World War II
Do you like Adolf hilter? what do you think of him? i am directing my question mostly to the HOLOCAUST.
What would you have done to him if you had a chance?Obviously, his name has become synonymous with evil. What nearly every one seems to overlook, however, is that he legally rose to power. He didn't seize the country by military force. He seized the hearts and minds of people who were suffering economically. He was handed his final appointment by the democratically elected leader (Hitler himself had come in second in that election)
He promised them that if they gave power to him and to the state, that the state would take care of them. He convinced them that bigger government meant more security. Eventually, he just took without asking. At that point, the government he commanded was too powerful to be stopped by the dissenters.
He told them it wasn't their fault that they were poor, but that the rich needed to pay. Slowly, Jews became the scapegoat. Realistically, though, it had more to do with money and power. What he was saying was that by simply taking from the rich and giving it to the state, the state could take care of the poor. The steady rise in years previous of anti-jewish sentiment were in part fueled by the country's economic desperation.
Jewish citizens were much wealthier on average than non-Jewish citizens. Eventually, the two merged until the COLLECTIVE consciousness in Germany began to accept the idea of taking from the rich and redistributing the wealth. After all, others were only poor because the Jews were hoarding all the money, right? Surely everyone could be prosperous if they just took from those who had more.
It was the need for a scapegoat in the minds of people who would rather take from someone else than to forge their own destinies that he tapped into. The PEOPLE of Germany and the attitudes they shared led to those events. He was merely a lightening rod... and a popular one at that.
It's easy to look back and just blame him, but it's not accurate. He was a drug-addicted megalomaniacal sociopath, but his power was handed to him, and not taken by force.
It's one of the truest cliche's ever uttered that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. The real lesson in the holocaust isn't in blaming Hitler, but in understanding the factors and rhetoric that led the German people to embrace Nazi socialist ideals. That's the lesson desperately needed in so many places today.
BTW.. the pic you're showing. Horrendous as it is, are you aware that WORSE mass graves have been found in the past few months alone in multiple countries he never visited? Those were about money and power as well.No am not aware of that!
Even if power was given to him and he did not force them.
They were all under some sought of spell because people say hitler was mad. I say demon possesed. If he was crazy then how come all those thousands of men sided with him to murder the jews so merciless. Were they all crazy? it must have been the sweep of the devil that pass through Germany i am not a jew but i have a soft spot for them and i don't believe in evil to any human.
Holocaust was unkind, heart wrenching and it always makes me depress to read about it etc. Thought the Romans killed many more christians that Hitler.
Hitler suffered with a SUPERIORITY COMPLEXThe spell they were under is called poverty. He took a destitute nation whose spirit had been broken in the aftermath of WW1, and he promised to restore prosperity and national pride.
He promised that the rising tide of a strong government would raise all ships. The fundamental problem was how to pay for it all. The prosperity gap fueled belief by the average person that redistribution was in order.
It was quite definitely about money and power. Hitler's relatives did things like had him take everything from someone else just so they wouldn't have to pay their rent or so they could open a business there instead. The Jewish thing was a scapegoat in the truest sense.
Millions of people have been killed in ethnic cleansing campaigns in various parts of the world since then. It wasn't anything distinct abut that time and place, and most certainly not about him. These are concepts and ideologies that are rampant throughout history. The only difference was the amount of power and popular support given to those who shared the ideology.
Two months ago, 600 bodies were found in a mass grave in Kuwait. 145 or so in Mexico...
By many estimates, Mao killed or worked to death 10x the number of his own people that died total in the holocaust.
The problem with the popular notion of just calling Hitler the devil is that it causes us not to learn from it. In reality, he had little personal involvement in the killing at concentration camps. He wasn't unaware by any means, but was in some senses shockingly disconnected from the daily doings and campaigns of his lieutenants. Probably because of his amphetamine addiction, but who knows. What we do know is that the way in which he was able to garner so much power left a government with no checks and balances so there was nothing to reign in the Nazi ideology.The SPELL those evil germans was under was 100% demon power for no human in themselves could commit such wicked and cruel killings to innocent people. Lovely women and children . So what are you saying poverty would make people kill millions for the sake of what?
Hitler was a twitt and and idiot i can't wait till judgemnet day for him to get it good and proper we are talking about 6 people but 6000000 HUMANS. He had no remorse and the german soldiers was happy to carrier out his wicked evil plans.
He's a fool that's why he had to commit suicide should have done it sooner would have saved him some fire in his backsidemade a few errors meant it was not 6 people and carried instead of carrier
People are not capable of evil.
Hitler was an idiot.
Demonic possession caused the Holocaust.
Enough said. I see clearly now that housands of pages of research on the subject, actual relevant facts, a comprehensive knowledge of the cultural and historic context, and a degree in psychology are of no value here.
was gonna say......
nah, got nothing, please write on......
At that point in time in history? I would have put him in a black skin and dropped him in the deep Southern States of America.
He would have got the same abominable cruelty he inflicted upon others, done to him by his Leftist brethren,the KKK and white racists Dixiecrats.This is going to come out the wrong way, but its the truth. The Holocaust was bad, but it is really a snapshot of Hitler. Hitler had grand visions of a unified Europe with his party at the helm. The Holocaust, as it is now known, was a "final solution" (as it was then known, for the Jewish problem that had been created by years of propaganda. This is where it gets a bit scary, and applicable to our current political system.
After the Treaty of Versalles, Germany was in shambles, from a economic, topographic, and political standpoint. Hitler, expertly made a group of people (the Jews) out to be enemies living among us. Very similar to how we constantly hear "liberals" Socilaist" and some other nonsencical labels that posters spout on this board on a daily basis. He was able to get people to buy into a notion that the Jews were not suffering, more importantly, their shops were still thriving, thus further depleting the pocketbooks of the "pure" Germans. This notion of course picked up steam and lead to internment.
