Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/15/03 11:23 AM, Bizud wrote: And Hitler was decidedly anti-communist.

Yeah but he was also the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' party (NSDAP)(the official name of the Nazi party), dumbass.

Yeah but he was also the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' party (NSDAP)(the official name of the Nazi party), dumbass.

What you say, and what you do are two different things.

I know that. So what? They were socialist in name only. Their policies weren't socialist at all. Calling yourself a socialist doesn't make you a socialist, DUMBASS.

Just like nowadays, by co-opting the term "conservative," something most people are, the neo-liberal parties have been able to get the average american/canadian to vote for them (by deceiving the ignorant majority), even though they would probably be appalled if they knew what their governments did. They simply call themselves "conservative" and every armchair conservative in the land votes for them (well, the ones that vote at all), even though they're actually quite radical.

Bizud, how do you define Conservatism?

It's not easy.

Um, I dunno, well, first of all, historically, conservative parties have stood for the constitution as the supreme rule of law. Lately, however, they seem to push the neo-liberal agenda by endorsing organizations such as the WTO, which compromise sovereignty and the rule of the constitution.

Second, the average "armchair conservative" wants things to basically stay the same, doesn't want their little world to be upset, and would generally oppose any fundamental change to their way of life.

Third, strictly speaking, "conservative" (wanting to preserve the status-quo) and "radical" (advocating radical change) are antonyms. Therefore, the radical-right aren't really conservatives at all.

It isn't very easy to define a term when everyone means something different by it.

See over here we've had two real conservative parties(they are actually the same party, but at different times.)

The first one was the One Nation Conservatives. They thought that the rich have a responsibility to the poor and should look after them.(This led to the political consensus of 1945-1979)

The second party is the Thatcherites. With the ascendany of American conservatism(basially neo-liberalism.) Mrs Thatcher came to the head of the Tories(Conservative Party), she followed the indivualistic, inalienable property rights, free market BS of American conservatism. And they have remained that way since.

BTW: Neo-liberalism is actually Classical Liberalism.

At 1/16/03 07:54 AM, Slizor wrote:

Yeah but he was also the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' party (NSDAP)(the official name of the Nazi party), dumbass.

What you say, and what you do are two different things.

Hitler's economic policies were actually very similar to those of FDR. The main diffrences were that while FDR employed citizens by having them work on public works Hitler had the German people construct a war machine.

Hitler's economic policies were actually very similar to those of FDR. The main diffrences were that while FDR employed citizens by having them work on public works Hitler had the German people construct a war machine.

Actually Hitler did employ people on public works, such as the building of the autobahns. FDR's and Hitler's economic policy was not socialism, it was Keynesianism based on the work of Keynes, who said that economic intervention by the government would stimulate economic growth(there was also the ripple effect etc.) If Hitler or FDR had followed a more Socialist route than they would have nationalised many industries and would offer a lot of social security. Also, there wouldn't be a systematic wiping out of most other races. It kinda doesn't go with the idea of equality.

At 1/16/03 04:55 PM, Slizor wrote:

Also, there wouldn't be a systematic wiping out of most other races. It kinda doesn't go with the idea of equality.

Perhaps not your idea of equality...however a warped individual such as Hitler didn't consider other races and ethnic groups as human beigns. A socialist system could institute genocide just as easily as a fascist one.