[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 04:26 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 03:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You are confused Kosko. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Always was, always will be.

Nazi = National Socialist


The war between the Communists and Nazi's were between two different types of Leftists, but they were all leftists nonetheless.

Right wingers are about individual power and less government intrusion.

This is a misunderstanding of 1930s-era semantics.

'Socialist' was to 1930s German politics what 'Change' was to American politics at the tail-end of the last decade. A meaningless buzzword with universally positive connotations in the eyes of the populace.

Socialists of the day would attest, that there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up and execution of most of the socialists in Germany.

In the early days, Germans believed that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity.

Nazism was at its core, hierarchical, whereas the ideological root of socialism was equality.

They were National Socialists, because they believed in strong national unity, but also socialist economic policies. Hitler and their govt. took over industries. It was socialism.

[Starke]

(10-26-2013 04:24 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The American poor live much better than the poor any where else and they live better than a good % of the entire world. They get housing, food, healthcare, phones, etc. etc.

Socialism = feminism and I want none of that in my life.

If you spent even a few days in Western Europe, you'd realise that this is entirely false.
In Scandinavia, the lower-class have access to all levels of education - from primary to tertiary - for free.
If they get sick, they have access to first-class healthcare, free at the point of purchase.

A lower-class American who applies themself can go to a 2nd or 3rd-tier university - assuming they don't win the scholarship lottery. Most will struggle to finish high school.
They may 'get phones', but their lives are devoid of opportunity.

Socialism = feminism?
Why is it that the nations touted on this very forum as being the least feminist, are those which lived under socialism the longest?
And why is it that nations exposed to Western capitalism tend to soon adopt feminism?

[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 04:32 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:24 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The American poor live much better than the poor any where else and they live better than a good % of the entire world. They get housing, food, healthcare, phones, etc. etc.

Socialism = feminism and I want none of that in my life.

If you spent even a few days in Western Europe, you'd realise that this is entirely false.
In Scandinavia, the lower-class have access to all levels of education - from primary to tertiary - for free.
If they get sick, they have access to first-class healthcare, free at the point of purchase.

A lower-class American who applies themself can go to a 2nd or 3rd-tier university - assuming they don't win the scholarship lottery. Most will struggle to finish high school.
They may 'get phones', but their lives are devoid of opportunity.

Socialism = feminism?
Why is it that the nations touted on this very forum as being the least feminist, are those which lived under socialism the longest?
And why is it that nations exposed to Western capitalism tend to soon adopt feminism?

The poor in the USA have access to education as well. If they get scholarships they can attend some of the best universities in the entire world.

They get healthcare as well. All sorts of clinics for the poor. And you don't have the top level of healthcare there that we do here. Your "first class" isn't our first class. Our poor don't get to use it but even your middle class doesn't either.

Because the countries touted here are poor and this has kept feminism at bay. I'll give you credit, western Europe women are probably better than USA women over all. But I would take our economic system in a heartbeat because I have the choices to get ahead in life and retire early and live the good life.

[Starke]

(10-26-2013 04:36 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:32 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:24 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The American poor live much better than the poor any where else and they live better than a good % of the entire world. They get housing, food, healthcare, phones, etc. etc.

Socialism = feminism and I want none of that in my life.

If you spent even a few days in Western Europe, you'd realise that this is entirely false.
In Scandinavia, the lower-class have access to all levels of education - from primary to tertiary - for free.
If they get sick, they have access to first-class healthcare, free at the point of purchase.

A lower-class American who applies themself can go to a 2nd or 3rd-tier university - assuming they don't win the scholarship lottery. Most will struggle to finish high school.
They may 'get phones', but their lives are devoid of opportunity.

Socialism = feminism?
Why is it that the nations touted on this very forum as being the least feminist, are those which lived under socialism the longest?
And why is it that nations exposed to Western capitalism tend to soon adopt feminism?

The poor in the USA have access to education as well. If they get scholarships they can attend some of the best universities in the entire world.

They get healthcare as well. All sorts of clinics for the poor. And you don't have the top level of healthcare there that we do here. Your "first class" isn't our first class. Our poor don't get to use it but even your middle class doesn't either.

Because the countries touted here are poor and this has kept feminism at bay. I'll give you credit, western Europe women are probably better than USA women over all. But I would take our economic system in a heartbeat because I have the choices to get ahead in life and retire early and live the good life.