However, Internment was not the gas chambers that we think of when we think about the Holocaust. They were refugee camos. It wasn't until after 1940, with the failing of the London raids, the harsh Russian winter, and the threat of the US entering the war did he look to eradicate the Jews. First planned solution was to send them to North Africa, the second was Madagascar. Both failed for two reasons, no one wanted scores of refugees, and there were limited logistics. The gas chambers were the final solution, and really didn't take place during until closer to the end of the war.
This is not saying that Hitler was a decent indvidual by any stretch, rather this long explaination is intended to show how retoric can lead to disaster. So next time you tune into Fox News, take note of the retorical propaganda that is constantly being spewed, and ask yourself, could you have been a Nazi? and How different am I than the Nazi's for sapping up this retorical hatred?
So you give a lecture about how attacking a group of people through rhetorict can lead to the holocoust, and it is all an attack against the Coservative right.
Genius... pure genius.
And what of the other news stations... al truth eh? Like CNN hiding Saddam's atrocities for a million a year. Nice propaganda... you should write for hollywood.
FOX may not get everyhthing right, no station news does, but they at least do not edit and minipulate the news to fit their agenda.Refute one point that I made? Is MSNBC guilty of the same, yes. CNN, sure, is Fox the worst? Oh, I forgot, Rupert exempts them because they are not a "news organization" They are provacatours as stated by Beck and O'Rielly. So what does that make you because everything you spout is a Fox talking point?
"And what of the other news stations... all truth eh? Like CNN hiding Saddam's atrocities for a million a year. Nice propaganda... you should write for hollywood."
How do you not see agreement in that part of your statement. my only qualifier was that you should include them all. lol what a joke. And what CNN did with Saddam out-does FOX all the way.
And Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Catro, Che, and many more Leftist Leaders of the 20th century show exactly where that ideology leads. It has been shown over and over in the last century. History refutes you that the Socialists and leftists, Communists etc, are not a danger, they and their systems are.
And Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler ever did. Adolf would have been in a rage of jealousy had he been around to see what the world allowed Stalin to do, while the American Media covered it all up.
And Beck has pretty much called it on your leftist buddies for the last two years. The left may delay their tactics and games for a month, as in the summer of rage, to try and make him look bad, but they are doing what he says. And they prove him correct everyday.
And it is interesting how one Leftist says, oh there are no Socialist in America, while another on here claims they are here but not a danger. Even some of the MSNBC hosts will state they are Socialist,- "not a coward who claims to be a Progressive"- was his exact words, but proud of their Socialism. We see them for what they are, no matter how much history the Leftists try to change to cover their tracks, we see them.
I told you, we Conservative Americans, are now taking the Left at their word. And their words say it all... America bad, awful must be destroyed and rebuilt in the image of one of the marxian defects.
And guess what... we believe you all now, we believe that you hate our nation and constitution and want it all gone. We belive you want to take what we have built and tear it down. We believe it all.
And you didn't hear me defend fox and say they didn't have their own Progressive agenda they are trying to push with theRNC. I told you, we Conservative Americans see you ALL, and the games you have been playing. Writing boths side of the script, playing both sides of the field, and we are done with it.You are a piece of work. can't get 4 lines before a "lefty" comes out, huh? How can you make an ideological argument when you get the meanings of each person's ideology incorrect?
Now let's go to the rest of your hollow flawed analysis. First, CNN hiding atrocities that happened before CNN was on the air? Really homie? Really? And you are reasoning that Ted Turner put the kybosh on that? That's weak. Very weak.
Next, What countries have been responsible for the most DEATH over the past 100 years? That one is also easy, The United States and Isreal. So again according to your flawed reasoning, these are both Socialist regimes? Again WEAK at best.
Beck - I told you yesterday that this guy is a drunk druggie, who barely finished high school, and dropped out of his only college course (that Joe Liberman got him into), and you hold what he says as gospel? Ever hear of the term the blind leading the blind? Now I see why you have so much time to write on here all day. I bet you are in a dark room with a flash light on your face in fron of a chalk board.Are you out of your mind? Stalin killed at least 35 million people, Mao killed at least 70 million people, and the list goes on... how about pol pot? Go read a book... specifically the "lil black book of communism".
And no, I look at what beck says, then compare that to what the left is doing. It is simple to see. Actions speak louder that words, including beck's words.
And I know exactly what leftist ideologies are what... I simply generalize them as leant leftists, it is so much easier that way. Would you like definitions of all those leftist ideologies? Let me know, I will school you on them.Sure, provide them. I will give you odds on how wrong your intrepretation will be. Got Pay Pay?
And, bearing in mind that Stalin et al were capitalists, how many lives have been shortened by capitalism?
When talking about the mass murders caused by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. don't forget to add the extermination and relocations policies that we, The United States, had against the Native Americans. Hitler was very familiar with US history and got the idea of relocating and exterminating "undesirables" for our anti-Indian policies of the 19th Century. He outlined this in his rough draft of Mein Kampf sequal.
33rd, sorry, but here is a link that refutes all of the points. Please slow down and read it all. It is an eye opener I think.
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html
Hitler believed in Communism by force. He supposedly watched his mother Die, working for an Austrian Jewish Family that owned the factory she worked in, in Austria. She was a devoud Catholic, he participated in it with her but hated it as a youth. After her death He was taken in by socialists, and educated in Communist Youth Organizations and Camps as a teen.
He was considered a brilliant advanced student when it came to Communist teachings. He devoured the Books. Memorised the leaders speaches and beliefs. He learned and rose legaly into power.
Jews had well migrated through Europe long before Hitler, and were seated as the Merchant Class. They either had the monies privately, or the Bank, or at least the Banks ear.
They assimilated through the various countries and culture and were well settled. Some of the original Tribes migrated away from Israel, and after the 70 year exile, did not return to Israel, several went to the north to Europe, or what was then Europe. Mixed in and settled there.
Their destruction was earmarked well ahead of the Peace treaty, that after WW1, assisted in the cause of the depressions in France, Italy and especialy Germany, driving Germany into deep poverty, while paying back retributions. There is so, so much more than what you write here.
