Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/16/13 06:08 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Bigger government is Left Wing...

Nope it's neither, it eludes left or right wing. That's an idea propagated by Conservatives and Libertarians. For example Monarchy's and Theologies are sure as hell not left wing....... Regardless what is Left wing and what is right wing is all relative, people who advocate for smaller government are left wingers, in others they're right wingers.

At 2/9/13 05:26 PM, Warforger wrote: Hitler at least accomplished what he wanted to do for the most part.

Like what? His military decisions cost the war and wrecked the economy that he had worked to build up. By the time of his death he really hadn't accomplished anything, just created a costly war and executed a lot of people.

At 2/16/13 08:50 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Clearly he killed every Jew at least right?

If that's true who's controlling the world bank?

At 2/16/13 08:21 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Actually the original usage has shifted and you are basically using in it in a fashion that does not describe how it was used in the 1930s or today.

National Socialist German Workers' Party
NAZI

Far from the truth. In fact incredibly far from the truth. It was originally used during the French Revolution, the Left wingers were those Liberals in that sense, the revolutionary politics, the right wing were the Monarchists and Royalists. It refers to the French Parliament, the right wing is where the Monarchists/Royalists placed themselves and the Left wing is where the Liberals placed themselves. So no, not true at all.

And no it was used back then to describe Hitler as right wing (again for Germany, his policies more or less were reminiscent of late 1800's early 1900's Germany except giving more credence to more right wing views) as it is now.

At 2/16/13 08:39 PM, Ceratisa wrote: If you remove the whole Right wing = Racist policy which promoted the Aryan rise over all others. (racism isn't limited to right wing politics so the entire point is invalid)
fascism is left wing. They were only slightly to the right of communism. They believed in a socialist state in which the government controlled all aspects.
They had ideas to provide free utilities for people such as cars.

The Jewish people represented the bankers and big business owners of their time. The Nazi party opposed them greatly.

âEUWe are socialists, we are enemies of todayâEUTMs capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditionsâEU

- Adolf Hitler, HitlerâEUTMs speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224-225. ISBN 0385037244.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_
25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP
read their points.

Again you're treating the American standard of right wing as the universal standard of right wing. "Right wing" and "Left wing" are essentially meaningless terms and depend on each case. In Germany the free Market people would be left wing at the time because Germany had been used to a very centralized government. In America the Free Market people are Right Wing because that's essentially how the government had always been since the start.

Otherwise Socialism wasn't always an ideology that was exclusively left wing. Hitler himself didn't like the term and originally wanted to remove the term from the party, but he simply redefined Socialism as "an individual working for their community" i.e Fascism. The Nazi's were pretty anti-Union, but overall all they favored was the state dominance of everything, they weren't for a purely free market. That's Right wing pretty much.

At 2/16/13 10:10 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Nazi's were left

Aye the "second revolution" which was propagated by the left wing of the party. The Nazi's in theory and speech were both left and right wing, their main focus was Nationalism. They were very anti-Union and pro-business in practice. The Reactionaries they speak of are the Monarchists who they didn't like. They supposedly rejected Capitalism but in the end Hitler said he was fine with it and those such as Goebbels felt disillusioned with that. This didn't matter as the right wing militia repressed them. This has been debated constantly, the Nazi's themselves said they were neither yet all other Political scientists put them on the right wing.

But the definition of Left and Right wing at its most basic is the Left wing is more for equality while the Right wing is more for a preservation of existing social structures and inherent superiority of certain groups. Of the two the Nazi's were most certainly on the right.

I heard that Stalin's regime killed a total of 20 million people, whereas the Holocaust only killed 11 million. Then again, you might say that more people died because of Hitler, due to the fact that he started World War II, which led to over 60 million deaths (or something).

At 2/17/13 12:36 AM, Ceratisa wrote: No they weren't pro business at all. I'm sorry if you can't even look at the some of their stances we have nothing to discuss.

They vowed to crush every strike that would arise and said they were behind free market enterprise (Hitler anyway, not the left wing of the party you're referring too).

The Social structure was more about racism then a real party stance.

It was about Nationalism, they were supposed to be a party that transcends class lines and unified the nation hence why they tried to be both left and right wing. The problem was that they more or less descended into right power politics at least Hitler did.

the Nazi party was backed by unions. not anti-union.

That's why Hitler banned Unions right?

You can't deny that as an expansion of government.

That was the point. My point though is that expanding the government is not necessarily left or right wing and if anything has been a characteristic of right wing politics more than it has been left wing.

At 2/9/13 04:58 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: who was a worse leader

I vote Stalin, as he destroyed Communism, his nation's economy for 30-40 years, worked 20 million of his own people to death, and lasted longer, who do you think was the more fearsome?

THE SHAM-WOW GUY THATS WHO

At 2/17/13 12:07 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Nationalism isn't either party though. You can't actually prove that when he raves against capitalists just as much and his parties actions were ANTI capitalist as his party took % of profits from governments claiming it their own.

It is part of the right wing spectrum now and then. To varying degree's of course, but the type Nationalism Hitler preached was the driving force of his doctrine, not Socialism.

And established the DAF

Exactly, he took control of them. Much like how Conservative US Presidents would send in the military to put down strikes.

More importantly Hitlers own words
"I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.

"Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations."

He broke up the initial unions because of hyper inflation and the possible threat they could pose to his power. But he established others and believed in them.

Exactly, he broke them up because they were a challenge to state power. Again you're assuming one the Nazi's were trying to be left wing when again they had right wings and left wings to the party and that two they actually implemented what they preached (which is stupid to think, that would be like assuming the Soviets implemented free and fair elections because they said they would).

