Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

originally posted by: GamleGamle
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Hihi you made me think of those meme pictures.

What the... think I do
What the.... Think I do
What I actually do and so on.

I think the OP in essence wishes to point out that people more often than not do not make the distinction between what people thought they were getting into and what actually transpired, but that message is getting a little skewed or is going sideways because it is clear he has some kind of axe to grind with socialism in general.

That is what I think

Kind Regards

Well, everyone needs to understand ...

A fascist dictator doesn't rise to power by saying, "Hey, elect/vote for me -- I'm a fascist dictator who wants to rule with an iron fist!" ... No, usually these people come to power by creating a personality cult around them under the guise of being a populist. These leaders pander to their audience and tell them what they want to hear.

Now, ALL politicians do that...but only a select few have done a 180 once elected, got away with it, and moved to turn their country into a totalitarian fascist regime. And in those cases, those leaders lead countries that had values more closely aligned with conservatives.

a reply to: caterpillage

What are you falling for now? Slick words? Again? Really?

Aren't we all though?

a reply to: neo96

Oh for crying out loud, neo!!!!

This post of yours is so absurd I can hardly believe it. It's beneath even you.......
it's ludicrous.

When I was 10, my mom said to me when I'd come up with ridiculous, willfully belligerent remarks: "Stop being so obtuse!"


That's what I'm thinking right now - toward you.

Stop being so obtuse.

(If you don't know what obtuse means, look it up.
Likewise, if you [ STILL ] don't know what Democratic Socialism means.....
look it up.)

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I am not trying anything, if anything, all you are doing, alongside a few others, is make claims. What I posted was evidence. Understand the difference? And if you are going to respond perhaps it would help you better by actually proving that Hitler's policies were not socialist. I raise your "relax man" with "here are the 25 points of Hitler's Nazi manifesto and his policies"... All you can give as a response is "relax"... That's your evidence...

a reply to: neo96

Socialism is the regulation of resources and people by the government for the good of the people.

When Hitler came to power the people part was cut from that equation.
His insistence on private property just proves that socialism as in his eyes was not the same as giving up private property. The problem with Hitler is that as soon as the game pieces were set all the Isms in the world did not matter any more.... there was only the Reich, the ethnic cleansing, the war machine. All else was mute.

The ""no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself"" quote is about everything being subservient to his ideal of a Greater Germany, as him being the personification of Justice for the German people. The promised Golden Era brought about through his machinations in his eyes of course. In other words the megalomania of one man and his brainwashed followers. Nothing socialist about it. Yeah maybe when the war was over in his favor........... yeah right.

Kind Regards

a reply to: GamleGamle

I'm not an economist. I could quote economists, cut and paste economist things, but that doesn't make me an economist.

I can only truly write about the economy as how it would affect me personally. And that's how I would vote.

Personally.

Of course that's what everyone does, so the wheel keeps turning.

But I worked hard for what I have. And to have some or part of it taken by the government to be given to someone who didn't work for it, just rubs me the wrong way.

American rightwingers rewriting history attempt #389653

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: caterpillage

What are you falling for now? Slick words? Again? Really?

Aren't we all though?

We have allmost come to demand it. The more outrageous the better.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Oh yeah is so 'absurd'.

Like Totally IGNORE Sanders specifically targeting a minority.

Why yes people Sander supporters think that is just PERFECTLY acceptable.

So did the nazi's.

And what's really funny? I know a TON of conservatives that toy around with the idea of anarchy. They like the "no government" or whatever they think anarchists are all about.

Reality?

True anarchists don't believe in owning personal property. LOL I'm serious, it's the ultimate in hypocrisy!

The statement "property is theft" is one of anarchism's most famous sayings. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that anyone who rejects this statement is not an anarchist. This maxim works in two related ways. Firstly, it recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such

infoshop.org

Actually when you examine all of the big anarchist movements that had any traction through history, they had Marxist elements embedded in them! But what was this, when did it happen?

Revolutionary Catalonia (July 21, 1936 – 1939) was the part of Catalonia (a region in northeast Spain) controlled by the anarchist and socialist trade unions, parties, and militias during the Spanish Civil War.

Even George Orwell himself saw it!

It was the first time I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. — George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, ch. I[17]

Wikipedia - Revolutionary Catalonia

So, the next time you have an uber-conservative friend talk about anarchy -- you might want to point out it's a lot closer in many ways to communism and has many, many liberal elements embedded in it.

Well nobody seems to be offering any convincing rebuttals.

Therefore, Fascism is indeed Left Wing.

Always has been, always will be.

And with the majority of "officially accepted" opinions of scholars and such being Left Wing sources, it stands to reason a major "denazification" effort has been necessary for the Left Wing to defend itself and defer their guilt to an opposite side created by their own Hegelian Dialectic.

Just look at who wrote the victory histories of WW2.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Anarchy is simply a means to an end, not the end. A type of coup, if you will. In about 1.1 nanoseconds the anarchists turn into the governors and the cycle repeats.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Oh that's a perfect Left Wing propaganda source right there.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well nobody seems to be offering any convincing rebuttals.

Therefore, Fascism is indeed Left Wing.

Always has been, always will be.

And with the majority of "officially accepted" opinions of scholars and such being Left Wing sources, it stands to reason a major "denazification" effort has been necessary for the Left Wing to defend itself and defer their guilt to an opposite side created by their own Hegelian Dialectic.

Just look at who wrote the victory histories of WW2.

Plenty of decent rebuttals in this thread. There just seems to be a lack of ability to understand them.

And ya, we get the "denazification" propaganda. It's your current tactic and we blew-it-off the first time you said it.

Jesus Christ himself advocated that the wealth of the rich should be distributed to the poor,so i guess Jesus was a socialist/fascist ?

I particularly LOVE this PROPAGANDA from Sanders website.

He's Got Goebels down pat.

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Joseph Goebbels quote

thinkexist.com...

Almost six years ago, as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, by a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said to the wealthiest people in this country: you already own much of the American economy. Now, we are going to give you the opportunity to purchase the U.S. Government, the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, Governors’ seats, legislatures, and State judicial branches as well.

berniesanders.com...

Here's what CU REALLY SAID:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ~Lucidity

2 types of "Anarchy"...

1. violent overthrow of existing government.

2. non violent breakdown of government, or little or no government authorities to begin with.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
Jesus Christ himself advocated that the wealth of the rich should be distributed to the poor,so i guess Jesus was a socialist/fascist ?

That's a completely different can of worms.

a reply to: introvert

And still a big goose-egg zero.

originally posted by: GamleGamle
...
His insistence on private property just proves that socialism as in his eyes was not the same as giving up private property. The problem with Hitler is that as soon as the game pieces were set all the Isms in the world did not matter any more.... there was only the Reich, the ethnic cleansing, the war machine. All else was mute.

The ""no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself"" quote is about everything being subservient to his ideal of a Greater Germany, as him being the personification of Justice for the German people. The promised Golden Era brought about through his machinations in his eyes of course. In other words the megalomania of one man and his brainwashed followers. Nothing socialist about it. Yeah maybe when the war was over in his favor........... yeah right.

Kind Regards

Yet we are told that "socialists only want to abolish certain private property". After all, HItler's Nazi party also appropiated funds, and businesses from minorities "for the good of the majority German people". They appropiated all war profits, nationalized large markets, "communalization of large stores", "profit sharing of large industries" to the state, etc,etc... But all of this is 'right wing"...