Just read it all first then consider the whole story. If Hitler was to unify Europe he needed control of the Banks, thus the elimination of the Merchant class, and take the money to take for Himself. Thus Banks controlled by the State, making a new Money- Merchant Class, without the Jews. His hatred for the Jews he held responsible for His mothers death, His hatred for religion and love for Communism all comming togeather to make his Mind set. He knew what he was doing, psychotic or not.
Hitler accelerated the Murders when the US entered the War, He did not start them then, because he wanted the Jewish Race removed before He became heavily involved with England and America. There are many recoverd and saved communications, that show this.
He wanted all of it. The destruction of the Jews and all of Europe. It was a calculated plan, possible and compleated long before America decided to act. And it actually started early before the war in Italy Austria, and Poland before WW2 was officially under way, or considered as declared war.
American Diplomats and traveling US Military Liaison's to Germany and Italy reported many atrocities before we entered the war.
He had Arab alliances, African alliances, Asian alliances and deals and promises struck by the time it officaly started. It was cold brutal calculation. And some hidden History also shows it was aided and abeded with Arab and some Hidden Ottoman influences also. Much more than what you are saying or indicating.33rd, here is also another reasom Hitler hated the Jews, if you will, look up the People listed it will also show more light as to what he was, and what the culture was like then.
Because It was not "reasoning" like you and I reason. It was based in a vile hatred. fueled by events and teachings in his life experiences.
You have to understand also that it wasn't just Hitler, but thousands of ordinary Germans who hated the Jews and used the racial ideas of Nazism and the Views of the Socialist National Party to take advantage of, evict, steal from, and murder the Jews.
This attitude at the time, ran deep (and may still in some circles) in Germany in the 30s. The causes go way back in History
Nearly 450 years ago Martin Luther, whose influence on German thought was enormous, published horrific anti-Semitic statements. He advocated getting all Jews out of the German areas. He wanted them to be stripped of everything they owned and evicted.
He said that after this event they would then "sit around in their synagogues complaining to their God about the way they were treated."
Hegel, was another massive influence on Hitler. He believed in blind obedience to the State as the supreme ruler of the individual.
He and many other Germans believed in war, believed in a lack of compassion to prevent weakness, and believed that Jews and others were to blame for all things wrong in the world.
There is an excellent summation of this in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich- It appears on pages 97- 113 and covers Fichte, Hegel, Luther and the weird writings of H.S. Chamberlain, all revelavant to understanding the time in History, as well as Hitler and the others in the Socialist national Party that came to rise In Germany, They also blamed the Jews for Germany loosing WW1.
Hope all of this helps some.If you read Nietzsche, he espoused a serious fear and undertsanding, that Anti-Semitism was a cancer which was slowly eating away his country, Germany,
He reflects this in his saying, "...an organism is only as strong as the weakest desease which kills it." Alot of people try to say Nietzsche was an anti-Semite, he wasn't, he dispised it and saw what it was doing to his people, and Europe.
It was Bernard Forster, a reknowned Propagandist for the NAZIs and husband to Elizebeth Nietzsche, and she, Nietzsche's sister, who co-opted his writiings for the NAZI party.
It is true that all German soldiers carried, "thus Spoke Zarathustra" in thier pockets, but Nietzsche himself would never have abided by such a use of his works. Was he a German elitist, yes, was he insane from syphillis in the end, yes, was he an anti-semite, no.
Alot of History has been twisted all around.
Many point to the "Will To Power" as his seminal work, it wasn't, it is just a random collection of his meanderings and opinions, arranged to put forth the the ideas of those who compiled it, Bernard Forster and Elizebeth Nietzsche.
Nietzsche saw the hate devouring his nation and screamed and railed against it... in the end they ignored him and twisted his writings. The out-come of what was occurring in Germany, and indeed across Europe in all countries, and the Middle-East, was visible to those who looked. Matter of fact Nietsche said it would not be a century till Germany and Europe would fall prey to their own hatred.
And it happened as he foretold.
Matter of fact, also, Nietzsche ended his life-long friendship with Richard Wagner over Wagner's vicious anti-semitism, and his leading Germany down that path with such vehemance and glory. ie; see Wagner's music, full of anti-Semitism.heading that way, just looked up some more on Nietzsche also.
clear up a possible no fact for me?
was Ava (His secretary - Lover) an original US Plant that backfierd, when she fell for Him?
I was told that and thought, ummmmm do not think so?I have never bought that... but who can say the games that were played behind the scenes. I would say no.
Be careful on the Nietzsche search... alot of mis-information out there. I have read all his works and know what he thought from his own words. That is the best research, alot of Nietzsche can be taken out of context and twisted because he was very truthful about issues when he vivasected them. Definitely the greatest thinker of all time. He fights all sides of the issue with equaol vigor, so it is easy to mistake, or twist, what he is actually fighting for and saying. As in his tracts on Christianity, many say Nietzsche said God is dead... he did not... he said God is dead and we have killed him, his blood is suppon our hands, stains our dress, mars our soul. He understood that no morals ie; no God because man is by nature a selfish creature, means that societies would war and fail in the end.
So read it for yourself and interpret it yourself. As I said he fights all sides of the issue with equal vigor and commitment. do not get confused as to which side he supports, that is not his intent in his writings, his intent is to show the facts and truth of things. Because we know as Nietzsche told us, There is no thing in itself, all things are valued by their affect upon and inter-actions with, another, or other things.
So watch yourself Dutch, he has a way of working a mind into knots if you do not go slow. And that is nothing against your intelligence, I know few who can understand Nietzsche in the first hurried look.will not hurry, many things to learn, the study is facinating, right now it is book titles and begining research, to get a start point for Him. I have read him some, and what you say is true. Warning taken in good spirit TM.
