse then everyone else as to bring more sympathy. Trying to make the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century equal to Hitler? Lay off the booze and come back to the real world.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:24:16 PM EST
True Nazism had nothing to do with the left. National Socialism or Nazism, doctrines and policies of the National Socialist German Workers' party, which ruled Germany under Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945. In German the party name was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); members were first called Nazis as a derisive abbreviation. Vague and mystical, it was not a system of well-defined principles but rather a glorification of prejudice and myth with elements of nihilism. Its mainstays were the doctrines of racial inequality and of adherence to the leader, or Führer; its constant theme was nationalist expansion. The ruling “master race” itself was to be organized into an authoritarian pyramid, at the apex of which stood the infallible Führer. Strength and discipline were deified by the Nazis, and democracy was spurned as a depraved form of government that protected the weak and mediocre. After ousting the left wing of the party, represented by Gregor Strasser , Hitler, once in power, secured his position by the “Blood Purge” (June, 1934) of SA leader Ernst Roehm and others who might challenge him. Loyal Nazis were placed in positions of authority within the government and eventually came to control it. A corporative state was established in which labor lost all rights and was even regimented in its recreation by the “Strength through Joy” movement. Youth, schools, and the press came under repressive control. The books of “undesirable” authors were repeatedly burned.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:24:22 PM EST
Post from Scarecrow -
What a pile of crap. This is what happends when you need to prove that the Jews got it worse then everyone else as to bring more sympathy. Trying to make the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century equal to Hitler?
View Quote
Well, [b]Scarecrow[/b], why don't you explain to us precisely how Hitler was a better person that Stalin. That should make for some lively discussion this evening!
Lay off the booze and come back to the real world.
View Quote
Well, I am as sober as a judge at this very moment, but I do have a feeling that I will need a drink before you finish expounding to us on the glorious attributes of Herr Hitler! Eric The(SoHaveAtIt,WhileILookForACorkscrew!)Hun[>­]:)]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:28:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:28:54 PM EST
Fascism is an economic condition, Socialism and Communism are political. Fascism requires neither Communism nor Socialism to function, but both systems will help. Given other statements here, I tend to agree with EtH and BenDover as far as governance goes - less is more. Anarchistic society is very appealing - just slightly more appealing than it is impossible. At least in an Anarchic society, there would be no government for me to bitch about - one less worry. OTOH, _some_ govnernance is necessary, given the Human condition. Humanity craves outside regulation (above and beyond the extended family) and that is how "tribal" and "regional" governments got started. Upon examination it can be seen that government itself is not the problem however, it is the degree of pervasiveness that it acquires when we are asleep at the switch. Some suggestions for governmental reform... - Term limits - ALL THE WAY AROUND! ANY elected official becomes subject to a limit, and cannot "retire" from service with a pension. Many career pols obviously got WAY too comfortable there... - Raises - Gang, it's called "public service." If you want a raise, you will have to seek it from the public. Justify it to your constituency directly. Go on TV - live - with your hat in your hand and explain WHY you need it and WHY you deserve it. Then, remain available for comment, taking any and all questions. Defend your position. The actual raise must be approved by a three-fourths or four-fifths majority, showing your broad support base. - Political parties - Eliminate them. Let us elect our officials based upon their merits and their stances individually, rather than their alliances. How's that for a start? FFZ
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:32:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By BenDover: So Eric, you are advocating total anarchy as your preferred social structure?
View Quote
FYI, alot of personnal freedom exist in total Anarchy[;)] Sgtar15
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:58:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By BenDover: So Eric, you are advocating total anarchy as your preferred social structure?
