Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

5/9/08 05:47 PM, Britkid wrote:

Their political systems were quite similar. The book is rubbish, the fact that Mussolini is honest enough to admit this doesn't mean their methods of rule were significantly different.

Their means of rule WERE significantly different. There was no genocide under Italy's rule.

Sure.

Offer a counter fact or shut up.

Hitler and Stalin only did that because they were worried about their own safety. Hitler was apprehensive that the USSR would hit back if he invaded Poland, while Stalin knew that no one in Europe wanted to ally with him, while he also had designs on territories nearby. The bastards hated each other though, and both of them always planned for war.

Well, history doesn't offer anything to support that. So pardon me if your mind reading powers of people dead half a century doesn't impress me.

Never heard of it. Is it legal?

Yes.

But that's irrelevant. Why should a modern party be held responsible for the actions of a historic regime similarly positioned on the political spectrum. That's like saying no one should ever vote for the Conservatives because Maggie Thatcher screwed up the country in the seventies.

Thatcher was the best thing to happen to the 70s. Claiming Thatcher is bad is like bemoaning the automobile.

Yet that is not the original discussion. No one is trying to condone the Soviet Union.

Several people have done just that. Try again.

At 5/10/08 06:37 AM, Slizor wrote: Nazis were fascists, not the other way round (i.e. you can be a fascist without being a nazi) and the words are not synonyms.

If all fascists are socialists and all nazis are fascists...it doesn't mean all socialists are nazis. But it does mean all nazis are socialists.

Next?

And the destruction of the bourgeoisie? The advancement of Unionism? Equality between the sexes and the classes?
I thought not. Limited social programs do not equal socialism.

There was no "LIMITED". Decreeing that all property belongs to the state is socialism.
The Nazi platform was based on equality. Next?

No it's not. It's based on the idea that inequality between the classes continues to exist on the basis of the means of production being privately owned.

No. It's based on the fact that the platform of the socialists and fascists was identical. I have offered proof. You claimed "nu uh".

Sorry, what definition of the Capitalist world are you using? One that only includes first world countries?

Claim a meaningful amount of "capitalist" deaths and I will provide a larger list of people who died by tripping and drowning in grape jelly.

At 5/11/08 07:32 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Their means of rule WERE significantly different. There was no genocide under Italy's rule.

All I can read from that is that Hitler was slightly madder.

Offer a counter fact or shut up.

Ok then. Nazism wasn't Socialism.

Well, history doesn't offer anything to support that. So pardon me if your mind reading powers of people dead half a century doesn't impress me.

Every historian will tell you that Hitler loathed Stalin and his Russia, and vice versa.

Yes.

But give me some examples of it being violent.

But that's irrelevant. Why should a modern party be held responsible for the actions of a historic regime similarly positioned on the political spectrum. That's like saying no one should ever vote for the Conservatives because Maggie Thatcher screwed up the country in the seventies.

Thatcher was the best thing to happen to the 70s. Claiming Thatcher is bad is like bemoaning the automobile.

Hah! Way to dodge my point.

Several people have done just that. Try again.

Not me. See above.

At 5/11/08 03:58 PM, Britkid wrote: All I can read from that is that Hitler was slightly madder.

Wow. "I'm wrong, but I'm going to change the subject."

Ok then. Nazism wasn't Socialism.

Yes, it was. As I proved twice on this thread. It was called National Socialism. Next.

Every historian will tell you that Hitler loathed Stalin and his Russia, and vice versa.

Hitler was impressed by Stalin and his control of Russia.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20070212025532AAVNIBw

That's a pretty good recount of it. On a personal level, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all deeply paranoid suspicious men. They had nothing resembling real friendships. Hitler distrusted Communism because he was convinced it was Jewish in nature. He was also convinced that the Communist parties in Germany would revolt, which they did several times. Mussolini was deeply resentful that he was a second tier guy like Franco, even though he was clearly the smartest of the three men (four if you include Roosevelt). Stalin was convinced that everyone around him wanted to overthrow him (ah the lives of dictators are tough). So on one level, you're correct, none of these men were what we'd consider friends.

