Slashdot Mirror
Hitler Quote Controversy In the BSD Community
New submitter Seven Spirals writes: Recently, the FreeBSD folks have removed Fortune with a fairly predictable far right 4chan condemnation. Then last weekend saw a lively debate on NetBSD's current-users mailing list about the inclusion of Hitler quotes in the Fortune database with dozens of posts falling on the left and right. The quotes themselves are fairly tame material probably intended as cautionary. However, the controversy and the reaction of BSD users has been real and very diverse. So far, the result has been to pull Fortune out of FreeBSD and to relocate the quotes into the "offensive" database in NetBSD's case.
...briefly what fortune is in this context (as in, the Unix program, not the magazine, town, or band):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_(Unix)
its only controversy because a popular technoloby news website runs it as one of their headlines. I hope this saves the business.
I don't understand what the issue is here.
Could somebody please explain?
Some people enjoy getting trolled, but I refuse to care about something so nonsensical as fortune. Is it stable? Can it be used to run exploits or escalate privileges? If not, then I don't care. For people who care, fork it or overload with -nohitler parameter.
Hey BSD, don't you all have bigger fish to fry?
I mean it's time to bury the corpse, and move on.
I suggest planting a Tree of Remembrance in the Garden of Memories.
And on both sides I mean.
As soon as all the Hitler, Nazi, and Civil War stuff goes away the sooner we can finally start saying those things never happened. That is the goal right?
The sooner it can happen again. The masses that silence are not evil. They are the instrument of evil.
"His name was James Damore."
They have to muck with politically insensitive shit that's been around for decades.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Can we add Trump to the list?
'm afraid *BSD is rife with the seeds of its own destruction. Any project which uses such immoral imagery and thematic darkness is bound to die. Cast into the lake of fire, if I do say so myself.
it's not like the alt-right neckbeards even use *BSD.
Yep, that's why the people against displaying them in public want them put into a museum and only shown in the proper educational context, so that we will forgeOH WAIT...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
...briefly what fortune is in this context (as in, the Unix program, not the magazine, town, or band):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_(Unix)
For once I actually knew exactly what it was in reference to. I'm used to most Slashdot articles being like this - "FartKnocker, a new OO programming language that everybody is using, just got a new release" or talking about new tools that do things that other tools already did but somebody didn't think the older tools were cool enough so they wrote completely new ones that don't add any new functionality but work in more complex ways and are much harder to use than the older tools and they just pretend that they are better than the older ones. Also fun are the tools that actually almost nobody has ever used or heard of except for maybe 100 people in the entire world and the Slashdot article just assumes that everybody has not only heard of it, but uses it.
I noticed a quote from George Carlin in the Git listing next to a Hitler quote. Proposal: remove all quotes by known sexual harassers. Discuss. >:D
Removing from fortune is removing from history books?!
Wtf are you smoking?
... BSD is dying.
4chan is a damn blizzard
Why you dissing the programming language I created. Took me years to write FartKnocker ;(
Fuck all the Nazi trolls who worship their pedophile coward leader!
Here you see them carefully remove a statue so that it can be put in a museum.
OH... WAIT...
"His name was James Damore."
I'm not sure you understand what fact means... or socialists, or Republicans...
Has been in Emacs for a long time (among many other things of course)
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
No, you fucking idiot! Nazis were a far-right group from the outset founded by ex-soldiers angry at the Weimar government as scapegoat for loss in the great war where it had been drummed into their heads they would win, like their fathers and fathers fathers. The whole massive upheaval in industrial warfare reaching the frontlines on a continuous basis wasn't considered, they thought they were betrayed. That is the same sentiment that plays into the hatred of "jews" or the modern form "sjw" where everyone else knows what they really mean, and how stupid it all is. Next time they won't get away with killing the innocent, instead now any Nazi imitators will be the very first to die.
Marxist predictions of a revolution in a wealthy capitalistic society failed to materialize; the "proletariat" was enjoying an increasing standard of living in Britain and Germany, where these revolutions were supposed to have occurred, which really upset and confused the devout Marxists.
So, Marxists began to split into factions, which tried to revise or reinterpret Marxist teachings to include nationalism (rather than classism) and to include direct violent upheaval rather than passive waiting. In Italy, there were the rise of the syndicated "unions", or "fascists", where the struggle became between not rich and poor people, but between rich and poor countries. This idea of nationalistic socialism spread to Germany, which added to it the idea that there is a struggle between the races, too.
Why did the Nazis so hate the ? Because the communists were rivals for the Nazis socialist powerbase; all of this stuff is leftism
In Europe, the people on the "right" were the monarchists, who wanted to conserve the old order.
In America, the people on the "right" are the people who want to conserve the ideals of the American Revolution, in the face of the unending onslaught from leftist "progressives"; the "right" are the true Americans, who want a small government whose sole role is to protect the rights of the people (notice, the government doesn't grant rights, but rather protects rights), whereas the leftists want to increase power ever more in the centralized state, and either spread their control to the rest of the world (kind of a communist outlook) or simply nationalize large swaths of society (kind of like the fascists of Italy and Germany).
Either way, the point is that Marxists, Communists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Nazis, Socialists, Progressives, Antifa, etc., are all Leftist political movements.
Can I interest you in a position as a helicopter pilot?
Nobody ever claimed it never happened. Traitors should be treated like Benedict Arnold. Everyone knows his name, and there's no statue to him, just one memorial to a battle he was general in. But traitors from the south got lots of Idols made of them, most on the campaign to oppress Black people, not out of a genuine care for the loser traitor states of America. We don't need memorials worshipping Benedict Arnold to know who he was and what he did. So needing them for traitor terrorists must be about something else. Like White Supremacy.
