Replies

In an attempt to explain how Nazi-ism and Socialism are different you set upon the extremely weak argument that Nazi-ism wasn't socialism because it wasn't intended to operate world-wide.

Nationalists want people to have loyalty to nations. That is incompatible with a brotherhood of all workers. That's all I ever said.

Hitler's calling the party national-socialist was clever, but it wasn't honest. Can we agree that Hitler was not honest?

Walt

Can we agree that Hitler was not honest?

Hitler was just as honest as you seem to be. On the one hand, you insist that “[the Supreme Court Justices] have the final say as to what is law in this country.” On the other hand, you whine and complain that the Supreme Court’s Dredd Scott decision “is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court. It was an attempt at social engineering...[which] said that blacks had no rights white men were bound to honor -- even though -- blacks could vote in five states."

Which is it? Constitutional ‘law of the land,’ or mere “social engineering?” You can’t have it both ways.

Bon appetit, friend Walt...

;>)

I said that in its purest form the brotherhood of workers would be worldwide.

May I ask where all this "worldwide brotherhood of workers" stuff is coming from, Walt? Sure, it appears heavily as a theme in socialist propaganda handouts but as far as the core theory of socialism is defined ("control of the means of production by the people"), it is simply not there.

Nationalists want people to have loyalty to nations.

Not really. Nationalists want unity and strength exercised toward THEIR particular nation and often seek to extend that nation to the world, but they rarely if ever encourage competitors by telling people to simply "have loyalty to nations," any old nation filling that role.

That is incompatible with a brotherhood of all workers.

No, and again, where did this worldwide brotherhood stuff come from? As for your alleged incompatibility it is simply not so. I've explained this in detail to you at great length, all of which you've ignored. I also directed your attention to statements by the founding thinkers of National Socialism, all of them avowed German marxists and all of whom saw German nationalism as the way to achieve socialism.

I'll even repost them here for you:

"The result of Bismarck's decision of the year 1879 was that Germany took on the role of the revolutionary; that is to say, of a state whose position in relation to the rest of the world is that of'a representative of a higher and more advanced economic system. Having realized this, we should perceive that in the present World Revolution, Germany represents the revolutionary, and her greatest antagonist, England, the counter-revolutionary side." - Paul Lensch

"Because in the sphere of ideas Germany was the most convinced exponent of all socialist dreams, and in the sphere of reality she was the most powerful architect of the most highly organized economic system. In us is the twentieth century. However the war may end, we are the exemplary people. Our ideas will determine the aims of the life of humanity. World History experiences at present the colossal spectacle that with us a new great ideal of life penetrates to final victory, while at the same time in England one of the World-Historical principles finally collapses." - Johann Plenge That's all I ever said. Hitler's calling the party national-socialist was clever, but it wasn't honest. Can we agree that Hitler was not honest?

I never said anything like that. I said that in its purest form the brotherhood of workers would be worldwide. This was an idea popular 80-90 years ago in this country. The IWW was an agent of this; several of its leaders were lynched.

Oh...am I to understand then that you are no longer even making an attempt to differentiate socialism and Nazi-ism? However, this *was* your response when challenged to differentiate socialism and Nazi-ism. It's weak, and it doesn't differentiate socialist policy from Nazi policy.

Nationalists want people to have loyalty to nations. That is incompatible with a brotherhood of all workers. That's all I ever said.

A brotherhood of workers only included humans. In Hitler's view, these were Aryans alone. Thus, we actually have the *MOST* purely Socialist government in Nazi-ism by THAT claim.

Hitler's calling the party national-socialist was clever, but it wasn't honest. Can we agree that Hitler was not honest?

Can we look at Hitler's actions rather than his rhetoric? Perhaps honesty is less important than the revealing aspect of action. Nonetheless, Hitler's choice (if indeed it WAS his choice) of name for the nationalist-socialist party was entirely apropo as long as the only humans were Aryans. His actions certainly reflected his belief that Aryans were the only humans...so does his rhetoric. I suppose even a troll has to admit that a liar tells the truth once in awhile.