If we look at things on a political level however, these men were indeed on friendly terms. Despite mutual distrust, Hitler and Mussolini were allies. Stalin signed what he believed to be an eternal peace treaty with Hitler. As one of his own men reported:

"The generalissimo preferred to trust his political instinct rather than the secret reports piled up on his desk. Convinced that he had signed an eternal pact of friendship with Germany, he sucked on the pipe of peace. "

This peace treaty was AMAZINGLY friendly. It split Europe in two. "You get this side, we get this side. There will be no aggression! And if someone else attacks you, we promise to refuse them help." It infuriated anti-Communists in Europe and anti-Fascists in Russia who wanted their respective leaders to take over teh other.

Hah! Way to dodge my point.

You bemoaned Thatcher.

Regardless. You want me to address the point. OK. Why should a movement NOT be held accountable for it's failings? If a movement (socialism) has killed over 100 million violently, and countless more from starvation, and has never been peaceful in it's history, what rational person doesn't look at that?

Not me. See above.

"No one has done that" Yes they have. "Not me." So?

At 5/11/08 06:02 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Wow. "I'm wrong, but I'm going to change the subject."

Hitler's genocide wasn't a 'policy', it was an insane rampage.

Yes, it was. As I proved twice on this thread. It was called National Socialism. Next.

And I've said before that it was only called that to attract voters. National is a right-wing name. The Nazi Party was from the extreme right.

Every historian will tell you that Hitler loathed Stalin and his Russia, and vice versa.

Hitler was impressed by Stalin and his control of Russia.

Big deal. One dictator was impressed by another. Hitler disliked nationalisation and he was always planning to attack Russia, even then. And how do we know this? Oh that's right, because he did.

Regardless. You want me to address the point. OK. Why should a movement NOT be held accountable for it's failings? If a movement (socialism) has killed over 100 million violently, and countless more from starvation, and has never been peaceful in it's history, what rational person doesn't look at that?

That's not a 'movement' doing it, it's the actions of a few men. It's not socialism either, there's a difference between socialism and communism. Sorry, this isn't the 60s.

"No one has done that" Yes they have. "Not me." So?

The point is irrelevant anyway. You know that.

At 5/11/08 06:41 PM, Britkid wrote: Hitler's genocide wasn't a 'policy', it was an insane rampage.

Semantics. It was national policy to get rid of the Jews. They debated means, efficiency, etc. It mayt have been insane, but it's not like it wasn't put forward to the voters, taught in the schools, etc.

And I've said before that it was only called that to attract voters. National is a right-wing name. The Nazi Party was from the extreme right.

Proof by assertion.

By any objective standard, fascism was distinctly left wing.

Big deal. One dictator was impressed by another. Hitler disliked nationalisation and he was always planning to attack Russia, even then. And how do we know this? Oh that's right, because he did.

You're not clairvoyant. And hell, you're not even consistant.
He did it, therefore he was always planning it, is a fallcious line of logic. Hitler was not the great mastermind he has been made out to be. He was a deeply inconsistant man, changing decisions on a whim. Both Mussolini and Goering tried to dissuade Hitler from invading Germany. And once Hitler DID invade Russia, his interference kept them from conquering it. As even Hitler realized, he wasn't that bright, and his only real skill was public speaking. He was an extremely short sighted man, who never thought his actions through. It's extremely silly

That's not a 'movement' doing it, it's the actions of a few men. It's not socialism either, there's a difference between socialism and communism. Sorry, this isn't the 60s.

Communism is a branch of socialism. As is Fascism.

Trying to pass it off as an isolated incident here and there is both dishonest and disturbing.

The point is irrelevant anyway. You know that.

No, it's not. The mantra that Nazis=bad, Communists= good is a pathetic white wash by everyone here. And yes, that does include you. Socialism is directly responsible for these attrocities. And the effort to brand Nazis as right winger is both a historical distortion and a slander to TODAY'S right wingers.

People have to understand the difference between Commuism and "Nazism" (the form of facisim distinct to Nazi Germany)

~Communism~
A communist society (or at least a true one) consits of one basic idea, a classless stateless society. This means, in simplar terms, that all people will not belong to a class (high , low, or middle) but will all be economically, polically, and so on, equal. This society could also only exsist with the "Means of Production" this is a concept that basically says you make what is needed to survive and advance, and those who can perform a task that they can specialize in is what they will do.
To decribe the difference between a "True Communist State" and a "Russian Communist State"
(the one that was the USSR) is a little analogy.
A true communism is- you have two cows. you take care of one and your friend takes care of one.
A Russian communism is- you have two cows. the goverment comes kills you and takes your two cows.