'If' being the crucial word. With scholarships, the American system gives the poor a lottery ticket, which is rigged in favour of ethnic minorities.
The Scandinavian system gives the poor a legal right to all levels of education.
I know which I'd prefer to have...

If your healthcare was the greatest in the world, as you say, you wouldn't have 3rd-world levels of infant mortality and deaths from preventable illness.

But it's clear you haven't studied the system you are critiquing.
As I have no urge to repeat the stats I've already provided in this thread, I say good luck, I hope you beat the odds and manage to become socially mobile under the American system.

[kdolo]

With scholarships, the American system gives the poor a lottery ticket, which is rigged in favour of ethnic minorities.


Oh really ??

[GameTheory]

(10-26-2013 04:26 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 03:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You are confused Kosko. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Always was, always will be.

Nazi = National Socialist


The war between the Communists and Nazi's were between two different types of Leftists, but they were all leftists nonetheless.

Right wingers are about individual power and less government intrusion.

This is a misunderstanding of 1930s-era semantics.

'Socialist' was to 1930s German politics what 'Change' was to American politics at the tail-end of the last decade. A meaningless buzzword with universally positive connotations in the eyes of the populace.

Socialists of the day would attest, that there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up and execution of most of the socialists in Germany.

In the early days, Germans believed that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity.

Nazism was at its core, hierarchical, whereas the ideological root of socialism was equality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/133856_comment.php

Quote:

by 1Planet1People Tuesday, Aug. 02, 2005 at 12:06 AM

The National Socialist Movement was distorted into a "Native National Socialist Movement" thinking that national socialism was the goal for the natives of Germany (Aryan Nation). While the international socialists view all people of all faiths and races as equal and advocates the elimination of borders that keep us separated. That is why the international socialists (USSR) fought against the national socialists (Nazis). These two groups are fundamentally opposed to each other. To associate the two together is to equivocate based on name and it is a fallacy because though the name is similar, the philosophy is contradictory to each other.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 04:46 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:36 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:32 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:24 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The American poor live much better than the poor any where else and they live better than a good % of the entire world. They get housing, food, healthcare, phones, etc. etc.

Socialism = feminism and I want none of that in my life.

If you spent even a few days in Western Europe, you'd realise that this is entirely false.
In Scandinavia, the lower-class have access to all levels of education - from primary to tertiary - for free.
If they get sick, they have access to first-class healthcare, free at the point of purchase.

A lower-class American who applies themself can go to a 2nd or 3rd-tier university - assuming they don't win the scholarship lottery. Most will struggle to finish high school.
They may 'get phones', but their lives are devoid of opportunity.

Socialism = feminism?
Why is it that the nations touted on this very forum as being the least feminist, are those which lived under socialism the longest?
And why is it that nations exposed to Western capitalism tend to soon adopt feminism?

The poor in the USA have access to education as well. If they get scholarships they can attend some of the best universities in the entire world.

They get healthcare as well. All sorts of clinics for the poor. And you don't have the top level of healthcare there that we do here. Your "first class" isn't our first class. Our poor don't get to use it but even your middle class doesn't either.

Because the countries touted here are poor and this has kept feminism at bay. I'll give you credit, western Europe women are probably better than USA women over all. But I would take our economic system in a heartbeat because I have the choices to get ahead in life and retire early and live the good life.

'If' being the crucial word. With scholarships, the American system gives the poor a lottery ticket, which is rigged in favour of ethnic minorities.
The Scandinavian system gives the poor a legal right to all levels of education.
I know which I'd prefer to have...

If your healthcare was the greatest in the world, as you say, you wouldn't have 3rd-world levels of infant mortality and deaths from preventable illness.

But it's clear you haven't studied the system you are critiquing.
As I have no urge to repeat the stats I've already provided in this thread, I say good luck, I hope you beat the odds and manage to become socially mobile under the American system.

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action either. If is more leftism in our lives. But still ANYONE in the USA has a chance to live the life of greatness. You simply do not have that in socialist countries. You are born into a class and advancing is very difficult as most your capital is taken in taxes.

We have high infant death rates simply because of leftist policies that pay the lowest class to have more kids and reward them even if they are bad parents.