Learn to love Alaska
/g/ isn't """alt-right"", and to assume anyone who is annoyed with the trend of ignoring or removing history is """alt-right""" is foolish.
Just scroll down to the bottom, to see a fortune. (Inside the speech bubble.) Maybe you are lucky and get too see which Hitler quotes the article is even fucking talking about!
FORTRAN? The syntactically incorrect statement "DO 10 I = 1.10" will parse and
generate code creating a variable, DO10I, as follows: "DO10I = 1.10" If that
doesn't terrify you, it should.
In other words, the fortune database contains a fair bit of wisdom, a lot that is very funny (it is SUPPOSED to be funny/ironic/satirical/wiseass), and a certain amount that is shocking just because.
What it is not supposed to be is boring. Or, for that matter, a fortune. I no longer generate a fortune on login or logout the way I did for some decades of the past -- mostly login to a single GUI and just pop up xterms, rarely logging into a remote host through one but much more often working on the system I'm on -- but back in the day, fortunes brightened many an otherwise dull day, sometimes many times over as I logged into many hosts, a lot.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
In Germany we memorialize the victims, not the criminals. That is the better method. The majority of the confederate statues are not from the US civil war but from the era of the fight for civil rights. They functioned as intended then, as threats to the people fighting to be equals. That is why now they have no history worth saving, and must be destroyed to destroy the last vestige of implied approval for segregationist idiocy.
So what you are saying is that the leaders of the socialists masses are far right extremists, and that the socialists masses are at fault.
Politics are destroying open source software development.
That's not to say that politics weren't involved to some degree before. They obviously were. But at least then the political debates were relevant. They focused on things like freedom of source code reuse, or project leadership, or how to indent code. Such political bickering could easily be ignored, and the focus was generally on creating great software that should be freely shared and modified to some extent.
But things have changed these last 5 or so years. Leftist identity politics have invaded open source development, effectively ruining it.
So many times we see this petty nonsense arise over matters that are trivial or irrelevant. There's more focus put on genitalia and skin color and "-isms" than on programming or software development.
What's stupidest about all of this is that most open source development is done over the Internet, by people who will very likely never meet and never actually see one another. Under such circumstances gender becomes irrelevant. Sexual preference becomes irrelevant. Skin color becomes irrelevant. Physical disabilities become irrelevant. Political beliefs should be irrelevant.
Open source software development was once the most egalitarian and open methods of cooperation to have ever existed, where anyone could participate, regardless of their physical attributes or beliefs. But those on the political left who are pushing their leftist identity politics couldn't stand for this environment of true tolerance. They needed to come in and destroy it with their identity politics.
What was once a fun activity where we could meet and interact with all kinds of people from around the globe has been destroyed. Now if we want to work on open source projects we're subjected to tyrannical codes of conduct and monsters who try to force leftist identity politics into every single possible situation.
Leftist identity politics have destroyed open source software development.
...briefly what fortune is in this context (as in, the Unix program, not the magazine, town, or band):
This is Slashdot. Your expected to know what fortune is. Otherwise turn in your nerd card and go bugger off to reddit. Context is not ambiguous in the slightest.
Hitler is pure evil. It was all his fault. Nobody would do similar in his situation. All your ancestors are absolved and good. Hitler however was EVIL incarnate (probably due to a quantum effect?). Anything Hitler said is therefore evil incarnate. Everyone is absolved. Please no logic here we want raw emotion.
You should point out how all these quotes are from 1933 or earlier. You might otherwise give the impression the Nazi party actually was a socialist party. It was not. That was what the night of the long knives was all about.
No, it's merely so easy and hilarious to get the Ctrl Left worked up over nothing.
It's like driving past an accident. You can't help but look. Same thing with hysterical meltdowns - grab your popcorn.
They are still available to install if someone feels like being edgy, and there was already a defined repository for other offensive material. This is a non issue in my opinion.
What does the 'S' in NSDAP stand for?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
1 knocked down by an angry mob vs. maybe a dozen carefully and professionally relocated? Is cherry picking all you got?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Mao quotes to be deleted when?
Have gnu, will travel.
I'm in the minority on this one, but I really think even open source projects are "companies," and their supporters should try to avoid promoting topics most people find inappropriate. I'm not saying people can't express these opinions personally, but I do think the right wing is cherry-picking incidents so they can promote the "look at these triggered safe-space Millenials" meme to full effectiveness. When a company is dragged into these discussions, it just leads to a mess. I suppose I am somewhat in favor of PC public speech, only because what's coming out of individuals is increasingly less civil as traditional filters on behavior are disappearing.
Back when Fortune was written, most Unix users were, err, nerdier than the general population and it was more of a closed club. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in that group who would dare to make a public statement against something like this, because they'd be shouted down by the others in the group. But the *BSDs are in use by a wider audience now...they form the basis of a lot of network appliances and many companies use them for daily operations. I'm not saying I would be one of the ones complaining about this...it is pretty innocuous in the grand scheme of things...but if I owned an open source project I wouldn't want the controversy of not responding to it.
It's like the James Damore incident and Google...say what you want about what he wrote, why he wrote it, and whether he ever expected it to be released. But if I were Google's general counsel, I would want that problem to disappear immediately, and that's probably what ended up happening. Even on a private internal forum, you don't write anything you wouldn't want published in the New York Times, and I wouldn't expect my employer to want me around if I did anything that even tangentially put them in a bad light.
One counter-argument to this is that suppressing opinion will just lead to more extremism. I kind of agree with that...I imagine there are an even more fervent band of followers of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity after they got fired from Fox News, and now they're even less restrained than they were. But, in the absence of people being able to not be jerks and stop themselves from saying the first thing that comes out of their mouths, AND having social media platforms that amplify people's voices a billion times, I think companies should try to enforce civil behavior.