~Nazism~
Nazism, aka "National Socialism", was roughly the same as communism on paper, but in practice was a facist state. This means the goverment controls many of the aspects of common life. you often do not challenge them in fear you or something/someone you know could end up damaged or killed. It ended up being one of the most horrible acts ever in history.

So in the end you can look at both Russian Communism and Nazism as a horrible system of goverment but you cannot look at true communist state the same way. Politics and govermrnt become very confusing. if you have any Q's just message me ill be happy to answer any question you have =)

At 5/11/08 06:41 PM, Britkid wrote:

Hitler's genocide wasn't a 'policy', it was an insane rampage

Britkid,
Hitler's persecution of the Jew's was a policy and it even had a name, "Die Endlösung" (or "The Final Solution). It was passed by the Reichstag, their parliment, voted and passed it. The plan was to be executed far from the mainland, Poland and Checoslvakia mainly, It was a tragic and horrid event but was the popular idea of the German people

At 5/10/08 06:37 AM, Slizor wrote: Nazis were fascists, not the other way round (i.e. you can be a fascist without being a nazi) and the words are not synonyms.

If all fascists are socialists and all nazis are fascists...it doesn't mean all socialists are nazis. But it does mean all nazis are socialists.

What the fuck are you on? Don't spout fucking drivel at me and then say "Next?" like you've dismissed my point entirely. Fascism is a political ideology in its own right and is not a part of socialism. For fuck's sake, look at the foundations of fascism - it considers itself a "third way" between Marxism and Capitalism, is nationalistic and virulently anti-communist.

And the destruction of the bourgeoisie? The advancement of Unionism? Equality between the sexes and the classes?
I thought not. Limited social programs do not equal socialism.

There was no "LIMITED". Decreeing that all property belongs to the state is socialism.

Actually it's extreme nationalisation, which would be a socialist policy, but could also be the policy of other ideologies.

And where did the Nazis declare that all property belongs to the state? I thought the one piece of evidence you had dredged up had said that the state would control property, as most economies did during WW2.

The Nazi platform was based on equality. Next?

No it wasn't, it was based on inequality - particularly between the races.

Oh yes, I can make statements too. Next?

No it's not. It's based on the idea that inequality between the classes continues to exist on the basis of the means of production being privately owned.

No. It's based on the fact that the platform of the socialists and fascists was identical. I have offered proof. You claimed "nu uh".

You haven't done anything of the sort. You have pulled up the "Nazi Party Economic Platform" (from somewhere) and then said that it sounded the same as socialism. You haven't brought up a socialist platform and then offered a comparison between the two, so don't try and bullshit me by saying you offered a comparative analysis that I chose to respond with "nu uh." You've failed to offer a definition of socialism and have a shite argument because of it.

Sorry, what definition of the Capitalist world are you using? One that only includes first world countries?

Claim a meaningful amount of "capitalist" deaths and I will provide a larger list of people who died by tripping and drowning in grape jelly.

Answer my first question, what is your definition of the "capitalist" world? Does it include all the countries where starvation and disease are still commonplace, or have you left them out of your definition?

And the effort to brand Nazis as right winger is both a historical distortion and a slander to TODAY'S right wingers.

Hahahahaha! WolvenBear just wants to think that the right-wing has never done anything bad and that the left-wing is the embodiement of evil.

Man, that's pathetic.

At 5/12/08 09:30 PM, Kleinhans wrote: Britkid,
Hitler's persecution of the Jew's was a policy and it even had a name, "Die Endlösung" (or "The Final Solution). It was passed by the Reichstag, their parliment, voted and passed it. The plan was to be executed far from the mainland, Poland and Checoslvakia mainly, It was a tragic and horrid event but was the popular idea of the German people

What the fuck? No it wasn't. The Final Solution was decided in secret by the most senior Nazis. The German population may have suspected what was going on, but they weren't informed about it.

WolvenBears said:
Proof by assertion.

By any objective standard, fascism was distinctly left wing.

You haven't proved it any more than me. Basically, I take the assertion that fascism was right wing from my history teacher. He has a phD in History, and before you ask, he is definitely not a liberal. He reads the Daily Telegraph and occasionally spouts off in class about the terrible Euro.

You're just horrified to discover that the right wing can do bad.