I have studied this in great detail. Economics and finance are very interesting to me. Europe is collapsing due to the socialist system and the only way to deny this is to simply ignore what is happening. South Europe is bankrupt with 30% unemployment rates, people with college degrees digging through trash to eat (our poor don't have to do that) and no hope in sight. Northern Europe is living by for the time being, but with the Muslim immigration it is only a matter of time before it collapses next. And when it does, Europe will turn to the USA for help, but since our women are voting this country more leftist, we will not be able to help.

[Samseau]

(10-26-2013 04:53 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:26 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 03:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You are confused Kosko. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Always was, always will be.

Nazi = National Socialist


The war between the Communists and Nazi's were between two different types of Leftists, but they were all leftists nonetheless.

Right wingers are about individual power and less government intrusion.

This is a misunderstanding of 1930s-era semantics.

'Socialist' was to 1930s German politics what 'Change' was to American politics at the tail-end of the last decade. A meaningless buzzword with universally positive connotations in the eyes of the populace.

Socialists of the day would attest, that there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up and execution of most of the socialists in Germany.

In the early days, Germans believed that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity.

Nazism was at its core, hierarchical, whereas the ideological root of socialism was equality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/133856_comment.php

Quote:

by 1Planet1People Tuesday, Aug. 02, 2005 at 12:06 AM

The National Socialist Movement was distorted into a "Native National Socialist Movement" thinking that national socialism was the goal for the natives of Germany (Aryan Nation). While the international socialists view all people of all faiths and races as equal and advocates the elimination of borders that keep us separated. That is why the international socialists (USSR) fought against the national socialists (Nazis). These two groups are fundamentally opposed to each other. To associate the two together is to equivocate based on name and it is a fallacy because though the name is similar, the philosophy is contradictory to each other.

Thanks for confirming everything I have said: Two groups of leftists fighting each other.

[GameTheory]

(10-26-2013 05:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:53 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:26 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 03:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You are confused Kosko. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Always was, always will be.

Nazi = National Socialist


The war between the Communists and Nazi's were between two different types of Leftists, but they were all leftists nonetheless.

Right wingers are about individual power and less government intrusion.

This is a misunderstanding of 1930s-era semantics.

'Socialist' was to 1930s German politics what 'Change' was to American politics at the tail-end of the last decade. A meaningless buzzword with universally positive connotations in the eyes of the populace.

Socialists of the day would attest, that there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up and execution of most of the socialists in Germany.

In the early days, Germans believed that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity.

Nazism was at its core, hierarchical, whereas the ideological root of socialism was equality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/133856_comment.php

Quote:

by 1Planet1People Tuesday, Aug. 02, 2005 at 12:06 AM

The National Socialist Movement was distorted into a "Native National Socialist Movement" thinking that national socialism was the goal for the natives of Germany (Aryan Nation). While the international socialists view all people of all faiths and races as equal and advocates the elimination of borders that keep us separated. That is why the international socialists (USSR) fought against the national socialists (Nazis). These two groups are fundamentally opposed to each other. To associate the two together is to equivocate based on name and it is a fallacy because though the name is similar, the philosophy is contradictory to each other.

Thanks for confirming everything I have said: Two groups of leftists fighting each other.

[Starke]

(10-26-2013 05:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Thanks for confirming everything I have said: Two groups of leftists fighting each other.

Confirmation tends to come from historical evidence, not from 7-year old comments by anons posted on obscure blogs.

German Nazism was hierarchical both with regard to race and within the white race - this is contradictory to even the most basic interpretation of socialism.

[Samseau]

(10-26-2013 05:28 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Thanks for confirming everything I have said: Two groups of leftists fighting each other.

Confirmation tends to come from historical evidence, not from 7-year old comments by anons posted on obscure blogs.

German Nazism was hierarchical both with regard to race and within the white race - this is contradictory to even the most basic interpretation of socialism.

No it isn't. You can have socialism for everyone or you can have it just for a select group of people. At the end of the day, it's still socialism just to different degrees.

[Flint]

It_is_my_time, your whole argument is so twisted and erratic, I don't know even know where to begin with.

I've said it another thread and I gladly repeat here as well: The claim that European countries are still strict class societies whilst the US is a meritocratic paradise with equal opportunities for all, is simply not true anymore. Educate yourself a little bit and stop denying the most obvious facts.