A marketing slogan with no actual meaning. How democratic is the DPRK?
No, you fucking idiot! Nazis were a far-right group from the outset founded by ex-soldiers angry at the Weimar government as scapegoat for loss in the great war where it had been drummed into their heads they would win, like their fathers and fathers fathers. The whole massive upheaval in industrial warfare reaching the frontlines on a continuous basis wasn't considered, they thought they were betrayed. That is the same sentiment that plays into the hatred of "jews" or the modern form "sjw" where everyone else knows what they really mean, and how stupid it all is. Next time they won't get away with killing the innocent, instead now any Nazi imitators will be the very first to die.
This should be part of fortune!
"Stupid". How about getting a fucking education instead of jumping to conclusions and thinking that's the sign of a great mind? Fucking moron.
Here is a list of quotes that were removed. I am not sure if this is all of them, or just a sample:
"Everlasting peace will come to the world when the last man has slain the last but one." -- Adolph Hitler
"I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war, no matter whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging war it is not right that matters, but victory." -- Adolph Hitler
"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong." -- Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
"The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence." -- Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
"A highly intelligent man should take a primitive woman. Imagine if on top of everything else, I had a woman who interfered with my work." -- Adolf Hitler
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." -- Adolph Hitler
The last quote (men do not think) is likely a fabrication. There is no record of Hitler ever actually saying or writing it.
Don't feed the known trolls. You have a foe marker for a reason.
Don't understand why you were voted down. Nazi stands for national socialist workers' party.
No, you fucking idiot! Nazis were a far-right group from the outset ...
You were misinformed. The Nazis were fascists, and fascism is neither left nor right. Fascist ideology takes from both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Fascism will do things like coop the workers and the industrialists, bringing both under their control and leveraging both as convenient.
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/bas...
I think it's not exactly sincere Hitler supporters that are the only ones that could think the change a bad idea. I would think pretending those things were never said because we are hurt they were ever said is harmful for the future. Lest we have public figures repeat many of those patterns without recognizing the problem because we bury our heads in the sand at the past when it offends us.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
What does the 'S' in NSDAP stand for?
It stands for "Something that we say we are, but are not"
The first salvos in the fight for civil rights were fired before the Constitution was even written. Your understanding of history is quite simply flawed.
Retard, you need to think through what you are writing before posting it! The US was one of the last slave holders, and one of the last for equal treatment of all citizens.
Maybe, but you clearly just pulled it out of your ass.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Now what happens is that Fortune becomes a tool of hate speech. If you previously enjoyed it and now install it you're for a hateful message and if you don't install it you're against it.
I don't think Germany is a good example. A country where you can get a jail term for publishing historic photos. Germany is a scary place.
% fortune -m 'Joseph Stalin'
%% (fortunes)
A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
-- Joseph Stalin
%%
Even God cannot change the past.
-- Joseph Stalin
%%
Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union.
-- Joseph Stalin
%%
In the future, there will be fewer but better Russians.
-- Joseph Stalin
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The majority of the confederate statues are not from the US civil war but from the era of the fight for civil rights. They functioned as intended then, as threats to the people fighting to be equals. That is why now they have no history worth saving, and must be destroyed to destroy the last vestige of implied approval for segregationist idiocy.
That's utter bullshit.
The vast majority of confederate memorials are from, get this, after the civil war from the late 1800s to the early 1900s and that include the schools named after Robert E Lee. But I wouldn't expect a German to understand American history, getting it all from orwellian propaganda sources
Yes, there was a resurgence of confederate support in the 1950s in response to some of the civil rights movement exactly because of the orwellian and revisionist history nonsense you, yourself, post here - defending history as it happened not as we want it to be.
If you're an example of that sort of education - I don't think we want any of that anywhere and that kind of thought must be destroyed because it's not worth saving or good for the world as a whole.
SARCASM. You know. The concept that assburgers like you just don't fuckin' get!
I suppose you vote Democratic party then, right? It's right in their name. Or are you just disingenuously stupid when it's convenient?
"Old man yells at systemd"
The "left" here in the US would be considered populist or even extreme right in other places. Things like "we don't need a healthcare system. No dinero, no doctor" which is what the "center" in the US Congress wants to enact right now is only seen in the US, and countries without a working government like Somalia.
You're pedantically correct, but contextually deaf. It's obvious from context what Jzanu was referring to with his reference to the fight for civil rights.
When categorize Nazi party as being left or right, rather than compare it to the communists, you could just as well compare the Nazis to the Weimar republic. You can't get consistent answers if you do that.
Personally, I think that labeling parties right/left (or even worse policies as right/left) engenders sloppy thinking and is often, if not usually, a tool for deceptive speech. In the case of labeling 20th century fascist movements as being right/left, you might as well try to categorize apples, grapes, and watermelons into right/left fruits. They are their own kind of thing and such simple binary labeling only serve to obscure what they are, and to obscure the nature of whatever they are being compared to.
The summary links to same page that you nearly linked to.
I'm used to seeing the magazine with capital letters and the program with lower case. Also, the magazine tends to be in more /. articles. Not because it's nerdier, but because its newsier. fortune is largely static.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The âoesocialistâ part of âoenational socialismâ is only marginally related to traditional socialism. Iâ(TM)m reading Mein Kampf right now and Hitler hated socialists and communists. But he did not care for capitalism either.
National socialism was to exist as an in between, or a right wing, nationalist version of anti-capitalism. It was definitely not a left wing ideology.
Arguments over whether Nazis were or weren't truly socialists kind of misses the point that what most people take exception with was the "kill all Jews" part of their party platform.
