Textbooks are wrong about the whole classless thing.
Much like every other Socialist paradise in the world, you had three classes in National Socialist Germany.
The class in charge, who have limos.
The rest, who have no limos.
The people who are shot dead, put in prison or sent to gulag.
What socialist country are your thinking of that has no classes?
Why do people accuse me of writing horse manure when I seem to be the only one not regurgitating textbook definitions and desperately trying to affic them to a different world? There is no socialist country without classes.
repeat.
There is no socialist country without classes.
I never said Hitler was the world’s greatest socialist and he sure as heck didn’t get around to half of his platform, but he sure enough kept talking about it and pushing that way in great ways.
The National Socialists killed off the troublemakers of the collective, as all socialist societies have done. Every one of them.
Let’s examine your logic:
[ol]
[li]Hitler killed off troublemakers.[/li][li]Socialists kill off troublemakers.[/li][li]Therefore, Hitler was a Socialist.[/li][/ol]
If you are including the dozens of Hitlers own admissions of being a socialist in the “Rhetoric and catch-phrases” then there is no debating with you.
Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party. His self-written platform was close to pure socialism. He said he was a socialist many times in his life and badmouthed Communists and Capitalists. I never saw him badmouth socialism unless it was socialism that emulated capitalism or emulated communism.
He spoke German. I do not know what language you think he spoke. Are you making up a language that you can use to make a point?
Is that certain level none? I come up with none.
The collective did all of that directly and mostly indirectly yes. Central planning was how the collective controlled every aspect the market.
Google Reichswirtschaftsministerium for more information.
Killing the uncooperative.
I understand economic systems well.
I do not subscribe to the notion that economic systems are independent of government.
Facts do not always stand alone. Facts are sometimes dependent upon other facts.
We call those socialistic tendencies.
What was the penalty for keeping a school open? There wasn’t one.
Not very totalitarian. I said it before, no one complained when the collective shut them down. It was good for the collective.
Yes, in which you appear to admit that your absurd claim that Hitler prevented people from thinking actually meant to say that he had some schools closed.
A minor point, really, and not worth arguing, since the main thrust of this discussion is to affirm that liberals (or perhaps just anyone who complains about Bush— to be honest, this little “alternative history” lesson has clouded my recollection of how the thread began) are the brethren of Nazis.
So please continue. But I implore you, don’t make me Google Hitler again. I’m already paranoid enough about surveillance of my browsing habits.
All socialist societies kill off their troublemakers in mass genocides… or gulags, or some sort of forced exodus. Communists too. War is the way capitalists do it. There are hardly exceptions.
Better?
So no. That is not what I am saying. You using straw man tactics.
I never said you did. However, you did say there were no worse collectivists than the Nazis. Which I refuted, and you failed to rebut in any meaningful way.
And why do you think he did that? Because socialism had popular appeal. Hitler lied about his socialist ideals, because it allowed him to seduce the masses. He intended to enslave the population, but that doesn’t play well if you tell them about it in advance. Surely you knew that?
By the way, you also seem to think world is either capitalist or socialist. You really need to broaden your political thought; to paraphrase the Bard, There are more political systems in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I don’t know how I can go about it, but I contend that in the realm of collectivism, Hitler beat the pants of Stalin. Hitler got his people to go along with it. Stalin, eh.
Stalin tried.
There we go again with Hitler lying.
How do you know which lies were lies? Does anything that disagrees with you suddenly become “Hilter’s Big Lie”?
The guy lead a collective that killed six million Jews. I am sure he lied, but why pick a lie that involves being a failure of an economic model and an even worse social model? If I was going to lie, I would lie about my manhood.
Did he join the National Socialist party to make his lie look real good?
Did he run on a kickass socialist platform to throw me off his tracks? The last non-believer?
The world is capitalist.
If there is socialism in the world, wait a few years.
Whatever current country you may want to come back with, just remember the leaders of that “socialist paradise” are capitalists who have enslaved some low thinkers. The leaders get their goods abroad in Capitalismland.
Leftists like to say they are liberals but leftists are the furthest thing in the USA. Liber means free. Leftists despise freedom… especially individual freedom. Liberals want freedom more than conservatives do!
Websters: Leftist - A member of the political left.
Websters: Liberal - Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
Can you please read those definitions. Can you please study them.
Can you please get off my back about something you are using the wrong terminology for.
I advocate reform - The USA is too far to the left. We need reform.