Quote:

Back in its Horatio Alger days, America was more fluid than Europe. Now it is not. Using one-generation measures of social mobility—how much a father’s relative income influences that of his adult son—America does half as well as Nordic countries, and about the same as Britain and Italy, Europe’s least-mobile places. America is particularly exposed to the virtuous-meritocracy paradox because its poor are getting married in ever smaller numbers, leaving more children with single mothers short of time and money. One study suggests that the gap in test scores between the children of America’s richest 10% and its poorest has risen by 30-40% over the past 25 years.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21...ring-rungs

Quote:

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/har...d=all&_r=0

And you really think infant mortality in the US is higher than in countries with similar wealth because of leftist policies? Compared to Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands or Sweden the welfare benefits for low class families in America are ridiculous yet less infants die in those countries.

I know it's a popular narrative in this forum but you can't blame feminism for everything that goes wrong socio-economically, because that would leave many other, much more important variables out of the equation.

[Flint]

(10-26-2013 05:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No it isn't. You can have socialism for everyone or you can have it just for a select group of people.

That's called capitalism.

Seriously, are we speaking the same language here? Is an ideology that emphasizes the natural equality of all people (socialism) the same to you as an ideology that is based on the concept of an allegedly natural race hierarchy (fascism)?

I'm not a socialist, btw.

[GameTheory]

^^^ No True Fascist fallacy ???

[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 05:28 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Thanks for confirming everything I have said: Two groups of leftists fighting each other.

Confirmation tends to come from historical evidence, not from 7-year old comments by anons posted on obscure blogs.

German Nazism was hierarchical both with regard to race and within the white race - this is contradictory to even the most basic interpretation of socialism.

Socialism is the govt. ownership/involvement in private industry.

Nazi Germany was socialist.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 05:30 PM)Flint Wrote:  

It_is_my_time, your whole argument is so twisted and erratic, I don't know even know where to begin with.

I've said it another thread and I gladly repeat here as well: The claim that European countries are still strict class societies whilst the US is a meritocratic paradise with equal opportunities for all, is simply not true anymore. Educate yourself a little bit and stop denying the most obvious facts.

Quote:

Back in its Horatio Alger days, America was more fluid than Europe. Now it is not. Using one-generation measures of social mobility—how much a father’s relative income influences that of his adult son—America does half as well as Nordic countries, and about the same as Britain and Italy, Europe’s least-mobile places. America is particularly exposed to the virtuous-meritocracy paradox because its poor are getting married in ever smaller numbers, leaving more children with single mothers short of time and money. One study suggests that the gap in test scores between the children of America’s richest 10% and its poorest has risen by 30-40% over the past 25 years.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21...ring-rungs

Quote:

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/har...d=all&_r=0

And you really think infant mortality in the US is higher than in countries with similar wealth because of leftist policies? Compared to Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands or Sweden the welfare benefits for low class families in America are ridiculous yet less infants die in those countries.

I know it's a popular narrative in this forum but you can't blame feminism for everything that goes wrong socio-economically, because that would leave many other, much more important variables out of the equation.

I know the NY Times is a leftist rag.

I know infant mortality rate is higher here due to leftist policies. The lowest class has the most kids and are often the worst parents. You can go right to the most leftist regions of the country, the ghetto, and see the results for yourself. While the leftist Democratic party has 50 some years reign and the results are obvious for everyone to see.

Feminism is a disaster for any society and simply cannot be afforded. The only way feminism can gain steam is by leftist liberal socialism.

And yet still the 800 pound gorilla in the room of Europe self destructing keeps being ignored or excused away.

[iknowexactly]

(10-26-2013 12:03 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Who am I missing?

How much worse it is everywhere but Western Europe,

(10-26-2013 12:03 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

I'm sure there are too many to list. Revolts have started for less,

Wow you're naive. The Bolshevik revolution started when the Russian military sometimes drafted all the men from an area permanently into military service.

Nobody is starving in the US , they're as fat as hogs.

[Samseau]

(10-26-2013 05:41 PM)Flint Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No it isn't. You can have socialism for everyone or you can have it just for a select group of people.

That's called capitalism.

Seriously, are we speaking the same language here? Is an ideology that emphasizes the natural equality of all people (socialism) the same to you as an ideology that is based on the concept of an allegedly natural race hierarchy (fascism)?