It's strange to see the FreeBSD project being attacked like this. My interactions with the FreeBSD and the OpenBSD communities have always been excellent. As long as you do your homework and don't waste their time, the members of those communities are always extremely friendly and willing to lend a helping hand. They are some of the most tolerant, open and non-bigoted individuals I've ever dealt with.
Those communities are a huge contrast to the Rust programming language project's community. Despite all of their claims about being "inclusive", Rust has one of the most tyrannical and totalitarian communities that I've ever experienced in my many years of open source software use. I mean, they even have a Rust Moderation Team dedicated to eradicating/banning anybody they dislike! The justify this eradication squad through the existence of their tyrannical and contradictory Rust Code of Conduct.
The hypocrisy and contradiction of the Rust Code of Conduct is unreal. The very same paragraph that says "we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people" starts off with "We will exclude you from interaction ...". They openly promise to engage in the same sort of behavior that they claim is intolerable!
It gets even weirder when you look at the list of Rust contributors, and it becomes clear that most of them are young, white males. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being young, white, or male. It's just strange to see such a lack of diversity in a community that claims to go out of its way to promote and encourage diversity. I've seen much more natural diversity in pretty much every other open source community I've ever dealt with, especially the ones that don't go out of their way to focus on diversity in any way. It's like diversity happens best when you aren't fixated on artificially creating it.
I think that the FreeBSD community is being wrongly smeared here. It's one of the most open and friendly communities I've ever dealt with. Yet while this excellent FreeBSD community is being attacked without merit, absolutely nothing is done about open source communities, like the Rust community, that in my opinion promote censorship and intolerance while claiming to support the opposite.
A marketing slogan with no actual meaning. How democratic is the DPRK?
LOL. So many times, I've seen replies to comments about antifa using fascist tactics that say something like, "No, no! They're AGAINST fascism! It's right in the name!"
Cool. America is the most powerful nation on Earth. People from around the world come here for the best medical care and education. They're begging to get in.
Why the fuck would we try to be like everyone else, who is in the process of committing suicide by Islam?
The Nazis definitely weren't capitalists - they had a planned economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hermann Göring had built up a power base that effectively controlled all German economic and production matters from the invasion of Poland in 1939. In 1942 the growing burdens of the war and the death of Fritz Todt in 1942 saw the economy move to a full war economy under the efficient[99] leadership of Albert Speer. Due to state control, business had little entrepreneurial freedom[74] in a regime that has been described as "command-capitalism".[100] In place of ordinary profit incentives guiding the economy, financial investment was regulated as per the needs of the state. The profit incentive for businessmen remained, but was greatly modified; Nazi agencies replaced the profit motive that automatically allocated investment, and the course of the economy.[101] Generally, National Socialists had a history of hostility towards the business community, the profit motive, and "unearned income". The Viennese-born economist Peter Drucker examined this anti-capitalist disposition in his 1939 book The End of Economic Man, explaining that "profits are so completely subordinated in [Nazi] Germany and [Fascist] Italy to requirements of a militarily conceived national interest and of full employment that the maintenance of the profit principle is purely theoretical."[102] One German executive complained that when a businessman makes a "sale at a higher price" he could be "denounced as a 'profiteer' or 'saboteur,' followed by a prison sentence."[103] Rationing was introduced in 1939. Britain immediately put their economy on a war footing, Germany resisted equivalent measures until later in the war. They were ideologically opposed to women participating in the work force. The top personal income tax rate in 1941 was 13.7% in Germany, as opposed to 23.7% in Great Britain.[104] Less inclined to increase taxes on individual German citizens, the National Socialists plundered the wealth of Jewish citizens and the like, with much of the military effort being funded through plundering.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
1 knocked down by an angry mob vs. maybe a dozen carefully and professionally relocated? Is cherry picking all you got?
Nope! Rockoon also has straw-manning, cat-fishing, tea-bagging, smoke-screening, hotdogging, snowballing, and the butterfly effect.
Never underestimate the diversity of his trolling.
In Germany we memorialize the victims, not the criminals. That is the better method. The majority of the confederate statues are not from the US civil war but from the era of the fight for civil rights. They functioned as intended then, as threats to the people fighting to be equals. That is why now they have no history worth saving, and must be destroyed to destroy the last vestige of implied approval for segregationist idiocy.
Yes, destroy all history you don't like - just like the Taliban. After all if you personally decide it's not worthy then that's enough.
I used to like fortune when I would install slackware and the terminal would show a fortune every time I opened a terminal. I don't know but I think the idea was that the fortunes would apply to individuals in general, like a fortune cookie. but I've been watching them in the years since slackware 13.37 and they seem to have changed. Even the one on the bottom on This page .
Anti-fascists are the only smart group right now, as they are the primary group fighting against Russian territorial grabs. Russia needs to focus on North Korea or they will just get Vladivostok nuked and face Siberian revolt for independence.
Nazi stands for national socialist workers' party.
The Nazis were originally socialist, and had a strong socialist faction up until 1934, when the leader of that faction, Ernst Rohm, was murdered on Hitler's order along with many other "leftists". This consolidated Adolf's authority, and made it easier for him to work with German industrialists. All economies are a mixture of socialist and private enterprise, but after 1934, saying Nazi Germany was "socialist" makes as much sense as saying that China is "communist".
Need to keep justifying the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians don't you know...