View Quote
FYI, alot of personnal freedom exist in total Anarchy[;)] Sgtar15
View Quote
I agree. But perpetually defending myself against what abuses other people do with their personal freedom would make it awfully hard to enjoy my own.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 4:30:18 PM EST
Just another point: Hitler did not get to complete his Utopia. While there was still private ownership of corporations in his Germany, he eventually planned to have state ownership as well as control of industry. He was just getting started on this project - with the various state owned enterprises - as the war ended. Kind of like Hitler not only wanted to kill all the Jews, but he also wanted to get rid of Christianity ("the systematic cultivation of human failure"). But the war made him put a lot of things on the backburner. As it were.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 4:48:43 PM EST
LOL. . . Remind me, please, of the quote that related communist thoughts to the beer halls and fascist thoughts to the coffeehouses. . .no real reason to doubt that there is a trend towards alcoholism and unemployment among contributing members to this site. How many photos, how many threads, how many topics devoted to "I'm out of work. . . " "What are you drinking. . . ?". Don't undermine the political spectrum, guys, or you will find yourselves with no names to call those who disagree with you. . .
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 5:01:33 PM EST
Interesting that chaos continues to be likened to anarchy - the two are entirely dissimilar. Even in the total absence of governance, an anarchistic society will still be self-governed by unspoken and unwritten "social covenants" - informally prohibiting acts that are _malum in se_ while leaving the entire damn _malum prohibitorum_ morass alone. Good thing. Acts defined as _malum in se_ are prohibited socially, and can be enforced socially, without the need for government in an environment of compleat personal liberty. It would also be understood by the individual that the only way to continue enjoying those liberties would be to act correctly, lest he risk punishmend (read: Execution) for his actions. Most acts considered _malum in se_ can be punished with the simple expedient of execution, save the "minor crimes of violence" like assault. Rape, Kidnap (for or not for ransom,) murder, Assault with intent, and the like can and frankly should be punished by death. The principal deciding factor being whether such homicide or assault was carried out in self-defence, and therefore necessary given the situation. Any council convened need not be a governing entity, merely an investigatory one. Government and investigation are not irretrievably enmeshed, else we would not be ble to have private investigators. Likewise, with the removal of incarceration as a punitive mechanism (and the re-emergence of the Rod and the Ax,) the entire penal system no longer need exist, and a massive drain on public resources shall disappear. The investigative council can be elected from the public at large, appointed regionally, and need not be compensated at the public expense. Investigators shall maintain their regular employment, and can and should be compensated even in the event that extra time need be taken for an investigation. The council will convene as required. Anarchy will also tackle the area of "consensual crimes" by removing them - as such acts are _malum prohibitum_ rather than _malum in se._ FFZ
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 5:28:39 PM EST
The reason for the establishment of government was to end murder. In a society where you rarely encounter anyone other than the less than 50 with whom you live, family ties will keep you in line. While you and your neighbor are attempting to kill each other, your family will attempt to stop you and his will attempt to stop him. Once human populations reach the point where someone would not or could not know all of the people with whom they would have contact in a day, "big men" became the leaders, often through proving their leadership abilities while hunting. Societies continued to become more complex as populations grew. If we were to live in anarchy, great social projects like Interstate Highways and complicated manufacturing processes would be difficult, if not impossible to do. Our economy is required to support our undertakings. Furthermore, with no government to corral criminals and punish them(and as soon as you elect or appoint a Sheriff, you have a government) people would live their lives in fear. The point which I am trying to make is that mankind naturally creates governments to protect the interests of the people. Anarchy cannot work in a group of more than perhaps 50 people; at least their are no examples of this type of society existing, or ever having existed. Did any of that make sense?[>:/]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 5:39:51 PM EST
The Right Wing beleives that the individual is more important than the group; the Left Wing beleives that the group is more important than the individual. Socialism, in its pure form, is Left Wing. The problem with socialism is the beleif that all men are created equal, when in fact they aren't. If you watch 5 men work, you will notice than 1 will work less than the others, and one will work more. In capitalism, the hard worker will be the foreman anad the slacker will starve to death. In socialism, the slacker will seek a position where he does very little work and the hard worker will not work so hard when he sees that he is receiving the same benefits as a man who doesn't work as hard. Communism is capitalism with the state being the only corporation. Facism argued for the group, so it was Left Wing in appearance, although the leaders wanted more for themselves, the individuals, so they only paid lip service to the people, while running the country to best serve their interests. Free market capitalism, in its most extreme form, is anarchy. Asia is the best example of this. In America we have acheived some sort of balance between the right and left wings. This is what allows us to be as great as we are. In the Middle East, their way of life is failing, and in true Right Wing fashion, they are clinging desperately to a set of beliefs that have not shanged in over a thousand years. This is why we use laser guided bombs to blow up donkey carts. IMHO
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 6:10:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By FreeFireZone: Interesting that chaos continues to be likened to anarchy - the two are entirely dissimilar. Even in the total absence of governance, an anarchistic society will still be self-governed by unspoken and unwritten "social covenants" - informally prohibiting acts that are _malum in se_ while leaving the entire damn _malum prohibitorum_ morass alone. Good thing.