I'm not a socialist, btw.

Perhaps you should go read some Karl Marx, the champion of socialism, who understood capitalism far better than you do.

Marx defined capitalism as when the means of production are privately owned. Socialism is the opposite, when the means of production are publicly owned.

Get it? Fascism does not believe in private ownership, hence it is a form of socialism, i.e. part of the left.

Today, many people on the left try to paint fascism as a right-wing ideology, but this just a typical left-wing ploy to manipulate the true meanings of words in order to make the right look bad.

But for those who actually read the original philosophical texts, we know better.

[Wadsworth]

(10-26-2013 06:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:41 PM)Flint Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No it isn't. You can have socialism for everyone or you can have it just for a select group of people.

That's called capitalism.

Seriously, are we speaking the same language here? Is an ideology that emphasizes the natural equality of all people (socialism) the same to you as an ideology that is based on the concept of an allegedly natural race hierarchy (fascism)?

I'm not a socialist, btw.

Marx defined capitalism as when the means of production are privately owned. Socialism is the opposite, when the means of production are publicly owned.

Exactly. One can argue that public ownership of the means of providing education or healthcare etc. is a good thing, but what one cannot argue is that socialism isn't public ownership of means.

Quote:

Get it? Fascism does not believe in private ownership, hence it is a form of socialism, i.e. part of the left.

This is harder to define. You could make the argument that fascism is total government control and therefore left. Or you could make the case that you don't actually have a government at all, you only have a dictator, and that it is therefore right.

[The Lizard of Oz]

The most striking thing about all the would-be "revolutionaries" is what dyed-in-the-wool ingrates they are. I mean it's amazing.

They live lives of privilege, comfort, ease, access, available interest, and relentless technological progress, that are completely unprecedented in history. All made possible courtesy of good old capitalism and the liberties safeguarded by American military power.

And like mindless spoiled children, they dully fantasize about the destruction of the society that has brought forth such unthinkable abundance.

It's good to see, in a way. I sometimes enjoy seeing things that are shameless, for the sheer vulgar spectacle that they present. But only up to a point.

[kosko]

(10-26-2013 04:32 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:26 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 03:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You are confused Kosko. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Always was, always will be.

Nazi = National Socialist


The war between the Communists and Nazi's were between two different types of Leftists, but they were all leftists nonetheless.

Right wingers are about individual power and less government intrusion.

This is a misunderstanding of 1930s-era semantics.

'Socialist' was to 1930s German politics what 'Change' was to American politics at the tail-end of the last decade. A meaningless buzzword with universally positive connotations in the eyes of the populace.

Socialists of the day would attest, that there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up and execution of most of the socialists in Germany.

In the early days, Germans believed that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity.

Nazism was at its core, hierarchical, whereas the ideological root of socialism was equality.

They were National Socialists, because they believed in strong national unity, but also socialist economic policies. Hitler and their govt. took over industries. It was socialism.

This is crazy to think Nazi Germany was a socialist state. There was no re-distribution of wealth there. Hitler visioned a scientific economy but did not see to fix inequalities as the system would "figure" that all out on its own. They are nearly parallels of each other on the extreme ends. IMO one values the system (socialist) while the other values the order (fascism) each uphold their tenant as the main thing and will do anything possible to do so.

They never hide whom they are. Words games and illusions are one thing but Fascists states clearly put in plain view whom runs the show:




The subconscious ideal of whom has and controls order and force is important. Symbolism was also always important. American contrasts the Eagles of freedom and robust nationalist with the apparent subjugations citizens are placed under. Hilter used the same tactics. Having fear of the system and whom runs the system makes sure that order and the system continues on without any rebellion.

[Blackhawk]

(10-26-2013 05:30 PM)Flint Wrote:  

And you really think infant mortality in the US is higher than in countries with similar wealth because of leftist policies? Compared to Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands or Sweden the welfare benefits for low class families in America are ridiculous yet less infants die in those countries.

Infant mortality in the US is directly related to third world immigration into the US.

This is how many legal immigrants the US has received just in the last five years:

2007 1,052,415
2008 1,107,126
2009 1,130,818
2010 1,042,625
2011 1,062,040
2012 1,031,631

plus it's estimated the same amount or higher number of illegal immigrants entered the US each of those years as well.

If Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden had each taken in 10 million third world immigrants over the last five years the way the US has, they would also see their infant mortality rise as well.

Well, why aren't you doing your share?

[MunichSux]

Guys and Gals, calm down ! Neither europe nor the USA will collapse. It only does on television (RTtoday etc.) and in the press. Why ? Because drama makes headlines, and since I can read (around 1984!), the world "collapses" daily. Sometimes it's unemployment (was the big theme in my native Germany, the welfare reform undertaken by then cancellor Gerhard Schroeder's administration has dramatically lowered it, we now have a 20 year low in unemployment, luckily), then it's debt, then it's immigration etc. Temp work has gotten a bad reputation here, so now the favorite theme of Germany's left-wing publications is how bad being employed by temps like manpower is and how they abuse their staff. I've worked for a couple of them and never ran into problems, though I was supposed to be "abused", lol.

[lskdfjldsf]

(10-26-2013 04:32 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:24 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The American poor live much better than the poor any where else and they live better than a good % of the entire world. They get housing, food, healthcare, phones, etc. etc.

Socialism = feminism and I want none of that in my life.

If you spent even a few days in Western Europe, you'd realise that this is entirely false.
In Scandinavia, the lower-class have access to all levels of education - from primary to tertiary - for free.
If they get sick, they have access to first-class healthcare, free at the point of purchase.

A lower-class American who applies themself can go to a 2nd or 3rd-tier university - assuming they don't win the scholarship lottery. Most will struggle to finish high school.
They may 'get phones', but their lives are devoid of opportunity.

Starke please define what "free" is because you, like most Europeans, don't seem to have a grasp on where exactly these goods and services come from and who pays for them at the end of the day.

I collected paychecks in both utopian Europe (several countries) and the US working in highpaying jobs, and in the US my standard of living was much higher. My healthcare was better (and cheaper, not to mention it was something I had the choice of selecting), I mean for fucks sake even in Europe I have to pay cash for my contact lenses because they aren't covered. In the US, I owned a vehicle, a house, land. I could do whatever the fuck I wanted to on my property and spend my money on whatever I wanted because I wasn't beaten into a pulp by a tax bracket at the end of every month.

In Europe, if you're poor I'm sure it's a great place to live in, but not everyone is poor and an entire society suffers when it's structure to only accommodate them. The only people who actually like Europe's systems are those who don't make a lot of cash. Doctors and engineers should be paid more and get more out of society than someone packing boxes. If you're a successful dude with ambition, it's delusional to think Europe is better than the US in terms of providing you with a good future.

[Flint]

(10-26-2013 06:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:41 PM)Flint Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No it isn't. You can have socialism for everyone or you can have it just for a select group of people.

That's called capitalism.

Seriously, are we speaking the same language here? Is an ideology that emphasizes the natural equality of all people (socialism) the same to you as an ideology that is based on the concept of an allegedly natural race hierarchy (fascism)?

I'm not a socialist, btw.

Perhaps you should go read some Karl Marx, the champion of socialism, who understood capitalism far better than you do.

Marx defined capitalism as when the means of production are privately owned. Socialism is the opposite, when the means of production are publicly owned.

Get it? Fascism does not believe in private ownership, hence it is a form of socialism, i.e. part of the left.

Today, many people on the left try to paint fascism as a right-wing ideology, but this just a typical left-wing ploy to manipulate the true meanings of words in order to make the right look bad.

But for those who actually read the original philosophical texts, we know better.

You are mistaken, fascism is perfectly compatible with private ownership. There is nothing like a prototypically political economy of fascism as most fascist governments (Italy, Germany, Croatia, etc.) resorted to very different policies that cannot be solely described as either socialist or capitalist. For instance, Nazi Germany while pushing a four year plan to prepare the invasion of Poland and public infrastructure programs (which could be called socialist) did NOT expropriate the entrenched non-Jewish corporations. Hitler never wanted to abolish private ownership of the means of production and most of his advisers intended to introduce a market economy after the war. Big business (Krupp, Siemens, Bosch) flourished under the Nazis as they made huge profits from the slave labor of POWs and in the occupied territories. If fascism were socialist, these profits would have been nationalized.

My initial response was simply a pointed emphasis to show that "socialism for a select group of people" automatically ceases to be socialist.