I think that's been defended enough. What should worry people is when Hitler quotes are dropped in other context. There was an Antifa rally awhile back. One of the prominent members was giving a fairly lengthy speech. And the many Antifa members who were there could not contain themselves over these great word being spoken that embodied all that they are. There was a problem. Every last bit of the speech was directly, word for word, quoted from Hitler speeches. When you are so busy looking for monsters that you find them where there are none, the real monster will sneak up and gas you.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
They did like to appropriate Socialist language when attempting to market themselves as being a "workers party," "of the people," and so on, as a way to paint themselves themselves as the middle road between the old-gaurd Nationalists upon whom they placed blame for the country's failures and the Communists who they saw as their main rivals to replace the Nationalists. Despite the marketing/rhetoric, nothing they did from a policy or governance standpoint stands out as more Socialist than any other European state of that era. They lied,
all the time, whenever they thought it would benefit them. This was no different.
There are many different flavors of Socialism in the world today, mainstream European Social Democrats, Berners who want to import that model to the U.S., Syndicalists in labor movements, Anarcho-Socialists and Autonomists who end up having a lot in common with Libertarians, and so on. While there are a few State Socialist/Leninist/Maoist hold-outs like Cuba or Vietnam, many countries successfully apply Socialist principles to certain national industries and infrastructure segments where market forces have historically produced bad outcomes, but leave things more or less to individuals/the-market otherwise.
No one before or after has ever used "Socialism" with the same context or connotations as the NSDAP, except people wanting to disingenuously tar Social-Democrats with Nazi associations as an ad-hominem rather than engaging with their ideas.
A "War Economy" would be more accurate. Any late 1930s European power finding themselves in an all out war or seriously expecting to get into one was going to go to great lengths to prioritize military capabilities at the expense of everything else. Except for those cases where industrialists were uncooperative (such as Hugo Junkers) or Jewish, the Nazis were happy to leave the industrialists in control of their enterprises - the last thing Hitler wanted was industrial chaos. In fact, as the war went on, more and more planning authorities were devolved to industry groups in an effort to improve efficiency.
Didn't you know , any group that was bad are by de facto always the right.
n/t
/. is strange now...
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Utter BS, so Stalin purging groups of communist suddenly makes Stalin and the Soviet Russia not communist.
Your logic is the same incorrect logic spewed by Socialists, saying since one group of party kills a large group of the same party that makes them not the same party.
"Not capitalists" does not equal Socialist or Communist. That's your big failing right there. They were fascists. Everything was subordinated three main objectives.
1. Building up the German war machine.
2. Accumulating power to Hitler.
3. To the greatest possible extent limit German dependency on other nations.
To archive any of this you need a plan. And if you're out to mobilize your entire economy to do so, that means a planned economy.
The resistance to rationing etc. was because of, despite what your History Channel "documentaries" have taught you, a deeply lackadaisical support for the war, combined with the fact that Hitler actually didn't want a war in the west and was hoping for it to end ASAP. The war in the west was a huge miscalculation, he had anticipated that the western powers would let Poland meet the same fate as they did Czechoslovakia. Germany fought France and Britain because they had to, to keep their backs free, the war they always wanted was the one in Russia. All that ranting about "Lebensraum" in the East in Mein Kampf, remember? Not a single line about "Lebensraum on the Riviera", which would otherwise seem quite a bit more attractive.
Same deal with women in the workforce, that was ideologically motivated, on the same level as "death to the Jews". It doesn't have anything to do with "Socialism", planned economy or not being a capitalist. it's pure ideology sprung, from the "Blut und Boden" ideology. That's where Nazism found a fertile soil to grow from.
If you want to understand the Nazis, you have to understand that they were fascist and the Blod and soil ideology. Otherwise you'll find in congruences wherever you look. Would a man wearing a name like "Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach" donate to socialists? OMG, no.
One of my favourite evil hobbies is to throw out random hitler quotes (unattributed) to see how many upvotes I can get on reddit.
Dinesh D'Souza wrote an entire book on this subject, called "The Big Lie".
oh, you mean it's not about his extra-marital affairs?
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Yes, destroy all history you don't like - just like the Taliban. After all if you personally decide it's not worthy then that's enough.
Those statues aren't history, they're falsehood meant to destroy the real history under the banner of the Lost Cause,
so in fact, if you genuinely opposed destroying history that one doesn't like, you would reject them.
Odd how silent you are on that, preferring your own dogmatic recitation of your preferred pretensions of virtue.
Funny how that works. Apparently if you personally decide it's ok, then that's fine.
America is the most powerful nation on Earth.
LOL!
People from around the world come here for the best medical care and education.
LOL!!
They're begging to get in.
LOL!!!
Something tells me that you've never been anywhere but your little bubble. Try educating and cultivating yourself. Try gaining some perspective and culture. Try growing up, little boy.
Or more correctly, all fascists started out as marxists. Marxism being a genocidal ideology that veils itself as utopian to seduce the terminally stupid.
In europe the label left or right usually came from the position a party was placed in parliament from the point of view of the parliament president.
Obviously in 2 party systems that was super easy.
Why more or less all European countries order parties in the same way escapes me. Perhaps because in old times fights between parliament members were common, and they wanted to have the most conflicting parties as far away from each other as possible?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It shows that "kill all the Jews" is compatible with socialism, namely it's compatible with a large, centralized, State.
The platform plank "kill all the Jews" is not compatible with a small government whose sole role is to protect the rights of each individual (rather than the rights of some nebulous "collective"); that platform plank is not compatible with the notions of voluntary interaction (e.g., capitalism).
You cannot be a small-government capitalist and still support "kill all the Jews". However, you can be a socialist (or, especially, a nationalist socialist) and support "kill all the Jews".
Indeed, one of the reasons that the Nazis so hated Jews was because they were the personification of evil capitalists.
Everything about Nazism is a leftist; the Nazis are a movement that sprung from socialists, which sprung from Marxists.
Fascism can not be plotted on a political graph as left or right. It is both, it includes ideas from both in an opportunistic fashion. It coops both the workers and the industrialists, bringing both under the control of the state. An authoritarian nationalistic state, one that views violence as just another tool and not inherently bad.