It should not be forgotten either that most of the 'upper' classes of Europe, Britain and America also supported the ideas espoused by Hitler, not just Germany. The only real conflict was over assets and interests. France fell so quickly because ofhte advance nature of hte German attack but also all the officers abandoned their troops. In the UK the local (big, rich) farmers in my area around Manston Aerodrome were sharply divided and one especially was a prominent and outspoken Nazi sympathiser. The bombing of Manston Aerodrome was continuous, accurate and effective with many tales of guiding lights appearing in fields around the airport. I am mildly surprised that these people were not rounded up and interned at the time.
Most of the world was anti-semitic, racist and gay was illegal.German sympathisers were eventualy rounded up I thought. Guess maybe not so. Good points. I had forgotten about the French Officers leaving.
Not only were they not rounded up - they kept everything and continued just as before. A friend's father lamented that Britain did not join with Hitler's Germany when he offered it - until the day he died a multi millionaire farmer, his land right next to Manston airport still. The family share the old boy's views, except the grandson who became a Buddhist, inherited control of the family fortune in trust when he was twenty one and they sectioned him at 22 when he started to give away the unwanted items from the several big houses and several farm-workers houses they own. As far as I am aware he is still in the care of his father which keeps control of the money within that slightly disgusting family.
a vile family indeed from what you describe. How did they stay aloof of the authorities.... well answed my own here. he had money of course he would keep them away then.
Yes they were. And that is why Israel can no longer trust the world to defend them and need their country as it stands.
Don't forget Blacklisted by History M Stanton Evans., Dutch.
Communism; Is a theoretical, "Social System", in which land and capital are collectively owned and class divisions do not exist,-(theoretically speaking, that is.)-:also the name applied to the "Socialist" system controlled by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and other countries.
The word derived from the same root word for "communal", or, "community", and implies common ownership and cooperative effort, the anti-thesis to Capitalism.
Philosophers and Social reformers have long envisioned perfected societies, partly or entirely, based on the communal model; ie; the Pholosopher Kings in Platos Republic, were seen as living communally, sharing everything and owning nothing; Thomas Moore's fictional Eutopia of 1516 imagined an ideal commonwealth based on commnual property, mutual benifit and universal tolerance; the Diggers of 17th century England practiced an agrarian communism, that abolished land ownership and social distinctions.-(and the "commonwealth" movement is today attempting to regain momentum and movement in America and world wide.)-
"Perfect Communism" was thought, by Marx and others, to have existed in ancient tribal societies, but in the civilized world perfect Communism has never been realized outside small scale religious and communal experiments.
Communism, as a "Political System";.. Arose in the early 19th century. The term was first used as a synonym for "Socialism",-(State or Worker's control of the means of production, I will cover that in the Socialism post in a minute.)-, but later become associated with the views espoused by Marx and Engel's Communist Manifesto in 1848, that capitalism could only be over-come by means of violent revolution, not through gradual evolution,-(Gramsci argued a gradual march throughout the institutions of western culture, was the only way to accomplish that task- I will cover that under Cultural Marxism.)
Marx concieved of, "full Communism", as the final stage of history, when the state would, "wither away", as he put it.Collective labor would produce a permanent over-abundance of neccessary goods, and each person would contribute, "according to his own ability, and recieve,(from the common storehouse, or "comonwealth".)accordoing to need". Their, the Leftists favorite quote of all time.
Marx's vision of "full Communism" was never approached by the USSR, the first revolutionary Communist State, or by any of the other nations led by Communist parties. ALL HAVE BEEN TO ONE EXTENT OR ANOTHER, EXAMPLES OF TOTALITARIAN "STATE SOCIALISM", and that includes China, characterized by central economic planning and rewards conditioned on performance,(as well as party loyalty).
Marxism/Lenninism adopted as Soviet orthodoxy by Stalin, purported to combine the economic theories of Marx with Lenin's doctrine of, "Democratic Centralism", which called for grass-roots participation and free debate of policy within hte Communist Party Hierarchy. in reality, Maxism/Leninism re-interpreted both men's thinking order to justify dictatorial ruleand enforce rigid party discipline.
The Soviets domination over world Communist ideology was weakened from the 1950s onward, because of the defections of China, Yugoslovia and Albania from the Soviet sphere of orbit; by the NATIONALIST character of Communisn in post-Colonial parties in Africa and Asain Countries; and by the rise of Euro-Communism, as several Communist parties i the west adopted platforms that urged Democratic social and economic reforms within Capitalist Systems. Within the Soviet Union itself, Nikita Khruhshov's de-stalinization programs of the 50s and Mikhail Gerbachev's perestroika reforms in the 1980s vertually abolished "Soviet Orthodox Communism". And thus we come to today.
I hope you enjoyed this first lesson in the series. I will get to another right this minute for you. See you in about 20 minutes, man.In modern parlance, "Communism" and "Socialism" are blanket terms for anything that TMMason disapproves of. These words have become remarkably flexible, being used to describe people and movements on all points of the political spectrum, from the extreme left to the extreme right and all points between.
Why then do you automatically start spouting "leant leftist" at anything you don't like, whether they're left-wing or right-wing? It just sounds like you're crying commie at everything you disapprove of.
In my travels, I have seen the result of years of Communism, and some exposure to Socialism, and I can say up front, both are nothing to make light of, or ignore. They are dangerous, and not at all what is now talked about in the USA as possible with the rose color youth glasses!
I am by far no authority on either, but what I saw was an un-justifiable and hard life sentence.I agree fully. That is why I love Sen. Joe McCarthy... and fight so ardently in his nmame.
I know you all do not like it... but I KNOW, and many other do also, that he was speaking the truth.
A friend of mine has penned a great novel on Joe McCarthy, I would hope you would read it... "Blacklisted By History", -M. Stanton Evans-.
It is jammed full of Senate records, KGB, -CIA oss- State Dept, which has played a major role in treason in this nation, sorry, the GRU, VENONNA, HUAC and so many many more and it is a true American history text showing the truth of what Joe said, and we today are living the results of their infilltration. I know you do not like my avatar... but don't close you mind to this.... please.