View Quote
An anarchistic society would last about two weeks. Then the closest nation with a good sized military would take it over and it would become a dictatorship. Unless of course the country was so poor that no one wanted it, in which case you would have competing warlords fighting an unceasing civil war to get power until someone established a dictatorship.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 6:24:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/8/2002 6:25:45 PM EST by Scarecrow]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Well, [b]Scarecrow[/b], why don't you explain to us precisely how Hitler was a better person that Stalin.
View Quote
He killed less innocent people.
Well, I am as sober as a judge at this very moment, but I do have a feeling that I will need a drink before you finish expounding to us on the glorious attributes of Herr Hitler! Eric The(SoHaveAtIt,WhileILookForACorkscrew!)Hun[>­]:)]
View Quote
Blah blah blah. Do such empty phrases normally give people the impression your all knowing, and most of all, right? Please Eric, tell us lowly folk what we should think.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 6:46:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 7:17:03 PM EST
I've come to the conclusion that the normal political spectrum is really a circle and the "extreme left" and "extreme right" are next to each other, since in the end they have the same basic effects on freedom
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 7:22:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By Scarecrow:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: There is no significant difference between Herr Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin.
View Quote
What a pile of crap. This is what happends when you need to prove that the Jews got it worse then everyone else as to bring more sympathy. Trying to make the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century equal to Hitler? Lay off the booze and come back to the real world.
View Quote
Well, actually, Stalin killed millions more Jews during and after WWII, as well as many other people. Stalin did kill more people than Hitler and we were wrong not to push their butts back into Russia. Still not much difference between the two, except that perhaps you agree with what Hitler was doing. Are you saying that Hitler wasn't one of the bad guys in WWII? I think he was and so was Stalin. We should have jumped them and pushed them back into Russia after we finished with asshole Hitler and his goons. Why did you feel it necessary to bring the subject of the Jews into this?
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 7:31:00 PM EST
LARRYG, Stalin was the worst of two evils. In a world today where your political choices are pretty much pick the guy who will screw you up the ass or the one who will screw your wife up the ass, we can all understand what I am talking about. We left a even bigger murderer go unchecked, and we demonized the only actual person we went after, we demonized him so much we forgot how bad the piece of shit we left in power in Soviet Russia really was. You say Hitler to a person on the street, and they know his name immediately, you say Stalin, and you will notice how little if anything they know about him, let alone the atrocities he committed. Even to this day we have people hunting down ex-SS officers who worked in Nazi camps, and yet we have no one going after EX-comblock scum bags. There hasn't even been any trials for any of them. Its disgusting how society can overlook such horrible evil by using Hitler as a scapegoat for all thats wrong in the world.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 7:41:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By Scarecrow: LARRYG, Stalin was the worst of two evils. In a world today where your political choices are pretty much pick the guy who will screw you up the ass or the one who will screw your wife up the ass, we can all understand what I am talking about. We left a even bigger murderer go unchecked, and we demonized the only actual person we went after, we demonized him so much we forgot how bad the piece of shit we left in power in Soviet Russia really was. You say Hitler to a person on the street, and they know his name immediately, you say Stalin, and you will notice how little if anything they know about him, let alone the atrocities he committed. Even to this day we have people hunting down ex-SS officers who worked in Nazi camps, and yet we have no one going after EX-comblock scum bags. There hasn't even been any trials for any of them. Its disgusting how society can overlook such horrible evil by using Hitler as a scapegoat for all thats wrong in the world.
