Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant[quote briansd1]Right wing neo-nazi groups are thriving on the Net. [/quote]
If it is a group you despise, is bad.. it must be right wing?NAZI = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). The normally referred to themselves as: Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists)
The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it. Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class. He opposed free-market capitalism’s profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld. He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy.
To Hitler, the economy must be subordinated to the interests of the Volk and its state. In Mein Kampf, Hitler effectively supported mercantilism, in the belief that economic resources from their respective territories should be seized by force; he believed that the policy of lebensraum would provide Germany with such economically valuable territories.
A number of Nazis held strong revolutionary socialist and anti-capitalist beliefs, most prominently Ernst Röhm, the leader of the Nazis’ main paramilitary group, the Sturmabteilung (SA).
In 1920, the Nazi Party published the National Socialist Program, an ideology that in 25 points demanded:
that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens . . . the abolition of all incomes unearned by work . . . the ruthless confiscation of all war profits … the nationalization of all businesses that have been formed into corporations … profit-sharing in large enterprises … extensive development of insurance for old-age … land reform suitable to our national requirements
As I said before, its leaning left with a strong twist of racisim.. and I’ll add Nationalism.
Participant[quote briansd1]Right wing neo-nazi groups are thriving on the Net. [/quote]
If it is a group you despise, is bad.. it must be right wing?NAZI = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). The normally referred to themselves as: Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists)
The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it. Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class. He opposed free-market capitalism’s profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld. He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy.
To Hitler, the economy must be subordinated to the interests of the Volk and its state. In Mein Kampf, Hitler effectively supported mercantilism, in the belief that economic resources from their respective territories should be seized by force; he believed that the policy of lebensraum would provide Germany with such economically valuable territories.
A number of Nazis held strong revolutionary socialist and anti-capitalist beliefs, most prominently Ernst Röhm, the leader of the Nazis’ main paramilitary group, the Sturmabteilung (SA).
In 1920, the Nazi Party published the National Socialist Program, an ideology that in 25 points demanded:
that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens . . . the abolition of all incomes unearned by work . . . the ruthless confiscation of all war profits … the nationalization of all businesses that have been formed into corporations … profit-sharing in large enterprises … extensive development of insurance for old-age … land reform suitable to our national requirements
As I said before, its leaning left with a strong twist of racisim.. and I’ll add Nationalism.
Participant[quote Allan from Fallbrook]Arraya: I think much of the misunderstanding stems from a certain willfulness to not understand (i.e. the worry that admitting that the Nazis were Rightists is problematic), but a larger issue is that Hitler was entirely inconsistent in his ideology.[/quote]
The Nazi ‘state’ started out as socialist. They seized and made state owned the facilities of production (and several other forms of assets).
From Wiki on NazismThey declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers’ importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.
— looks a bit leftist (as well as racist) to me.
They justified it in part, by demonizing Jews (unclean, unfit for a Germanic state.. etc). I suspect that to some extent, the Jews were targeted because they owned a lot of assets that the state wanted to seize. Inflation in Germany at that time was very high. I have a 5 million Mark stamp (yes a postage stamp) from that period. That would be like a $5,000,000 dollar stamp to us. Their currency was worthless.
This is why I brought up the question: what happens when you go ‘left’ on the political spectrum.. and keep going left. It is similar to what happens when you start to the ‘right’ of the political spectrum and keep going. Extremes are not good.
(Overly simplified)
Left and moving further left: (progressive socialization)
State takes possession of large facilities
Increasing state ownership of production and property.
State owns the person and decides what can be done with person.(experimentation on people)Right and moving further right: (progressive corporatization/privatization)
Lessening of government and gov. oversight.
Increasing involvement of corporations at a cost to individual rights.
Corporate mergers, few or one large corporation.
Corporation becomes the government and now makes the rules.
Corporation aka gov owns the person and decides what can be done with person.In terms of Fascism, the difference above, is how it is achieved. Some interesting comments in Wiki WRT Fascism:
Though normally described as being on the far right, there is a scholarly consensus that fascism was also influenced by the left, but with a focus on solutions from the right.
Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but disagrees with its typical opposition to change and modernization.
Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.
Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.(How about that for gov intervention in companies — General Motors II??)