Actually big central government is pretty much seen as the dividing line now a days. And the Reich was pro big government.

lol. Nope not at all, it's not even true in America. When the Republicans took over in 2000, capturing the House, the Senate and the Presidency for 6 years what did they do? Expand the size of the government. They expanded the military, they expanded the number of executive agencies. It was quite interesting to see when Gore debated Baby Bush how he brought up that when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas he shrunk the size of the state government and when Baby Bush was governor of Texas he expanded it. The simple fact is that right wing politics in the US generally support smaller government in economics and gun ownership but support bigger government in nearly everything else, they support expanding the size of prisons, expanding the military, expanding government control of social institutions like marriage etc. it's quite pathetic to see the list of things they support a larger size of government for is far longer than the list of things they support a smaller government.

At 2/17/13 09:39 PM, Ceratisa wrote: put simply Centralized Government =/= Government.

It doesn't matter because either way the Republicans centralized even more power. They for example expanded the Department Of Education to have even more power. Besides if you're going to have a bigger government it'll be incredibly retarded not to centralize it because then you just get a huge mess.

At 2/18/13 12:19 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry, according to you our founding fathers were incredibly retarded. the 9th Amendment specifically counters your argument.

Erm nope. I was talking about currently, I was thinking you meant in terms of the Federal government not local governments.

The powers not specifically given to the federal government was meant to be handled on a state level.

That's the 10th amendment. But again that has been the biggest point of contention and the resolution has been to give the power to the Federal government. States oppressing their people based off the color of their skin? Federal government time. States saying they can nullify an act of Congress? Federal government time.

What I meant though is if you had something like the Department of Homeland Security and you split that up across the nation. It would be a mess because things like police forces need centralization, that's why the FBI was made.

I keep hearing about the world's worst concentration camps and they were pretty much all ones that involved the Holocaust. Why didn't Stalin have anything like that? With the millions of people he killed, you would think he would be more organized. I guess he was just better able to cover up his tracks than Hitler.

They were both awful.

At 2/9/13 04:58 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: who was a worse leader

I vote Stalin, as he destroyed Communism, his nation's economy for 30-40 years, worked 20 million of his own people to death, and lasted longer, who do you think was the more fearsome?

1) Communism is a utopian fantasy with the fundamental flaw of not taking human nature into account. Therefore, trying to make it into a political and economic system in the real world means it is doomed to failure.

2) While Stalin murdered 22 million people...Hitler's global domination ambitions set in motion WWII which led to the deaths of up to 60 million. 6-8 million were slaughtered in some of the most vile and evil methods every devised by man.

3) Hitler did worse in less amount of time.

At 2/23/13 10:54 AM, Ericho wrote: I keep hearing about the world's worst concentration camps and they were pretty much all ones that involved the Holocaust. Why didn't Stalin have anything like that? With the millions of people he killed, you would think he would be more organized. I guess he was just better able to cover up his tracks than Hitler.

Stalin wasn't interested in actually murdering people, he sent people to gulags to use the labor. He killed people who were political enemies but for the most party he mostly just sent people for forced labor camps. The conditions in these camps of course killed people (as they did in China and particularly horrible in Cambodia) but their purpose was supposed to be to re-educate not to get rid of.

They said that Stalin might be credited by saying that he did not intend to conquer any other nations, but that's not much considering he was supreme ruler of the largest country on Earth. Back in the days before the USSR broke up, it was even bigger than it is today, so he might have controlled a good fifth of the entire world back then, which Hitler was probably never able to even conquer. Of course, that depends on if you're looking for quality over quantity.

At 2/24/13 10:35 AM, Ericho wrote: They said that Stalin might be credited by saying that he did not intend to conquer any other nations, but that's not much considering he was supreme ruler of the largest country on Earth. Back in the days before the USSR broke up, it was even bigger than it is today, so he might have controlled a good fifth of the entire world back then, which Hitler was probably never able to even conquer. Of course, that depends on if you're looking for quality over quantity.

Stalin subscribed to Marxist-Leninism, which calls for Global Communism. He and Lenin expected during the Russian revolution to continue onto the rest of Europe and inspire more revolutions (and indeed 3 others did occur at the same time, one in Bavaria which failed and was really incompetent, one in Hungary which got farther than Bavaria but was still incompetent and one in Italy which was crushed before it could even say anything). They tried several times afterwards to start a revolution in Germany and failed. Lenin had formed the Comintern in which every Communist party which was in line with the Soviet Union participated in, they would gather and discuss their agenda. Essentially it eventually just turned into an international propaganda arm for Stalin. So no doubt Stalin wanted to conquer the world if he could. Also the USSR expanded only a little during his rule, not enough to warrant a significant increase in territory in terms of percentage wise ( for the land they took from Poland and Japan it still certainly wasn't popular).

But the guy was a pragmatist. The guy didn't have the delusion of Lenin where he thought that he could just pounce around the world and establish his regime anywhere he wanted. While he had originally fought for the continuation of the NEP he quickly disbanded it so that he could begin industrializing, because so many nations sought to end the Socialist experiment ( and they did in fact ultimately invade). After WWII he was happy with what he had and gave the appearance that the Soviet Union was able to go through a second war with the West but as a matter of fact the Soviet Union was crippled from the way. The population had declined rapidly due to the war, there were many orphans, the USSR's industries struggled even to keep up with the wartime level of output, the economy was in shambles and now there were new politicians who could be potential political foes. Stalin knew what he could and couldn't do, he disregarded most of what the West told him to do in the territories he conquered but refrained from expanding or seriously devoting resources to fight new Communist revolutions in Greece, China and Korea. His focus was security, he needed to rebuild the Soviet Union first before he could even dream of spreading Communism even further. Thus while he probably would've wanted a Global Communist state, the issue of the Soviet Union's mere existence kept him from doing anything to seriously pursue that goal.