I advocate progress - We need more nuke plants (fusion too!), hydrogen cars, and better home defense weapons like cool lasers and .60 caliber handguns.
No. Hitler was a member of the political left. His socialist platform and love of all that was the collective is a completely left-wing thing.
If he was an emperor, yeah, but his collective empowered him. You cannot be an authoritarian or a totalitarian if you have a collective in your employ who have surrendered their individual identity to said collective.
I’m going by the meaning of the term in American political discourse currently and for the past 50 years at least. You don’t get to appeal to etymology. (See this thread.)
Tell me, if being a liberal is such a good and commendable thing, why do I hear talking heads like Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, and His Holiness, Cardinal Limbaugh using the term as an epithet, nearly every day? Infusing such sneering contempt into the pronunciation that you’d fix a “liberal” a few rungs lower on the Ladder of Perversion than “baby-raper,” “toilet-seat urinator,” or “discussion forum moderator”?
Surely those aspiring to elected office should be falling all over themselves in their haste to declare themselves liberal— nay, the most liberal of all their colleagues on every issue, bar none. But no, it’s almost as though the opposite were true! As though the term “liberal” has attained common usage other than the one you offer, one that’s largely pejorative, and largely because of a calculated demonization campaign by the right.
So the same people who blasphemed the word now want it back, another trophy for the Newspeak dictionary. Well, okay, I guess you can have it. As long as we can still see all the familiar faces, I guess it doesn’t matter what it says on our name tags.
50 years ago the Democrats were trying to keep the colored people from having equal rights. You shouldn’t rely on trends to define words. You should rely on the definition of the word.
Things do change, but aside from that, leftists were not liberals 50 years ago either.
If you want to use a non-Websters definition, and a definition that mocks the Latin word it is comprised of then fine, just stay off my back for using it. I got your point. Go start another great debate thread on the matter as the first one ended up in a hung jury of personal opinions.
I am not trying to change your mind, but you must take the dictionary definition of when I say I was a liberal, I was a liberal and still am. For you to say I am not is to claim superiority over the Websters dictionary.
Are you claiming superiority over the Websters American Dictionary?
Conservatives do not like liberals. Conservatives want to keep things as they are… conservatively. There is already enough freedom according to the above. No free drugs. No condoms for kids. No life for people on death row. Enough tampering!
Liberals want to progress. Cast off your puritanical chains you stiffs, you might hear a liberal say. You are too uptight and too 1787. We might even put some legal pressure on the Constitution a little bit to get you to lighten up…
The leftists see this and pop a rod over the lefties technique and decide to steal a lot of it to start cracking the Constitution. They get a lot of liberals involved. This is where the term “useful idiots” comes in. Useful idiots are the lefties equivalent of the sheep on the right.
There was a short time where liberal “idiots” were quite “useful” to the leftists and some people got in the habit of calling leftists liberals because the liberals were the muscle for the leftists…leftists being really lazy and liberals being all jacked up on freedom. “Bleeding heart liberals” the righties used to call them back then. I think Morton Downey Jr really got the term going.
Anyhoo… it’s all class warfare now. The politically active moral right is slowly devolving into taking left-wing stances and the left-wing Americans are all Trotskyites now. The liberals and libertarians are waiting for something interesting to happen. I joined the right-wing again to yell at them as an “us” and not a “you idiots” for their turn to the left.
The funny thing is that for the last 40 years or so, 90 percent of people are so prosperous in this country that they pretty much vote for who will keep the money flowing sanely. Going back to my original post line, Carter lost what… every state to Reagan except one.
And that is why most people have to look up the definition of a Troskyite too.
So, let me get this straight: 50 years ago, the liberals marched for civil rights, and it was the leftists who were keeping the colored man down? What a strange lens it is you view the past through! It is capable of showing only the images you wish to see! Splendiferous! You gotta take that on that American Inventor TV show, the capitalists will beat a path to your door!
Fifty years ago Adlai Stevenson was the champion of the Democratic Party – nominated twice by his party as their presidential candidate. In 1956 Estes Kefauver (S. TN) ran as his Vice Presidential nominee. He was known for going after the mob – not people of color. At the Democratic Convention, Kefauver was in a show down with a young Senator Jack Kennedy for that position on the ticket.
I came from a family of liberal Southern Democrats who believed in equal rights for everyone and worked toward that end. Many Democrats did. Also, most people of color were Democrats.
When you speak in such unqualified generalities, you detract from your argument.