And those records can be verified online in the Senate records themselves. Quite revealing."I can say up front, both [communism and socialism] are nothing to make light of, or ignore. "
Agreed, but here's the thing: when someone calls everything he doesn't like a communist plot, it kinda dilutes the alarm, doesn't it? It's like the boy who cried Commie--I mean, wolf. maybe someday there's going to be an actual communist plot, and your alarm is going to fall on deaf ears because you've spouted all this kneejerk "It's the Commies! The Commies are doing it! The commies are destroying our civilization by putting flouride in the water! The Commies are infiltrating hubpages! Commies! It's Commies I tell ya!"Never said it was all a commnist plot, your exagerration... not mine.
I call you all "Leant Leftists", because you lean left to different degrees.
The rest is all you own conscienses.Wait, did I say you were the one crying commie? Or is that a guilty conscience I hear?
I wonder TM, do you actually read what you post at all or do you post totally contradictory ideas as a wind up?
For totalitarian state socialism, also read totalitarian state capitalism, there is no difference between them, beyond the name.Your buddy asked for the definitions, I am giving them to you. Too bad if you do not like them. They are a fact.
But you are totally missing the point. They contradict what you claim socialism is all about.
You bang on about nasty communist Stalin in nasty communist Russia, but then you admit that no major country has ever been communist!"Perfect Communism" or as Marx called it, "Full Communism", has never been achieved, not Communism. And yes the systems have been intertwined and mixed to differing degrees, thus proving me correct, is can all be called "leant leftist".
The only difference is how far you lean left.
The differences are in degree of appication, not what they are at their core.
And I wrote it, so of course I read it... you all just cannot accept that someone knows the truth and you cannot shut me down.I've no desire to shut you down - I'm getting too much fun out of watching you contradict yourself right left and centre.
If you haven't read Marx and Engal's Communist Manifesto, and do not understand the concept of "Full Communism", then that is your problem. All my information is correct and varifiable through research.
It is clearly explained in my post and if you do not like it, that is too bad. Many a Communist country has treid to attain full Communism, but none have. Usually because they have fell apart economically, or as a Society before the goal can be attained, or the people revolt against the strictness of the doctrines as regards their lives and country and individuality. That doesn't mean that country is not Communist. There is only so much oppression any man will tolerate before he takes his freedom back from the State.You are indeed a very funny fellow, I just love watching the shapes you tie yourself into.
First no major country and then many a communist country.
As I say, I love watching you trying to be right, always, even when it has you spinning like a top.If you cannot read and comprehend, that is your problem. You know the difference between Marx's "Full Communism", and the Communist systems that have been.
Of which all have ended in failure and mass slaughter of their own and others.
And I am not spinning anywhere... lol... you are just not as intelligent as I supposed you to be. Obviously if you cannot grasp a simple concept of differences of degrees, then you need to go back and learn to comprehend on a deeper level.I'd rather stick with your claim that there has been no true communist systems.
And remind me, how many have died from capitalism?Name the true "Full Communism" state... where is it? It has not existed. though many have tried, and many have died in that trying.
Tell me, which states have tried true communism?
It's your claim, not mine.
Pure communism and capitsalism looks good on paper, but in practically they don't work. It's the working class that suffers in both systems.
I don't agree with right or left, but I'll tell you this from experience. Communism, as beautiful an idea as it appears to be, won't ever come to fruition. It's only an overture to a dictatorship government.And not just communism, any political ideal gaining too much power will result in a dictatorship, be it left or right.
This is why TM with his total opposition to any form of dissent is just as dangerous as Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Hitler, or any other right winger gaining too much power.
Strong and honest government needs strong and honest opposition or else we just end up with a dictatorship and generally a right wing dictatorship at that!
The electorate, perhaps unconsciously, reflects this. Generally any government serves one or two terms in power and is then replaced by the party of the other side limiting anything that any party can achieve.
This is very true. And socialism in Europe seems to work fine because there is a balance between parties. However, I was born and raised in Cuba, which means I hear the word socialism and my eye twitches involuntarily.
I understand that it's not really communism, it's Castro's dictatorship, but the propaganda came under the label of "socialism" and "communisim"; which is the reason why most Cubans in exhile are Republicans, because anything that hints to the government replacing private agencies starts sounding like socialism/communism.Don't tell any one but I'm not a radical socialist, that's a position that has been forced on me by these forums.
I would find living in an entirely socialist economy just as abhorrent as living in an entirely capitalist one.
I do strongly believe that the basic means of production, the fuel, raw materials, distribution, and welfare, health should be run by the state.
Let the state take more control of the bigger and more abusive businesses but leave well alone the man who wants to make widgets in his shed.
So my arguing my point and not agreeing with you, is not allowing dissent.
Whatever.
And yes any form of Govt. can become a totalatarian one, or a Fascist one, but the 20th century has shown that that is the result of most Communist and Socialist regimes.
I have never shut anyones opinion down in any way other than telling the truth and baffling them. And that is not totalatarianOr because the capitalist government is seen as the status quo and perfectly acceptable!
Remind me again, how many deaths has capitalism been responsible for?I told you no questions answered for you, till you go answer mine. I will gve you a hint though, it is alot less than the Marxian Systems have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_ … _Communism
I don't need you to show me anything, I know already.You show me your's.
As I said elsewhere, you don't ask questions, you hector and belittle and lecture, but you don't ask questions.
And besides, that question was first asked a long time before your moratorium.I don't need you to show me anything, I know already
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_ … _Communism
."It is also argued that a similar chronicle of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an examination of colonialism and capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, the Black Book's attribution of 1 million deaths in Vietnam to Communism while ignoring the U.S. role has been criticized as a methodological flaw.[16]
Critics have argued that capitalist countries could be held responsible for a similar number of deaths. Noam Chomsky, for example, writes that Amartya Sen in the early 1980s estimated the excess of mortality in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of medical resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky therefore argues that, "suppos[ing] we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of ... Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone."
How many have been killed in America's anti communism wars, how many miners, how many truck drivers, how many roofers, how many children up chimneys?