Movements like the Nazis are more accurately described as authoritarian. Liberal or conservative, pro-labor or pro-management are positions such a party takes for sake of expediency. They had no problem with contradicting themselves; they always fit their position to the occasion. They were "National Socialists" when gaining support from disaffected workers was vital, but as soon as they had their hands on national power immediately violently purged the socialists from their ranks.
There is really one and only one consistent feature of their ideology: Führerprinzip or the leader principle. That basically means leaving the thinking to the higher-ups. If your superior seemed to contradict himself, that wasn't your problem, it was his.
It's always about personalities with authoritarians, and the leader can say or do no wrong.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Everybody knows that the true social battle is between up against down.
One of my favourite evil hobbies is to throw out random hitler quotes (unattributed) to see how many upvotes I can get on reddit.
You must have fun on antifa channels with quotes related to violence not being inherently wrong, that to further political and social gains it is quite legitimate.
Odd, normally I push them out.
They were users, they used any popular mean to gain power but at the end they wanted another monarchy.
The summary links to same page that you nearly linked to.
Well using google logic that adds credibility to the page. :-)
The platform plank "kill all the Jews" is not compatible with a small government
Sure it is. You remove police and legal protection from the Jews, thus making your government even smaller.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Everyone knows his name, and there's no statue to him"
Boot Monument.
Something tells me that you've never been anywhere but your little bubble. Try educating and cultivating yourself. Try gaining some perspective and culture. Try growing up, little boy.
You tell me where he/she went wrong. The statements were pretty simple:
America is the most powerful nation on Earth.
Still true today, both military and economically.
People from around the world come here for the best medical care and education.
True fact. I've never seen fundraisers in my home country for experimental cancer treatments in Cambodia.
They're begging to get in.
True fact. Every year, millions of people enter in the greencard lottery. In addition to that, all family-based greencard categories are oversubscribed, as are a number of employment-based categories.
Conclusion: you, sure, are full of horse manure.
His tweets should be in there. Then again they may be distracting to the point where you would have to stop what you were doing and go research to see if he actually said those things since most of them are truly unbelievable. Sort of like opening Edge and landing on the MSN page and totally forgetting why you opened the browser.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Here's the full diff.
An authoritarian nationalistic state, one that views violence as just another tool and not inherently bad.
Replace the word "nationalistic" with "globalistic" and you have described the progressive left in the US today. Ron Bloom, Obama's "Manufacturing Czar" was fond of using Mao quotes in his speeches, as he did saying "the free market is nonsense," and "we kind of agree with Mao that 'political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.'"
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Populism?
Ezekiel 23:20
>traitors from the south
Not a southerner, but that's just not how it was seen back then. People held patriotism to their home state, and the southern states saw themselves as sharing a common heritage. When the union broke apart the southerners who took up arms in defense against the northern army saw themselves as patriots.
He tells you *exactly* how he intends to operate:
*The great masses of people more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one.
*How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
*The leader of genius must have the ability to make many opponents appear as if they belong to one category.
*Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.
*I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.
Hitler and the Nazis were stridently anti-intellectual, for the very good reason that people who think critically are very difficult to manipulate. They were very big on feelings: from mawkishly sentimental art to the deliciously transgressive license of a good riot. In fact the rioters only feel liberated; they're actually doing their masters' bidding.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Just because the government fails to protect your rights doesn't mean that you and yours cannot organize to protect your own rights. Hence, the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated (read: well equipped) militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The Nazis were very keen to disarm The People, as are modern-day Progressives and all leftists.
I take a more expansive view of history, that anything old is part of history. As many of the statues are old they seem to qualify. The statues are of real historical figures, so it's not a case of "fake history". At most you dislike what they represent or perhaps how they got there. However scrubbing the world of what one doesn't agree with seems futile. I see removing statues as a form of trying to show doing something, yet it really changes nothing.
Funny how the first stage of socialism is always murdering the people who were serious about implementing socialism. I guess this is why Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried (TM).
You want a helicopter that flies only in circles?
That is sadly what they believe. "B-b-but it wasn't REAL communism'. Laughable.
Yes, we know all about your kind of Germany.
You should bring back the Nazis. At least under them you werenâ(TM)t a nation of pussies. Since theyâ(TM)ve been gone youâ(TM)ve been nothing but.
If the Jews didn't exist, we would have to invent them
- A Hitler
It doesn't matter to me if it flies in circles. All that matters is it flies high enough to drop communists out the side door.
Indeed. The last time this came up, I actually spent a little time reading into the policies of Hitler's Nazi Germany and they were a grab bag of left and right policies. Hitler had no problems nationalizing certain industries, especially if they had some vital importance to the military and there were instances where he privatized government services. There was not particular pattern of caring for free market ideals or capitalism just as there wasn't any strong case that he was erecting a Marxist society either. It seemed more like he was just paying enough lip service to any particular ideal in order to consolidate support behind the Nazi party. It was capitalist enough for the business leaders and socialist enough for the union leaders and so everyone fell into line.
I think that people are far too one-dimensional with their classification of governments. Nazi Germany sits rather close to the center in terms of economic right and economic left. I think what people are trying to do (whether consciously or not) is to try to brand the strong authoritarianism of Nazi Germany as some inherent aspect of the economic systems of the left or right. It doesn't really make sense to do so and you can find examples of governments that were far left (Communist China, U.S.S.R., etc.) that were similarly authoritarian in their treatment of their populations as well as governments further to the economic right of Nazi Germany (Chile under Pinochet for example) as well as countless examples of countries falling on both sides of the economic spectrum that are far more liberal (in the non-economic sense) or perhaps less nationalistic.