At 5/12/08 09:25 PM, Kleinhans wrote: but in practice was a facist state. This means the goverment controls many of the aspects of common life. you often do not challenge them in fear you or something/someone you know could end up damaged or killed. It ended up being one of the most horrible acts ever in history.

This is identical to Communism, thanks.

At 5/13/08 07:11 AM, Slizor wrote: What the fuck are you on? Don't spout fucking drivel at me and then say "Next?" like you've dismissed my point entirely. Fascism is a political ideology in its own right and is not a part of socialism. For fuck's sake, look at the foundations of fascism - it considers itself a "third way" between Marxism and Capitalism, is nationalistic and virulently anti-communist.

Drivel?

Fascism claimed to be a bridge between partisan politics. It NEVER claimed to be a bridge between capitalism and socialism, but between right and left, rich and poor.

I'm sorry, you're too stupid to respond with fact. Try again?

And where did the Nazis declare that all property belongs to the state? I thought the one piece of evidence you had dredged up had said that the state would control property, as most economies did during WW2.

That was before WW2. Offer evidence. Jesus.

No it wasn't, it was based on inequality - particularly between the races.

And communism was based on equality for the WORKING class. Marx and the Communists were disdainful of the "burgoius".

Oh yes, I can make statements too. Next?

Yours aren't based on fact and are therefore wrong.

You haven't done anything of the sort. You have pulled up the "Nazi Party Economic Platform" (from somewhere) and then said that it sounded the same as socialism. You haven't brought up a socialist platform and then offered a comparison between the two, so don't try and bullshit me by saying you offered a comparative analysis that I chose to respond with "nu uh." You've failed to offer a definition of socialism and have a shite argument because of it.

Holy fuck, you're an idiot.

Answer my first question, what is your definition of the "capitalist" world? Does it include all the countries where starvation and disease are still commonplace, or have you left them out of your definition?

Again, holy fuck, you're an idiot.

At 5/13/08 07:15 AM, Slizor wrote:

Hahahahaha! WolvenBear just wants to think that the right-wing has never done anything bad and that the left-wing is the embodiement of evil.

Man, that's pathetic.

This is what's called "changing the subject". Offering no fact, and claiming me foolish to boot.
You're a moron Slizor.

At 5/13/08 11:45 AM, Britkid wrote: What the fuck? No it wasn't. The Final Solution was decided in secret by the most senior Nazis. The German population may have suspected what was going on, but they weren't informed about it.

The Nazis weren't shy about their anti-Semetism. From the late 30s on, they took increasingly discriminatory postions towards the Jews. And they constantly spoke of the destruction of the Jewish race. Claiming that no Germans knew Hitler wanted the Jews gone ignores all of written history.

You haven't proved it any more than me. Basically, I take the assertion that fascism was right wing from my history teacher. He has a phD in History, and before you ask, he is definitely not a liberal. He reads the Daily Telegraph and occasionally spouts off in class about the terrible Euro.

Of course I have. I provided a list of Nazi programs that they demanded implimented. And I proved that they indeed got most of them started. That your professor said otherwise simply proves he's wrong. His PhD being irrelevant in the process.
FDR was a facist and was left wing. Hitler was a fascist and was left wing. And Stalin was a fascist and was left wing. If your teacher wishes to debate me, my email addy is:
wolvenbear@hotmail.com
He can feel free to rebuke me, and come out of our debate feeling much less intelligent than when he went in.

You're just horrified to discover that the right wing can do bad.

What a moronic left wing retort.
Hitler was far from right wing. As I have proved hundreds of times on this board:
Hitler was a left leaning vegetarian. He was all for workers rights and state socialism. He was a beatnik painter who was concerned with the environment ABOVE humans. And FDR was a fervent admirer of his.

IN short Hitler was to FDRs left. If Hitler was a right winger...the only left wingers in the world were in Russia. Not a single one of you brain dead socialists has offered ONE point to refute me. Instead you repeat, without the slightest hint of intelligence, that Hitler was riht wing.

This is why I say "Proof by Assertion". You're clearly and provably wrong. Yet you continue to repeat your stupidity as fact, hoping people will buy it.

if it wasn''t for WW2, national socialism would've been as popular as comunism 1945-1991.