I don't need you to show me anything, I know already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_ … _Communism
And for anyone to claim to be able to give you an accurate count of, "Deaths attributed to Capitalism", is pure dishonesty.
How would you measure such a metric? People ran over at Walmart count too? Do we just attribute all wars to money? How? What metric? Even the "Capitalism death toll Project" couldn't devise, or concieve of a realiable metric.
So that is a red herring argument.As is your count of deaths attributable to communism.
That isn't my count... lolllll. That is history's.
And another thing, if we blame Capitalism for deaths in industry and by products, then the State, and by inference the Marxian System itself would be responsible for many hundreds of thousands of more deaths on top of the count from the lil black book.
It is only fair, if Capitalism is responsible for theirs industries, then so are the Marxian systems.You didn't take note then of the extract that I posted from the link that you posted?
Chomsky... really reliable. lol
And it is not that I don't understand his logic, just that i think he is a lil biased as far as discussing America and Capitalism.
And I have not said America, or Capitalism, are bloodless. Just not as bloody.
So we could sit here and toss nubers at one another all day, which would get quite monotonous.
So why don't we just agree to dis-agree about the exact numbers.
I think to sit here and try to toll them up on either side is probrably an unrealistic goose hunt. We will never know the true #s of deaths caused by any of the Systems of Govt in this world.
Man has killed one another from the time of creation, so to sit here adding them up is a... well?... I don't know what it is, but it isn't realistic to think eiother of us are right in whole on this issue.Agreed, so this will see an end to you saying Stalin killed 50 billion and Mao killed 173 billion etc and I'll stop countering, OK?
There you go with the exagerrations again.
And I would term it the marxian war against Capitalism, not the other way around, John.
But yeah we can agree it was only 35 million by Stalin, and 70 million by Mao.OK if you want to play it that way, capitalism over 100 million deaths . . .
And by the way, no definite figure on how many people starved in china, estimates range from 40 to 70 million.
The #s from the black book are accepted by Historians as accurate, and note they only reflect deaths of their own people.
Other than that I do not see a metric that would add to that many under "Capitalism".
But I would agree with 15 to 30 million for America, in wars, Slavery, internal conflict, and what you would call colonialism, and I would call "the natural evolution of societies, see; Johann Jakob Bachofin, he wrote on the evolution of societies, and their transformations between certain cyclic orders.
Violence is within us, it is our nature, and we are our greatest threat to each other. Some interesting reading, a lil antiquated in places, but very interesting look at the evolution of societies.
There are no contridictions in my statements.
Fascism; Is a Political ideology that stresses; nationalism, centrally regulated private enterprise, the SUBORDINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE STATE, and a ONE PARTY TOTALITARIAN GOVT., usually under the dictatorial rule of a charismatic leader.
The term is derived from the Latin, "Fasces", an ancient Roman symbol of authority consiting of a bundle of rods with a protruding ax.
The Ideological foundation of Fascism are found in the late 19th century reactions against, "Capitalism", and, "Liberal Democracy", on the one hand,... and against "Marxist Materialism" on the other.
The theorists who inspired Fascist doctrine represented a wide ideological spectrum, but they tended to share a belief in the nation as a sacred entity, in which individual interests must yield to national goals. They include the French syndicalist, George Sorel, who advocated violence to achieve revolutionary change, and the use of National Myths to unify the populace, Charles Maurras, leader of the French Nationalist Movement, Action Francaise, who espoused a monarchical nationalism; and Giovanne Gentile, theorist of the Italian "Corporate State", in which economic activity was regulated by bussiness and worker's groups under Fascist Party control. Fascist thought was also influenced by Social Darwinism, with its implications that the strongest were the fittest to survive, and by the theory of Political Elites espoused by Italian Sociologists, Vilfredo Pareto and Geatano Mosca.
In the Fascist state, the INDIVIDUAL IS SEEN AS SUBORDINATE TO THE COMMUNITY; rigid discipline and unquestioning acceptance of the state's authority became an ethic of self-sacrifice and patriotic loyalty.
Hitler and the NAZIs, though starting as Socialists, embraced and appropriated Richards Wagner's romantic nationalism, the fiction of the Aryan, "master race", and Nietzsche, (the greatest mind in all Philosohic thought)-, put forth his ubermensch as superior beings who represent a new, higher civilization, to assert Germany's devine mission to lead and dominate the world.
While most Fascist movements have espoused and extreme nationalism, Germany's Fascism was distinguished by racist ideals that transcended national boundries, although Pan-German sentiments helped inspire the invasions of Germany's nieghbors early in the war.
In post-war Europe and other industrialized countries, fascist and neo-Nazi movements have sprung up on the fringes of political systems, often in reaction to non-native immigration. Capitalizing on economic insecurities and political alienation in the working class of those Societies, especially among young men, these groups ideologies generally envision the replacement of the present system with an orderly racially homogeneous, devinely sanctioned nation.Fine, but that isn't what socialism is about, in fact it's impossible to get much further away from socialism than that.
Let's look at it more closely, you say "stresses nationalism" like all standing around saying how great America is?
"Centrally regulated private enterprise" a bit like the US wouldn't you say, though not quite so blatantly.
"The subordination of the individual to the state" Think the US Marines here, or come to that, every serving man and every body who up holds them as the American dream.
"A one party totalitarian state" you mean like the US when you've got rid of all the lefties and socialists?I didn't define Socialism John. I defined that for you the other day, and you loved the definition. So stop jerking around just to argue. That is as regards Fascism.
If you had read it you would have noted the beginning statement, "Fascism, is a ploitacal..." Wow you really don't know how to read and understand something huh.
And no I mean the US as it stands today with the Leftists and Prgressives in control. Along with all the Leftists siezing the private sector through regulations, and Obama and Bush's, the dems and Prgressives bailouts and subsides.Well you said you did but when I said I had no memory of it and asked you to repost it you went strangely quiet.