I suppose you could speculate how Nazi economic philosophy would have morphed if they had been successful, and that might be an interesting line of thought, but based on what they actually did, they were quite centrist. I don't think Hitler really cared as long as his choices helped further his ambitions or the German war effort. Everyone considers them so evil, that just associating them with a group of people you don't like is an effective tactic for debate or political discourse, even if as you mention its incredibly sloppy thinking at best or terribly intellectually dishonest at worst.
Yes, university professors hitting people in the head with bike locks on the streets is really stickin it to those damn russkies.
BSD did nothing wrong.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
How do you explain the fact that when the SA wanted to implement the socialist part of the agenda they were all killed?
There are saints and sinners on both sides, but usually everyone is a mix of both.
Why don't you come down from your high horse and argue your case with logic and sound reasoning rather than try to shut down a debate by bringing up irrelevant facts about those who are at least brave enough to be in the debate themselves?
+1, Pinochet
I take a more expansive view of history, that anything old is part of history. As many of the statues are old they seem to qualify.
Which matters to the false portrayals of history in what way? Do you think your personal viewpoint is what determines what is worthy?
The statues are of real historical figures, so it's not a case of "fake history".
It is a case of false history concealing the real history under the banner of the Lost Cause. You shouldn't deny it. At most, you dislike that explanation, but you aren't disproving it. And it would be especially hard for you to do so given that the same organizations responsible also rewrote history books to advance their narratives and put plaques on those very statues.
No surprise you'll avoid it though, it is obviously hard for you to be their apologist.
At most you dislike what they represent or perhaps how they got there.
What else would you expect it to be? Statues exist to represent something after all.
However scrubbing the world of what one doesn't agree with seems futile.
Not scrubbing the world of what one finds abominable seems the course more likely to result in a less desirable state, a futile way to live, as it were.
Striving is the point of living, after all. So I have to do the laundry again tomorrow. What else is new?
I see removing statues as a form of trying to show doing something, yet it really changes nothing.
I think it accomplishes a lot, for one thing, it stops accepting their falsehood. That's why it upsets their apologists so much. They really hate being forced to yield their vaunted superiority, their lies being cast aside, and the truth being brought forth. That alone shows your error.
What makes you think removing the statues does nothing? Do you want us to put up other statues to make sure we don't forget the history of tearing them down? I'm amenable to that.
Why are you so afraid of change? Why do you shy from the truth? Do you hate it? Do you fear it? Do you just want to live in a world where you can comfortably pretend your illusions are real?
Sorry, but not only should we smash those statues, we should burn their flags, shred their textbooks, and denounce their whole agenda.
They are a despicable, rotten, festering pustule that wants us to leave it be, even while they poison our very souls with their infectious corrupting bile that leads to their compelling upon us the indulgence of supporting their band of traitors, bigots, and liars. They are the real American Taliban, the ones who cannot stand to hear themselves condemned for the wretches they are.
So why do you take their side, and give not a thought or consideration to anybody else?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=islam+destroys+bhuddist+statue&t=ffab&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=YQ-oaUqvAS8
BSD did nothing wrong.
"Just following orders."
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Yo mama jokes and such that would make those little daemon worshipers heads explode.
Funny that. I could swear I could see about half a dozen comments on here claiming that Nazi ideology is left wing, despite at least 70 years of it being commonly accepted that it was right wing. In other words, people on the right want the left to own not only the mass killings of Stalin and Mao, but those of Hitler as well. No doubt Franco and Mussolini too.
What was that saying about whose shit doesn't stink?
It's pathetic.
There was a fundamental disagreement in tactics.
The Nazis have 2 parts: Nationalism and Socialism.
Those who were more interested in socialism wanted to spend resources crafting socialist ideals into the organization of society, and then use the results to create a strong Germany. In contrast, Hitler and his people wanted to spend resources crafting a strong Germany, and then use the results to create a socialist utopia.
Well, guess what? The guy who believed that only the Strong Man path would work did what a Strong Man would do: He killed his opponents, and then went about the business of implementing his plans unimpeded.
It's that simple.
Spot on.
There's a lot of lovers of authoritarianism on Slashdot nowadays.
Think more Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia).
I could swear I could see about half a dozen comments on here claiming that Nazi ideology is left wing, despite at least 70 years of it being commonly accepted that it was right wing.
Lies. I have textbooks from 2012 that claim they were what they claimed to be: Wartime ethno-nationalist socialists. In much the same way any wartime nation is more collectivist. The same textbook republished in 2016 is quite different.
My graduate classes have discussions about the present-day historical revisionism and censorship of historical documents to portray the militant left Nazis as fascists (which is it's own thing, neither right nor left) and right wing. This has become the textbook example of modern rewriting of history for political advantage, which is why the graduate students were required to rebuy a sophomore text for comparison.
It's pathetic.
Yes this backwards view of historical revisionism being good and true is pathetic.
The Nazis and Mussolini/Fascists are right wingers.
Why do so many Americans not understand this?
Well, If you feel that left-right is the collectivist-individualist axis I'd say the Nazis were still waaay on the left. Just the Aryans though, not the riff-raff but it was a massive appeal to do what's good for Germany and participate in all sorts of rallies, events and organizations and worship of a common culture. If you think it's the workers-capital axis then no, essentially all the war material came from traditional industry with not a hint of Marxism. It was more like they would both serve the Nazi regime though, if Hitler needed a Volkswagen - literally: people's car - he'd get that, it was hardly free capitalism and it was not like the money was running the show. So socially I'd say far outer left, economically fairly conservative with some pretty big social programs - to the left of the US but maybe on par with say modern Europe.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I wonder who thought that offensive.