Sigh.
Why are so Americans so socialistophobic?
Nazism is per definition totalitarian and anti-democratic and racist; read Mein Kampf for example.
Communism ISNT. Many dictatorships USED communism to achieve their own goals; whilst raping the true socialist ideal: equality.
Read Animal Farm; by George Orwell. It describes perfectly how the Russian Revolution (which was in the beginning a just one; the tsarist regime was aweful) evolved into Stalinism.

Socialism IS NOT Fascism and IS NOT Nazism.
For God's sake man. Socialists were prosecuted under fascism and nazism.
They favor corporatism instead of class struggle. THAT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM.

At 5/13/08 07:15 AM, Slizor wrote:

And the effort to brand Nazis as right winger is both a historical distortion and a slander to TODAY'S right wingers.

Hahahahaha! WolvenBear just wants to think that the right-wing has never done anything bad and that the left-wing is the embodiement of evil.

Man, that's pathetic.

It is indead pathetic.
Nazis were right wing. They had some 'left' elements; but they were all but socialist. They hated socialism and communism; they rejected class struggle. The state did NOT own the means of productions. Their policy was based on INEQUALITY.

I'll quote Mein Kampf:
'..., and so we must fight the marxist concept of 'All men are equal' and all the consequences of that concept. The ultimate consequence must be that the major traits of a person are his Blood and Race.'
'A world view of a democratic mass must be destroyed, marxism is the Jew's conspiracy to destroy the Aryan Race'
'Workers Unions are not needed, even criminal. They serve only the interests of the International Jews'

Nazis HATED socialism.
Ask ANY historian, Nazis were RIGHT wing. They were EXTREMELY conservative.

Gays? -With one letter less it spells GAS! Hurray! Nach Auschwitz!
Women? -Goebbels: The woman must be pretty en make children. The birds wife makes herself pretty for the male bird and lays his children. Women are tools to make babies.
Democracy? -Hitler: There cannot be decisions of the majority. ALL decisions must be made by one man and one man only. Democracy is the Jew way of holding the Germans under their thumbs.

Socialism is per definition struggle against oppression and tyrants. Nazis WANTED a tyrant.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer <-----> All people on the planet are one, No against imperialism, no to tyrants.

All the quotes I used are historically correct; I have all kinds of Nazi writings here. Many of my friends are historians and politicologists. NAZIS WERE RIGHT-WING; AND THAT IS NOT A SLANDER TO RIGHT WINGERS; SINCE I TRULY RESPECT LIBERALISM (--> I mean the european liberalism; which means a small state).

What the fuck are you on? Don't spout fucking drivel at me and then say "Next?" like you've dismissed my point entirely. Fascism is a political ideology in its own right and is not a part of socialism. For fuck's sake, look at the foundations of fascism - it considers itself a "third way" between Marxism and Capitalism, is nationalistic and virulently anti-communist.

Drivel?

Yes. Drivel. Now fuck off if you can't be arsed to address my points. I'm not some 14 year old that you feel you can dismiss out of hand.

Fascism claimed to be a bridge between partisan politics. It NEVER claimed to be a bridge between capitalism and socialism, but between right and left, rich and poor.

Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way [disambiguation needed]" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.

I'm sorry, you're too stupid to respond with fact. Try again?

Where are your facts?

And where did the Nazis declare that all property belongs to the state? I thought the one piece of evidence you had dredged up had said that the state would control property, as most economies did during WW2.

That was before WW2. Offer evidence. Jesus.

Offer evidence against your unsupported point?

No it wasn't, it was based on inequality - particularly between the races.

And communism was based on equality for the WORKING class. Marx and the Communists were disdainful of the "burgoius".

Irrelevant. You've offered no bridge between the points and I'm not filling in the gaps for you.

Oh yes, I can make statements too. Next?

Yours aren't based on fact and are therefore wrong.

You haven't done anything of the sort. You have pulled up the "Nazi Party Economic Platform" (from somewhere) and then said that it sounded the same as socialism. You haven't brought up a socialist platform and then offered a comparison between the two, so don't try and bullshit me by saying you offered a comparative analysis that I chose to respond with "nu uh." You've failed to offer a definition of socialism and have a shite argument because of it.

Holy fuck, you're an idiot.

HAHA. To quote cellardoor, you're a fucking coward. If you can't be bothered to even engage with my arguments then fuck off. Simple as.

Answer my first question, what is your definition of the "capitalist" world? Does it include all the countries where starvation and disease are still commonplace, or have you left them out of your definition?