I didn't see that comment.. so I will go ahead and post it for you again if you want. And you could have asked at anytime yesterday when we were trading comments a hundred and hour. But if you want it I will do it.
It does get somewhat confusing keeping track when there is not even an indication that you are following a thread.
Yes, I would like to see it.I follow the thread and answer all questions, unlike the Leftists who simply hurl insults and blasts questions at someone, without ever answering one posed to them.
You definition is below.?????????????
Above?
No comment from me and I've never seen it before.What are you talking about now?...
The definition is below.You don't know up from down! Doesn't surprise me. Your answer is above, over, on top.
Communism and Fascism is above... Socailism is down below. If your just going to play lil games, then forget discussing anything.
And when you start acting like you actually want to have a conversation and not just play games I will answer more questions.
Socialism is down below, not above and I didn't say it was, you did. You read the Fascism definition and said "that isn't Socialism..." Well no shit! ...even though the post itself is titled and strrted with, "Fascism, is a political.." So you obviously didn't read it.
But play your lil games. Everyone can see them.Erm, I read your post, it's at the bottom of the page and yet says your answer is below!
Who exactly is playing games?
No you don't answer all questions, you don't even answer all questions when you have obviously seen them, for example, I asked you a two part question, you answered the first part but ignored the second though I asked it on more than one occasion, namely, how many lives has capitalism shortened.
That is a definition for Fascism, not Socialism.
Hitler was an evil son of a big bitch. I hate him even if he's dead. He was wicked incarnated by satna himself. I don't care who was and who wasn't suffering at that time. It's mean rotten and nasty and theirs no cure for his deeds. GOD will punish him i don't even want to think he went to heaven. He must be a candidate of HELL and i don't pity him.
@33rdn8th sounds like you trying to said he had a good reason. It's like all the poor people in the world making a plan to have a final solution to done away with all the wealthy people on the earth. I'd never buy that crap
Socialism is a Political System in which the means of production and distribution, are controlled by the Govt. or the workers, and decisions on the allocation of resources are made centrally or collectively. (It is contrasted with Capitalism, which operates on the pricples of private ownership, profit, and competition within a free market system). Like capitalism, Socialism is also an "Social Ideology", a view of human nature and the way the world should work.
Socialism is also used as an unbrella term for a variety of other theories sharing the general view that people are basically cooperative, not competative, and that systems of control based on private property, wealth, and class are harmful to the "common welfare". It is thus applied to systems so desparate as the Soviet system and the Capitalist Welfare State.
as I said the other day, Socialists have differed over several basic questions of theory and practice.
These include the question of whether any existing systems can gradually evolve into a Socialist system, or if they have to be swept away in violent revolution. (-Marx and Engel say yes, through violence, and Antonio Gramsci states that a slow march through the Cutural Institutions and govts., to re-write histories, re-educate and redefine thought through minipulation of language, history etc, is the way to achieve this end.)-
Whether Socialism can be imposed from above, or be built up from below, -thus the Leftists battle cry of, "top down, bottom up, inside out", that is screamed today as a rallying cry by Leftists around America-. Whether central economic planning, decentralized decision making, or even limited free enterprise, (-as in America today.)- is most desirable; and whether Socialism is compatable with political pluralism, or must be implimented through a ideologically dedicated one party system, -(as we have had in America for decades now with the Leftists and Progressives, all under the guise of a two party system.)-
The term Socialism came into common use in the early 19th century as the converse of Individualism, the aquisitive self-interest espoused by Adam Smith and other supporters of the Capitalist Enterprise.
Modern Socialist thought originated with Karl Marx, -(gee didn't we just hear that name?... INTERESTING eh?)-, who concieved of Socialism as a, "postcapitalist stage of history", in which the Govt control of the means of production, under the dictatorship of a prolatariat, would eventually be replaced by Communism, -(ahh inagine that?)- ie;full communism as the natural state of society and man,- a perfect society, (Huh right.lol), class-less and stateless.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, European Socialist organizations and political parties were dominated by gradualists, such as Karl Kautsky. After the Russian revolution of 1917, however, the Soviet Unoin became the model of Socialism for many and its example the template for many.
Following WWII most western Socialists, repudiating the totalatarian Stalinism of Stalin's Russia, and conceding the durability of Capitalism, sought to reform rather than abolish Capitalist institutions.
Socialist and Social Democrat Political Parties, (sound familiar.)-, advocated- and in Europe largely effected- the nationalization of key industries and the establishment of comprehensive state sponsered social welfare programs.
However, in the African, Asian, and Latin, so called their-world countries, Socialism and Communism still inspired, adn do to this day, violent revolutionary movements, who were victorious in some few countries. ie; China, Cuba, Veitnam, and Angola.
Most industrialized nations, particularly in Europe, now have some form of MIXED MARKET ECONOMY, in which private enterprise is balanced by limited public ownership and extensive regulation and Social planning. (again, sound familiar America?)
This model, most sucessfully realized in Scandanavia, where living standards are higher that in most of Europe, is seen by many as the ideal mix of Socialism and Capitalism, supposedly combining the competitiveness of Capitalism, and the, "Social Justice" or "fairness", of Socialism. -( what a laugh that is.)-
There is your lil definition and history of Socialism, lesson, and your explaination of the mixed systems we see today, which the Leftists love to obfuscate regarding, with their, "you don't know what Socialism is, or Communism",.. when in fact those systems have been so muddled among one another, with Capitalism also thown into the mix... so as to make it nearly impossible to refer to one system or the other as, Socialist, Communist, or other-wise anything but, "Leant Leftists".Don't spam the forums, I was perfectly capable of finding the post above your post.
There is a name for people who play games like you... "Leant leftist"
That's another question of mine that you haven't answered - what's leant mean?
Well, if you had read the post, you would know. The explanation is right above us in the post itself.
I cannot help it if you cannot see it in there... it is called comprehension, John. But even though I answered this question 3 hours ago up above, I will answer it again.