Participant[quote Allan from Fallbrook]Arraya: I think much of the misunderstanding stems from a certain willfulness to not understand (i.e. the worry that admitting that the Nazis were Rightists is problematic), but a larger issue is that Hitler was entirely inconsistent in his ideology.[/quote]
The Nazi ‘state’ started out as socialist. They seized and made state owned the facilities of production (and several other forms of assets).
From Wiki on NazismThey declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers’ importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.
— looks a bit leftist (as well as racist) to me.
They justified it in part, by demonizing Jews (unclean, unfit for a Germanic state.. etc). I suspect that to some extent, the Jews were targeted because they owned a lot of assets that the state wanted to seize. Inflation in Germany at that time was very high. I have a 5 million Mark stamp (yes a postage stamp) from that period. That would be like a $5,000,000 dollar stamp to us. Their currency was worthless.
This is why I brought up the question: what happens when you go ‘left’ on the political spectrum.. and keep going left. It is similar to what happens when you start to the ‘right’ of the political spectrum and keep going. Extremes are not good.
(Overly simplified)
Left and moving further left: (progressive socialization)
State takes possession of large facilities
Increasing state ownership of production and property.
State owns the person and decides what can be done with person.(experimentation on people)Right and moving further right: (progressive corporatization/privatization)
Lessening of government and gov. oversight.
Increasing involvement of corporations at a cost to individual rights.
Corporate mergers, few or one large corporation.
Corporation becomes the government and now makes the rules.
Corporation aka gov owns the person and decides what can be done with person.In terms of Fascism, the difference above, is how it is achieved. Some interesting comments in Wiki WRT Fascism:
Though normally described as being on the far right, there is a scholarly consensus that fascism was also influenced by the left, but with a focus on solutions from the right.
Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but disagrees with its typical opposition to change and modernization.
Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.
Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.(How about that for gov intervention in companies — General Motors II??)
Participant[quote Allan from Fallbrook]Arraya: I think much of the misunderstanding stems from a certain willfulness to not understand (i.e. the worry that admitting that the Nazis were Rightists is problematic), but a larger issue is that Hitler was entirely inconsistent in his ideology.[/quote]
The Nazi ‘state’ started out as socialist. They seized and made state owned the facilities of production (and several other forms of assets).
From Wiki on NazismThey declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers’ importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.
— looks a bit leftist (as well as racist) to me.
They justified it in part, by demonizing Jews (unclean, unfit for a Germanic state.. etc). I suspect that to some extent, the Jews were targeted because they owned a lot of assets that the state wanted to seize. Inflation in Germany at that time was very high. I have a 5 million Mark stamp (yes a postage stamp) from that period. That would be like a $5,000,000 dollar stamp to us. Their currency was worthless.
This is why I brought up the question: what happens when you go ‘left’ on the political spectrum.. and keep going left. It is similar to what happens when you start to the ‘right’ of the political spectrum and keep going. Extremes are not good.
(Overly simplified)
Left and moving further left: (progressive socialization)
State takes possession of large facilities
Increasing state ownership of production and property.
State owns the person and decides what can be done with person.(experimentation on people)Right and moving further right: (progressive corporatization/privatization)
Lessening of government and gov. oversight.
Increasing involvement of corporations at a cost to individual rights.
Corporate mergers, few or one large corporation.
Corporation becomes the government and now makes the rules.
Corporation aka gov owns the person and decides what can be done with person.In terms of Fascism, the difference above, is how it is achieved. Some interesting comments in Wiki WRT Fascism:
Though normally described as being on the far right, there is a scholarly consensus that fascism was also influenced by the left, but with a focus on solutions from the right.
Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but disagrees with its typical opposition to change and modernization.
Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.
Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.(How about that for gov intervention in companies — General Motors II??)
Participant[quote Allan from Fallbrook]Arraya: I think much of the misunderstanding stems from a certain willfulness to not understand (i.e. the worry that admitting that the Nazis were Rightists is problematic), but a larger issue is that Hitler was entirely inconsistent in his ideology.[/quote]
The Nazi ‘state’ started out as socialist. They seized and made state owned the facilities of production (and several other forms of assets).
From Wiki on NazismThey declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers’ importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.