View Quote
First, I already said we should have pushed his ass right back into Russia. Second, we should keep hunting down every SS scum that is still alive, but also every KGB scum as well. You do sound like you are defending Hitler. Not a flame, that's just how it sounds and it seems to be tainted by your hatred of Israelis.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 8:27:08 PM EST
A circle or curved political spectrum does not work. where does a Republic with limited and defined powers exist? I prefer either the original spectrum or the Libby diamond spectrum. Left=more govt. right=less govt. simple eh? Anarchy is the only real right-wing extreme. I dont support Anarchy, just mostly Anarchy [}:D] _________ We couldnt fault Stalin, after all they helped us fight the NAZI'S. Plus we gave them all that food, money, and farm equipment. They were are freinds.......who stabbed us in the back, stabbed their own people in the back, but it was OUR fault for their "Cold War". Yes Russians see us as perpetrating the cold war.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 8:47:31 PM EST
LARRYG, I understand that people will think that I condone Hitler's actions, I sometimes say things that can be viewed as anti-gay, anti-Jew or just plain anti-semetic. Only I know really what I feel inside, and what my true world views are. I mostly say certain things to view peoples reactions, to see if wounds have been healed, if minds are open, nothing more. I pretty much probe the minds of people with a blunt object and see what falls out. That makes me a Troll, so be it, the internet is my play ground, not my life, and not who I am.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 3:08:00 AM EST
Folks, if we continue to have Joseph Stalin as the ultimate left wing hero, and Adolph Hitler as the ultimate right wing hero, we have already lost the argument. There is simply no difference between these two and to put them at the OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum is just horse hockey, pure and simple! It's so easy to demonize the 'right wing' - they actually help in the process. How many times have you said, or heard, 'I'm to the right of Atilla the Hun'? Folks, Atilla the Hun was a ruthless dictator and murderer. And he's a right winger, just like us? That's BS, and in the same manner that we lost the argument of 'assault rifles' by joining in with the liberal press/media/government in using a well-known and precise term, 'assault rifle', in a loose and erroneous manner, to apply to a class of weapons that were [u]not[/u] select-fire, we will continue to lose the PR battle when everyone views Hitler as the ultimate 'right winger.' BTW, when's the last time you ever heard anyone described as a 'left wing fanatic' or 'left wing wacko' in the national media? There's a reason for that! Eric The(ThinkAboutIt!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 3:15:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/9/2002 3:26:55 AM EST by garandman]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Folks, if we continue to have Joseph Stalin as the ultimate left wing hero, and Adolph Hitler as the ultimate right wing hero, we have already lost the argument.
View Quote
I agree. I view Hitler as NOT QUITE being on the far left extreme of the far left. Fact is, he WAS a socialist / borderline Communist. He may have been to the right of Stalin, but he was to the left of Clinton (at least to the left of what Clinton publicly stated as his positions.)
There is simply no difference between these two and to put them at the OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum is just horse hockey, pure and simple!
View Quote
Disagree. There IS a difference between the two. Hitler wanted Germany to be sovereign. Stalin sought a one-world, world wide, homogenous Communist state, without national distinctions. BIG difference. When you homogenize evil, you run the risk of missing the several lessons individual evils can teach us.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 3:35:28 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Folks, if we continue to have Joseph Stalin as the ultimate left wing hero, and Adolph Hitler as the ultimate right wing hero, we have already lost the argument.