TMMasonposted 3 hours ago in reply to this
"Perfect Communism" or as Marx called it, "Full Communism", has never been achieved, not Communism. And yes the systems have been intertwined and mixed to differing degrees, thus proving me correct, it can all be called, "leant leftist".
The only difference is how far you lean left.
And in the post above i phrase it like this...
There is your lil definition and history of Socialism, lesson, and your explaination of the mixed systems we see today, which the Leftists love to obfuscate regarding, with their, "you don't know what Socialism is, or Communism",.. when in fact those systems have been so muddled among one another, with Capitalism also thown into the mix... so as to make it nearly impossible to refer to one system or the other as, Socialist, Communist, or other-wise anything but, "Leant Leftists".
So yes. I did. You just have an issue with comprehension, as I have said all along. Anyone reading the posts in here would know the answer to that question. I hope that satifies you, but I doubt it will.
You still don't define it, but never mind, that's more than I would expect really.
There was a policeman in Manchester who described the local teens as feral, they took it as praise and feral became the word for anything great and good. I think I'll take a leaf from their book.There is a name for people who play games like you... "Leant leftist"
-TMMason
what the heck is this thread about? and what is it that the "Leant leftist" does that gets TM so fired up? Is it because they are so "lean"? hmmmmm. . .It was about the holocaust, then into Hitler, then into Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and finally into, "Leant Leftists". Oh what a tangled thread we weave...
Indeed, remembering that the victor writes the books.
Yes they do, and the losers make excuses as to why they lost, those who begin hostilities spout justifications as to why they came, and those that resist exaggerate the purity of thier motives, also.
No one tells the whole truth, John.Gosh, you surprise me! Nobody tells the whole truth, who'da thought it!
I keep telling you, your assumptions of me are wrong, John.
But your so focused on the fact that I am a Conservative in the vain of Sen. Joe McCarthy, and I believe that blinds you to alot of other points about me. You are so wrapped into what you think you know of Sen Joe, and place that on me, without understanding what I mean.
I think if you would read the the book I reccommended, -"Blacklisted By History" M. Stanton Evans- you would see my side in a different light, John. You would understand my position and thinking alot clearer then, I believe. Besides, would it kill you to read another view of the history of that era?
As I said, I respect your opinions, I understand where your coming from. I do not judge everyone as harshly as alot here think I do. But I do call them "Leant Leftists" as a general discription, and I believe it insults you all for some reason.
That's why I copy-righted it.
He was psycopathic murderer. Obsessed with Killing Jews and Controling the world! Like..?
Odd is a good term here
it is 1:17am and I am bowing out good people, very fun time tonight and great points and info. well done Gentelman, sleep well and good night.
Hitler was just emotionally imbalanced due to a facing severe crises in childhood. he tried to redistribute income from rich to poor which undertook some hurdles by the rich Jews but Hitler was desperate and determined to change the fate of poor in his country.
the ideology was not bad but the line of action was not proper.
same things are happening in Pakistan as read here
live pakistan newsGREAT QUESTION! -Hitlar was a strategical military genius but he abused his gift to persecute others, he thought non atherians to be in-pure, although it is true everyone inherits the earth the moment we are born and future racism from leaders and politician's will always lead to no good, it is also true hitlar was not the inventer of forced genetic selection, it was first an englishman then an american took it a step further, fortunatly the american gonverment eventually realized the inhumanity of artificial genetic selection, judging someone on thier i.q. is nearly as bad as judging someone with dark skin or blue eyes or having an arm mising or the blind and so on, it can never be allowed or that one race, or even one person, should never be able to rezide over someone else's life, the death penalty should be abolished everywhere because no one is god on earth and therefore should never be allowed to extinguish another persons existance no matter what! It's a mark on history that such a gifted strategist and leader turned into sadistic racist predgidist person rather than use his gift to help his fellow earthlings, we are all in it together and we have to draw on the strength's we have been given for the greater good of the human race.....we should all try to be a better person tomorrow than we are today, and anyone not pulling in this direction will never be persercuted just left behind led by thier own mind, thought bought on by thier own reasoning leading them to the person they want to become, as long as people dont hurt or affect others negatively, its all good!
Yes. I like Adolf Hitler very much. more than Churchill and Roosewelt. He was more intelligent than any of the western leaders of his times. His organising skill should not be underestimated. He made Germany the most powerful nation in Europe in six years. He could conduct the war for six more years with what he has formed in the previous six years.
But it is not necessary that all those whom I like should be good persons. Hitler was a great criminal, who met his own fate.
Hitler decided that Jews were unfit to live anymore. But providence decided that Hitler was unfit to live anymore after April 30, 1945.
Related Discussions
- 11
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?
by Peter V 10 years ago
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?I have my own opinion but what do you think of the current direction America is heading (towards socialism)? Do you think this is very bad and goes against what America was founded on or is this generally a good thing? Please support your...
- 39
Is Communism Dead....?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 11 years ago
One of my friends on forums thinks that Capitalism is dying, almost dead. But what about Communism? Isn't Communism already dead?I would like to clear that I am neither a Capitalist, nor a Communist and even not a Socialist. I am posting this just to have discussions on this subject......
- 60
What is the big deal about socialism?
by Peeples 10 years ago
What is the big deal about socialism?Can someone explain to me why Americans (USA) typically say "socialist" in a negative way. I've been doing some research and many of these "socialist" societies are quite happy AND well provided for. So what is the big deal? Why are so many...
- 270
The case for Socialism
by Peter Freeman 12 years ago
Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a reasonable debate here. Not that I'm hopeful but it's worth a try:Socialists hold that...
- 14
Mises vs. Marx Capitalism vs. Socialism
by ga anderson 4 years ago
I saw Marx mentioned in a thread and then by chance stumbled across this site: misesvsmarx.aier.org - The March of History Of course, I admit it appealed to me because it leans my way, but it does have some good basic information if you are interested in the Marx/Socialism issue but don't want to...
- 271
Socialism and Communism?
by Sophia Angelique 13 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity, etc.Socialism is part of democracy and Canada, the US, the UK, all countries in...