— looks a bit leftist (as well as racist) to me.
They justified it in part, by demonizing Jews (unclean, unfit for a Germanic state.. etc). I suspect that to some extent, the Jews were targeted because they owned a lot of assets that the state wanted to seize. Inflation in Germany at that time was very high. I have a 5 million Mark stamp (yes a postage stamp) from that period. That would be like a $5,000,000 dollar stamp to us. Their currency was worthless.
This is why I brought up the question: what happens when you go ‘left’ on the political spectrum.. and keep going left. It is similar to what happens when you start to the ‘right’ of the political spectrum and keep going. Extremes are not good.
(Overly simplified)
Left and moving further left: (progressive socialization)
State takes possession of large facilities
Increasing state ownership of production and property.
State owns the person and decides what can be done with person.(experimentation on people)Right and moving further right: (progressive corporatization/privatization)
Lessening of government and gov. oversight.
Increasing involvement of corporations at a cost to individual rights.
Corporate mergers, few or one large corporation.
Corporation becomes the government and now makes the rules.
Corporation aka gov owns the person and decides what can be done with person.In terms of Fascism, the difference above, is how it is achieved. Some interesting comments in Wiki WRT Fascism:
Though normally described as being on the far right, there is a scholarly consensus that fascism was also influenced by the left, but with a focus on solutions from the right.
Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but disagrees with its typical opposition to change and modernization.
Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.
Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.(How about that for gov intervention in companies — General Motors II??)
Participant[quote Allan from Fallbrook]Arraya: I think much of the misunderstanding stems from a certain willfulness to not understand (i.e. the worry that admitting that the Nazis were Rightists is problematic), but a larger issue is that Hitler was entirely inconsistent in his ideology.[/quote]
The Nazi ‘state’ started out as socialist. They seized and made state owned the facilities of production (and several other forms of assets).
From Wiki on NazismThey declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers’ importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.
— looks a bit leftist (as well as racist) to me.
They justified it in part, by demonizing Jews (unclean, unfit for a Germanic state.. etc). I suspect that to some extent, the Jews were targeted because they owned a lot of assets that the state wanted to seize. Inflation in Germany at that time was very high. I have a 5 million Mark stamp (yes a postage stamp) from that period. That would be like a $5,000,000 dollar stamp to us. Their currency was worthless.
This is why I brought up the question: what happens when you go ‘left’ on the political spectrum.. and keep going left. It is similar to what happens when you start to the ‘right’ of the political spectrum and keep going. Extremes are not good.
(Overly simplified)
Left and moving further left: (progressive socialization)
State takes possession of large facilities
Increasing state ownership of production and property.
State owns the person and decides what can be done with person.(experimentation on people)Right and moving further right: (progressive corporatization/privatization)
Lessening of government and gov. oversight.
Increasing involvement of corporations at a cost to individual rights.
Corporate mergers, few or one large corporation.
Corporation becomes the government and now makes the rules.
Corporation aka gov owns the person and decides what can be done with person.In terms of Fascism, the difference above, is how it is achieved. Some interesting comments in Wiki WRT Fascism:
Though normally described as being on the far right, there is a scholarly consensus that fascism was also influenced by the left, but with a focus on solutions from the right.
Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but disagrees with its typical opposition to change and modernization.
Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.
Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.(How about that for gov intervention in companies — General Motors II??)
Participant[quote=Rustico]Ucodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up. [/quote]
I think that calling on ‘indoctrination’ to violence for “National Strength” is a red herring. People need to be responsible for their own behavior and not blame it on outside factors. Besides, where is this so called indoctrination? The military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has been continually brought to question. If you want to see indoctrination, check North Korea. Another country to check would be Japan leading up to WWII.[quote Arraya]What I find interesting, also, is that they often imply that ‘society’ owning means of production and resources, none of which happened in Nazi germany, somehow inexplicably leads to genocidal behavior and mass murder.[/quote] No. Look at my comment afterwords. I posted a question to the point of; what happens when you move further left than left on the political scale? Ever heard of the term “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”?