Again, holy fuck, you're an idiot.

What, for asking for your definition? Shocking isn't it.

At 5/13/08 07:15 AM, Slizor wrote:

Hahahahaha! WolvenBear just wants to think that the right-wing has never done anything bad and that the left-wing is the embodiement of evil.

Man, that's pathetic.

This is what's called "changing the subject". Offering no fact, and claiming me foolish to boot.
You're a moron Slizor.

*Yawn* People tend to change the subject (as you have done) in an effort to avoid points, not answer points and then remark.

At 5/16/08 05:12 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 5/12/08 09:25 PM, Kleinhans wrote: but in practice was a facist state. This means the goverment controls many of the aspects of common life. you often do not challenge them in fear you or something/someone you know could end up damaged or killed. It ended up being one of the most horrible acts ever in history.

This is identical to Communism, thanks.

It only is like communism if you look at it like Russian/Chinese Communism (Dictator Communism) which is completely different from True Communism. Look it up research it and make an educational response before you think u know everything...thanks

At 5/3/08 02:14 PM, andrease wrote: Communism is more accepted then NationalSocialism. Why?
As far as i'm concerned, Communisms crimes are much worse, and they're still commited, while NationalSocialisms crimes stopped 60 years ago (except criminal underground groups that is).

WRONG
Communisim is a form of government. A form of government can not commit crimes. It is the people behind the government. Communism cant work in a world where people want something for themselves as well. No country has ever been true communisim, because the people in the higher government lived much better then the others below them. In a true communist government, The Leader would live the same way as the street sweeper.

Now, even in dimocracy, there are many crimes. Watergate for example. Nixon had people steal records in the watergate building so that he had a better shot at being re-elected.
The people of the government make the crimes, not the government itself.

NationalSocialisms is the same way, however, with the nazis, they were trying to create a race of one kind or people. White, and blue eyed. Ayrien, or how ever its spelled. This form of government as well doesnt commit the crimes, the people behind them do. However, in this case, the way of the government itself is wrong.

Now the idea of communism is that everyone has equil pay, equal rights, equal living style, and the main drive is the betterment of the country and the people rather then yourselves. The only bad thing about it is that in today's world, it is impossible, and has been proven over and over that today, a real communistic country cant be sustained or made.

Countries that have communism do commit crimes, but so do all countries.

The USSR was a communism and a dictatorship rulled by a very wicked man who ran the country with an iron fist.

You see, it isnt the government that causes the problems and crimes, it is the people who run it that are the causes.

People accept Communism over NationalSocialisms because in communism the idea is to create a totally equil country. For the betterment of the whole.
NationalSocialisms however, the idea is to control the people and to rid all other races except the Aryen race, or maybe that was just the Nazi form of NationalSocialisms.

Ether way, a form of government is just an ideal. It does not good, it does no wrong. It is just a way of running a country. The people are what make it ether good or bad.

Commie Fo Sho'

Communism can be very effective if fully automated harvest, production distribution systems are implemented...

but no banks would fund that cuz theres no return on investment

At 5/16/08 02:33 PM, Slizor wrote:

All right, I'll address you.

Yes. Drivel. Now fuck off if you can't be arsed to address my points. I'm not some 14 year old that you feel you can dismiss out of hand.

No, but you're still a moron, spouting nonsense and claiming it to be fact. If you made a point, I missed it. YAWN.

Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way [disambiguation needed]" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.

Link to wikipedia, and the site says "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed."

That's because the nazi "third way" wasn't between communism and capitalism, but between right and left. The third way saw itself as getting things done.

What kinda idiot links to a site that say "info is probably not accurate" as proof?

Where are your facts?

See above, platform of the nazis, platform of fascism, etc?
You know, the stuff none of you fools has had the temerity to address?

Offer evidence against your unsupported point?

How about one of the points of the Nazi part's 20 point platform?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Fasc ism (since you like Wiki so much)

"...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 which have been formed into corporations... profit-sharing in large enterprises... extensive development of insurance for old-age... land reform suitable to our national requirements...[52]"

HOLY CRAP! THAT'S SOCIALISM!

Irrelevant. You've offered no bridge between the points and I'm not filling in the gaps for you.

You're simply wrong, as evidenced by everything I provided here.

Oh yes, I can make statements too. Next?