View Quote
I agree. I view Hitler as NOT QUITE being on the far left extreme of the far left. Fact is, he WAS a socialist / borderline Communist. He may have been to the right of Stalin, but he was to the left of Clinton (at least to the left of what Clinton publicly stated as his positions.)
There is simply no difference between these two and to put them at the OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum is just horse hockey, pure and simple!
View Quote
Disagree. There IS a difference between the two. Hitler wanted Germany to be sovereign. Stalin sought a one-world, world wide, homogenous Communist state, without national distinctions. BIG difference. When you homogenize evil, you run the risk of missing the several lessons individual evils can teach us.
View Quote
The far left the far right...where is the middle ground each dictator has opposed.. The point being the what the US was formed to be is being uspurped by these other isms...national socialism vs international socialism isnt much of a choice and is contrary to what the founding fathers envsioned. When one forgets ignores or undermines the position of the original intention then one is a traitor to the US...we have been slowly brainwashed to belive something else is better and we have allowed these ideas to undermine our foundation...pluralism is imo proving to be a disaster.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 3:37:51 AM EST
Post from garandman -
Stalin sought a one-world, world wide, homogenous Communist state, without national distinctions. BIG difference.
View Quote
Really? Tell me how many non-Georgians and non-European Russians made up Stalin's inner circle? How many asiatics were in positions of power under Stalin? He was just as 'Great Russian' as Hitler was 'German.' If the Soviet Union had no national distinctions, why did it continue to have national distinctions?[:D] There was even a 'Commissar of the Nationalities' post that was created in 1923 to handle the difficulties in ruling almost 102 'nations' within the Soviet Union. The first 'Commissar'? [b]Joe Stalin![/b] Do not confuse Stalin, who was just as nationalistic as Catherine the Great, and just as concerned with traditional [u]Russian[/u] goals and aspirations as that onetime German princess, with Karl Marx. Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 3:47:30 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from garandman -
Stalin sought a one-world, world wide, homogenous Communist state, without national distinctions. BIG difference.
View Quote
Really? Tell me how many non-Georgians and non-European Russians made up Stalin's inner circle? If the Soviet Union had no national distinctions, why did it continue to have national distinctions?[:D]
View Quote
Because like Hitler, Stalin DID NOT get to achieve all he sought to achieve. I said Stalin SOUGHT a homogenous state - NOT that he accomplished it. Hence, Mother Russia had some ethno-national distinctions that Stalin never got to eradicate. But he wanted to, and would have if he had his way. Such eradication is a fundamental principle of communism.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 3:47:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By Kar98: OTOH, look at the economic and technological accomplishments of Nazi Germany and compare them with those of commie East Germany: the ME 262 and the ME 163 jet planes, the first computers (Z3 by Konrad Zuse), the highway system, the Mercedes SSK, the BMW 328, a public transport system that worked, inflation stopped.... ...and cars built in the 1990s based on 30s technology, driving on the 1930s highways, trains that still used model 1901 steam engines in the early 80s, a currency that was worthless even in East Germany, and much less accepted abroad... Other than that, the nomenclatura, propaganda, philosophy, and narrow-mindedness were pretty much the same. Both systems are totalitarian, but I'd rather classify communism as right-wing than the other way 'round.
View Quote
To give the little corporal the "credit" for the quality of German engineering is like giving Clinton credit for the economy. It was the God given gift of industriousness and genius for working with metal and the Christian inspired work ethic that propelled German people into their legendary craftmanship long before Hitler came on the scene... Hitler took advantage of mans baser nature and economic condtions imposed upon Germany by forces outside of the average German's control. Imagine Germany back in the 30s governed by the hand of Ronald Reagen and perhaps she would be the world power Hitler tried to make ..unfortuneatly Hitlers dream was like Stalin's ...Self Aggrandizment ...and they have both been relagated to the dust bin of history and the fires of hell..as we all in the end get what we deserve...or we get mercy...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top