Participant[quote=Rustico]Ucodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up. [/quote]
I think that calling on ‘indoctrination’ to violence for “National Strength” is a red herring. People need to be responsible for their own behavior and not blame it on outside factors. Besides, where is this so called indoctrination? The military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has been continually brought to question. If you want to see indoctrination, check North Korea. Another country to check would be Japan leading up to WWII.[quote Arraya]What I find interesting, also, is that they often imply that ‘society’ owning means of production and resources, none of which happened in Nazi germany, somehow inexplicably leads to genocidal behavior and mass murder.[/quote] No. Look at my comment afterwords. I posted a question to the point of; what happens when you move further left than left on the political scale? Ever heard of the term “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”?
Participant[quote=Rustico]Ucodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up. [/quote]
I think that calling on ‘indoctrination’ to violence for “National Strength” is a red herring. People need to be responsible for their own behavior and not blame it on outside factors. Besides, where is this so called indoctrination? The military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has been continually brought to question. If you want to see indoctrination, check North Korea. Another country to check would be Japan leading up to WWII.[quote Arraya]What I find interesting, also, is that they often imply that ‘society’ owning means of production and resources, none of which happened in Nazi germany, somehow inexplicably leads to genocidal behavior and mass murder.[/quote] No. Look at my comment afterwords. I posted a question to the point of; what happens when you move further left than left on the political scale? Ever heard of the term “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”?
Participant[quote=Rustico]Ucodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up. [/quote]
I think that calling on ‘indoctrination’ to violence for “National Strength” is a red herring. People need to be responsible for their own behavior and not blame it on outside factors. Besides, where is this so called indoctrination? The military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has been continually brought to question. If you want to see indoctrination, check North Korea. Another country to check would be Japan leading up to WWII.[quote Arraya]What I find interesting, also, is that they often imply that ‘society’ owning means of production and resources, none of which happened in Nazi germany, somehow inexplicably leads to genocidal behavior and mass murder.[/quote] No. Look at my comment afterwords. I posted a question to the point of; what happens when you move further left than left on the political scale? Ever heard of the term “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”?
Participant[quote=Rustico]Ucodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up. [/quote]
I think that calling on ‘indoctrination’ to violence for “National Strength” is a red herring. People need to be responsible for their own behavior and not blame it on outside factors. Besides, where is this so called indoctrination? The military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has been continually brought to question. If you want to see indoctrination, check North Korea. Another country to check would be Japan leading up to WWII.[quote Arraya]What I find interesting, also, is that they often imply that ‘society’ owning means of production and resources, none of which happened in Nazi germany, somehow inexplicably leads to genocidal behavior and mass murder.[/quote] No. Look at my comment afterwords. I posted a question to the point of; what happens when you move further left than left on the political scale? Ever heard of the term “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”?
Participant[quote Rustico]In your earlier posts you seemed to want to absolve your team by saying the other side does it too. [/quote] I think he was just pointing something out. Neither side is clean.
[quote Rustico]What does agreeing that both sides do it and maintaining the status quo do for anyone? Are you saying there is no problem? In any case I don’t hear you asking for corrective action very loudly compared to your will to take umbrage at whatever assertions… and point fingers back.[/quote]
So what do you suggest.. a restriction on speech? Dangerous slope to start down. Just who is to say how much and what is appropriate? In some ways, pointing it all out helps. Understanding it helps. I just wish the MSM wasn’t as one sided. They should also point out the Democratic party’s ‘target’ map.Problem is that the MSM profits off of the fury:
Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry
You don’t really need to find out what’s going on
You don’t really want to know just how far it’s gone.Participant[quote Rustico]In your earlier posts you seemed to want to absolve your team by saying the other side does it too. [/quote] I think he was just pointing something out. Neither side is clean.
[quote Rustico]What does agreeing that both sides do it and maintaining the status quo do for anyone? Are you saying there is no problem? In any case I don’t hear you asking for corrective action very loudly compared to your will to take umbrage at whatever assertions… and point fingers back.[/quote]
So what do you suggest.. a restriction on speech? Dangerous slope to start down. Just who is to say how much and what is appropriate? In some ways, pointing it all out helps. Understanding it helps. I just wish the MSM wasn’t as one sided. They should also point out the Democratic party’s ‘target’ map.Problem is that the MSM profits off of the fury:
Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry
You don’t really need to find out what’s going on
You don’t really want to know just how far it’s gone. -
AuthorPosts