HAHA. To quote cellardoor, you're a fucking coward. If you can't be bothered to even engage with my arguments then fuck off. Simple as.

What haven't I engaged? You're wrong. I've provided dozens of examples of nazi socialism. I even use your favorite source as a link. You provide me a crappy "factual dispute" link and call the deal settled. Are you stupid?

What, for asking for your definition? Shocking isn't it.

OK chuckles. You (or someone stupid like you) claimed capitalism was to blame for starvation. This was in response to acknowledging socialism was to blame for millions of deaths by forcing their populous to starve. I asked for a single ONE example of capitalism doing the same thing. None of you could provide it. Why? It doesn't exist.

*Yawn* People tend to change the subject (as you have done) in an effort to avoid points, not answer points and then remark.

Have I claimed right wingers aren't wrong? No. Do I take exception with right wingers on matters of fact more than every leftist on this board combined. Yes.

You're simply not intelligent enough to debate me. So you call me a right winger, attack my integrity, and defile my character. Meanwhile, your stupid ass can't be bothered to debate teh dozens of points I put up the prove Hitler was a socialist.

Piss off lightweight.

Link to wikipedia, and the site says "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed."

That's because the nazi "third way" wasn't between communism and capitalism, but between right and left. The third way saw itself as getting things done.

No, it's because people dispute the view that fascism opposed free market capitalism and they question the sources used there. It says on the talk page, so don't try to lever your ideas into a gap that doesn't exist.

Where are your facts?

See above, platform of the nazis, platform of fascism, etc?
You know, the stuff none of you fools has had the temerity to address?

You have given "facts" about Nazism, but not about socialism. To support your argument you need both, not just a claim that the Nazi party platform is the same as socialism. Look, I can make a similar argument.
"
"Our five tasks are:

(i) To restore the health of our economic and social life, by controlling inflation and striking a fair balance between the rights and duties of the trade union movement.

(2) To restore incentives so that hard work pays, success is rewarded and genuine new jobs are created in an expanding economy.

(3) To uphold Parliament and the rule of law.

(4) To support family life, by helping people to become home-owners, raising the standards of their children's education, and concentrating welfare services on the effective support of the old, the sick, the disabled and those who are in real need.

(5) To strengthen Britain's defences and work with our allies to protect our interests in an increasingly threatening world.

This is the strategy of the next Conservative government."
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/c on79.htm

OMG, that sounds like new pseudofascisitic nonneoneoliberal nihilism to me! "

That's not a use of facts and evidence to back up an argument, that is commentary on a document which is then confused with being an argument. If I provided a good definition of " new pseudofascisitic nonneoneoliberal nihilism" and then compared that with the Conservative 1979 election manifesto, drawing out the similarities (and noting the differences, if there are any) then I could be said to have made an argument about how the Conservative 1979 election manifesto was based on/influenced by/similar to " new pseudofascisitic nonneoneoliberal nihilism."

I could equally just quote the same stuff that you have used back at you and then say "doesn't sound like socialism to me!" Each position would have the same backing and would utilise the same "facts", yet be completely different. I did mention this before, but you just ignored it and called me a moron, so I think the above illustration should help you with getting information into your thick thick skull.

Offer evidence against your unsupported point?

How about one of the points of the Nazi part's 20 point platform?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Fasc ism (since you like Wiki so much)

"...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 which have been formed into corporations... profit-sharing in large enterprises... extensive development of insurance for old-age... land reform suitable to our national requirements...[52]"

HOLY CRAP! THAT'S SOCIALISM!

No, it's fascism. This is the point that you've been missing, you have not provided a definition of socialism, merely stated that the Nazi Party platform "sounds like socialism to me".

What, for asking for your definition? Shocking isn't it.

OK chuckles. You (or someone stupid like you) claimed capitalism was to blame for starvation. This was in response to acknowledging socialism was to blame for millions of deaths by forcing their populous to starve.

Actually, I said
"Out of interest, has anyone thought to count the deaths that stem from the current global capitalist system? I'm not talking genocide here, but about people who starve to death, etc because of the capitalist system."
It's important to note this because I was no where near close to saying that capitalism enforced starvation, but was actually asking about deaths that happen not through intent, but through a lack of intent (i.e. situations where action is possible to stop death, but is not taken because the state, following capitalism, has assigned the problem as a personal, private matter.)

