Nazi for short.
- Bill Vance
I would add Islamo-ism to the above group.
Did the Nazi’s take control of the means of production within the state? Case closed.
I think you're wrong. Many of those Jews who vote with the Dims reject almost everything about Judaism. Some of those many may attend synagogue two or three times a year out of a sense of guilt, but the rest of the year they certainly live their lives as if Judaism is irrelevant. Coincidentally I began a thread yesterday which illustrates this.
Related to your thread, also, is Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism. Check out the reviews and comments.
ML/NJ
Yes, they were.
IBFNZ*
(In before Nazi Zot)
Step away from the exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The amount of upper case letters you use does not reverse the unpleasant truth. By EVERY definition, the Nazis were socialists and so is the current German government.
Is this really so difficult to understand? Lenin and Stalin preached class-based socialism, and directed their followers to harass, then imprison, then massacre the sub-human “enemies of the people” — kulaks/the bourgeoisie — for the greater glory of their god, The State; Hitler preached race-based socialism and directed his followers to harass, then imprison, then massacre the sub-human “enemies of the people” — Jews, Slavs, etc. — for the greater glory of his god, The State. Were there differences between the two systems? Of course, but from the perspective of anyone who believes in personal, economic or political liberty, constitutional government, the rule of law, etc., they were unquestionably two sides of the same coin.
See, this is where you go off track. The left may use those items in their rhetoric, but what the left stands for is:
Government control over every aspect of life.
That, my friend, is socialism. And that is exactly what the NAZI's were after. Control, not freedom.
(2) An essential component of Anglo-American rightism is a limited government with strongly defined individual rights.
(3) It is hardly a denial of history to point out that the National Socialist system was diametrically opposed to the Anglo-American system.
The fundamental building block of American civil society is the church, not race or party.
The fundamental principles of American government are representative bodies and federalism, not a system under which the there is no representative body and all laws derive from a Fuehrer.
The fundamental principles of American law are individual rights, not subordination of individual rights to the state by means of secret police apparati.
(4) In all these particulars, the National Socialist model resembles the Soviet model: one leader appointed for life, all laws deriving from the will of the leader or the central committee of his party, the outlawing of any party besides the leader's party, the abolition of representative bodies, the elimination of federal powers, the abolition of guarantees of individual rights, the government cooptation or persecution of the church as an organizing principle of civil society.
The Soviet model is, in the Anglo-American view, the quintessential leftist model. The National Socialist model resembles it closesly in nearly every particular - therefore by Anglo-American standards, National Socialism was a "left wing" phenomenon, or a "socialist" phenomenon, or a "jacobin" phenomenon or whatever term one wants to use to designate the left.
Nazis believed in socialism for all good Germans and death for the rest of us—this particular strain of socialism is called ‘national socialism’ and is surely different from ‘international socialism’ which advocates socialism for all good sheeple and death for the rest of us.
The Soviet Union “diverse”? I guess they had a bunch of gay composers and ballet dancers, but their blacks must have been really light-skinned.
Like Woodrow Wilson.
Who was a socialist.
Of course, unlike Hitler, Wilson didn't call himself one. He called himself a "Democrat".
Wrong.
Fascism is a step behind communism, which is the real name of the euphemism “socialism”.
In truth, anarchy is 1 side of the scale. Since we know we call commies “left”, that means total anarchy with no government is RIGHT. If left is opposite of right, that is.
Fascism is the allowance of personal property, but with no control of it. Alot like the US is becoming, easily demonstrated by all the “environmental” REGULATIONS put upon your property usage.
So, fascism really is closer to communism (no personal property) and cannot be logically called the opposite, and hence, not “right”. It is much more “left”.
We who believe in republican democracy with almost limitless freedom (except where it would interfere with others’) are most assuredly closer to “anarchy”, and thus, more “right”.
No way fascism is close to our views. Much closer to the so-called “left” style.
Hitler believed in government control of every aspect of life.
"We socialize human beings." Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was a socialist to the core.
L
“Fact is: the Nazis did were right-wing.”
Uhh, so you equate “right wing” with fascism, murder, race supremecy, genocide and a police state.
You should change your name to “I’manidiot Dude”.
Thanks for reinforcing 40 years of left wing media propaganda.
Call them whatever wing you want but their platform was that of liberals.... Anti-semites, gun grabbers, anti-church / pro-mysticism, pro slavery (think entitlements that have enslaved the poor in this country).
But Hitler in his speeches railed constantly against Capitalism, and he talked about eliminating class distinctions in Nazi Germany. So it seems to me his problem with ‘Bolshevism’ came from the fact that the movement was created in the Soviet Union. Yes, there were differences in rhetoric. Nazis talked about the elimination of races, like the Bolsheviks talked about the elimination of classes. But in many ways they both desired to create classless societies with strong central authority, through the elimination of their enemies.