So,2,200,000 deaths a year.Or 4.2 million so far this year. Now obviously these are global statistics so will include non-capitalist countries as well, but you get the gist of my argument.

I asked for a single ONE example of capitalism doing the same thing. None of you could provide it. Why? It doesn't exist.

You confuse not having done something with being unable to do something. I didn't give you any examples because I wanted the way clear to drive my point home. However, because you didn't provide a definition of the capitalist world you have left yourself significant (but incorrect) squirm space to exclude deaths in countries that you do not consider to represent capitalism.

You're simply not intelligent enough to debate me.

HAHAHA.

So you call me a right winger, attack my integrity, and defile my character.

Hahahaha (not as big as laugh as your last "point", although I am amused that you included "call me a right winger" - it's like a kid going to the teacher and saying "he called me short!")

Meanwhile, your stupid ass can't be bothered to debate teh dozens of points I put up the prove Hitler was a socialist.

Without any "proof" of what socialism is.

Piss off lightweight.

Actually I'm a welterweight. If I drop a few pounds I could get down to a super lightweight.

Oh, wait! You're talking about me intellectually and on this board? Well, let's see. 8 years here, 2 degrees in Politics.....hmmm.

people like communism because it sounds better with people going "there will be no classes and everyone will be equal" that speaks to the poor and third world countries while the Nazi party is blatantly racist and can only be supported by a small group of aryans

Socialism is the best system with every one being fare and while it was never don it will be
soon and that the early repiles were a Right wing nut case

Most hate Nazi because of Hitler
Most hate communism because of Stalin
Most hate Capitalism because of G8
Most hate Fascism because of Mussolini

Seems as though one-two bad leaders cause people to hate the entire government.

At 5/3/08 02:28 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Communism is a system that is SUPPOSED to bring about equality, peace, etc. It fails miserably; but communists get credit for trying. Nazis do not.

Perfectly put. With communism in theory It works. However communism didn'nt kill millions of innocent people for no apparent reason. OK Stalin had a good go but it was never of the scale of the death camps.

At 5/16/08 03:20 PM, Kleinhans wrote: It only is like communism if you look at it like Russian/Chinese Communism (Dictator Communism) which is completely different from True Communism. Look it up research it and make an educational response before you think u know everything...thanks

Guess who looked up "true communism".

guess who didnt? try reading "The Communist Manifesto" it is the most deep down truth of Communism, bearing the fact that this is where it was created.

At 5/22/08 04:28 PM, silverman10 wrote:
Perfectly put. With communism in theory It works. However communism didn'nt kill millions of innocent people for no apparent reason. OK Stalin had a good go but it was never of the scale of the death camps.

lulz, not including wars hitler was responsible for about 11 million deaths.
Stalin like 60 million.

This is repeated to many times:
IF IT DOES NOT WORK In PRACTICE IT IS A FLAWED THEORY.
So please stop claiming its a fine theory.
Not just the poster, but everyone.

Perfectly put. With communism in theory It works. However communism didn'nt kill millions of innocent people for no apparent reason. OK Stalin had a good go but it was never of the scale of the death camps.

lulz, not including wars hitler was responsible for about 11 million deaths.
Stalin like 60 million.

Not even the Black Book of Communism attributes that many to Stalin and that's hugely questionable in its methodology.

This is repeated to many times:
IF IT DOES NOT WORK In PRACTICE IT IS A FLAWED THEORY.
So please stop claiming its a fine theory.
Not just the poster, but everyone.

What examples are there of an industrial proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a workers' republic? What examples are there of a communist revolution in an advanced capitalist democracy? I.e. What examples of communism are there?

At 5/23/08 05:14 AM, LastSpartan wrote:

At 5/12/08 09:30 PM, Kleinhans wrote: Hitler's persecution of the Jew's was a policy and it even had a name, "Die Endlösung" (or "The Final Solution). It was passed by the Reichstag, their parliment, voted and passed it.

Proof? Seriously, provide evidence that Hitler ever passed a bill or made an official order for the execution of the Jews. No evidence was ever found of an official order when Russia made public all its documents in 1991, even the Jews admit this.

okay? of course the jews would agree with it as im sure they would agree with everything agaisnt the Nazi's. Ever hear about the Wannsee Confrence? well thats where it was decided
http://www.auschwitz.dk/Wannsee.htm