I thought that was XML. Guess Adolf was misquoted. Should probably tell our lead dev.
Carthago delenda est!
DATABASE WOW WOW
I've always wondered why people always get their undies in a twist and hyperventilate over Hitler and Nazi Germany but are indifferent to Imperial Japan, Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mao's Red China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and other horrible tyrants and noxious ideologies. Are people so conditioned to automatically respond to anything Nazi related? Hitler may be the worst of the bunch, but Stalin and Mao were the 20th century's top contenders for "Worst Tyranny Ever." What
I guess your definition of what a 'working government' is is different from us in the US.. Deal with it.
Ohhhh, it's all been lies!!!! We've all been repeating lies to ourselves about the rightwing nature of Nazism for the last seven decades: the racism, the sexism, the homophobia, the virulent intolerance of any difference.
But fortunately, you're here to tell us the difference, cos you have the shining light of truth in your special 2012 edition textbook. I hope you hug it close at night in case the Nazi socialists come to take it away.
You would be hilarious if you weren't so sad. The amazing thing about the modern American right is its astounding parochialism, the way it assumes that left/right is to be understood solely in terms of large-state/small-state. That might be the Randian wank-fest that you're all obsessed with, but the rest of the world is aware of a broader history, in which right wing views are associated with conservatism, and thus oppose such changes as treating black people as equal with white people, treating Jews as equal with white people, treating women as equal with men, treating gay people as equal with heterosexual people, etc. And the rest of the world also noticed that some right wingers have used quite a lot of violence to ensure that black people, women, gay people, Jews, etc are not treated as equals of white men.
>"How do you explain the fact that when the SA wanted to implement the socialist part of the agenda they were all killed?"
It was not about ideology at that point, but maintaining a secure grip on power. Any faction that develops under these conditions is a rival that is eliminated.
Parochialism, cognitive dissonance and terrible education -- especially history.
"Don’t try to understand women, women understand women, and they hate each other."
The platform is leftist to US politics whereas it is in the right to the EU politics. Itâ(TM)s a matter of translation.
But Nazis wanted state sponsored healthcare and jobs for everyone which was a big problem in post-WW1 Germany. The problem of who is going to pay for it was the evil rich capitalists through taxation (aka theft) off course. And given the âoeJews were hoarding all the gold and diamondsâ it was an easy target for âoetaxationâ.
Hitler was an opportunist and knew what the people wanted. He was a Trump with the polIcies of a Clinton. The policies of the US right (arming the people) donâ(TM)t mesh well with the policies of purging the 1 percent.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Itâ(TM)s offensive to those that want to repeat history by banning capitalism, ideas, books, accurate history and writings.
The same people trying to get rid of those things are committing the exact same tactics Hitler started out with.
Coincidence? If youâ(TM)re a white male with money, better start arming yourself. These pogrom will be held in suburbia.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Aside from the fact that the Nazis were a far-right party from the beginning... good point.
So really, terrible point.
Italian history paints it a different way.
Oh, for sure Nazi Germany was socialist. It was just "the wrong kind of" socialist. The Soviet Union, "true socialist", was international socialist. Germany was national socialist. Ever wonder why they had such a vicious war? It was a civil war, the worst kind. They couldn't both be right.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Look at this rambling, incoherent, neo-Nazi babble.
This boy has never even seen a history book, let alone read one.
Wait, are you saying that Honest John's Quality Used Automobile Emporium is not a supplier of reliable and reasonably priced family vehicles?!
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
We've all been repeating lies to ourselves about the rightwing nature of Nazism for the last seven decades
Well, some of you have. The truth is the Nazis were fascists. Fascists adopt ideology from both the political left and right. For example they coopt both the workers and the industrialists, putting both under the control of an authoritarian nationalist state. You can't plot fascism on a left/right political line, the line is a flawed model.
And the rest of the world also noticed that some right wingers have used quite a lot of violence to ensure that black people, women, gay people, Jews, etc are not treated as equals of white men.
So you are going to double-down on your historical ignorance and claim such things are the exclusive domain of the right?
The last time this came up, I actually spent a little time reading into the policies of Hitler's Nazi Germany and they were a grab bag of left and right policies ... It seemed more like he was just paying enough lip service to any particular ideal in order to consolidate support behind the Nazi party.
And this is an element of the classical definition of fascism.
You can pretend all you want, booty-blasted snowflake.
Before they turned their eyes on the jews, the Nazis' concentration camps were filled with communists, actual socialists and social democrats.
They may have called themselves socialist for the sake of expediency during their early rise, but there was nothing left-wing about it. Once they were in power, the real socialists were imprisoned, as those ideas were a threat to their real agenda.
Instead of relying on single biased source, maybe focus more on the actual data and primary documents.
Funny that. I could swear I could see about half a dozen comments on here claiming that Nazi ideology is left wing, despite at least 70 years of it being commonly accepted that it was right wing.
Nazi is short for "national socialism". Socialism is generally considered leftist. The "national" part means socialism within the german country - as opposed to the international socialism the communists preached in those days.
They were socialists - they had nice social programs - but of course only for 'proper germans/aryans'. Then they ended all unemployment by starting the war. They also had 'big government' and 'governmental social control' - typical of leftist dictatorship. They were also incredibly racist - but it takes more than racism (or militarism) to call someone right-wing. They didn't go for right-wing stuff like 'small non-meddling government' or 'rich rules, screw the poor'.
The Nazis and Mussolini/Fascists are right wingers. Why do so many Americans not understand this?
Well for some it is because they are educated as to the actual definition of fascism. Fascism adopts ideology from both the political left and the political right. For example it will coopt both the workers and the industrialists and bring them both under the control of the state. If you bother to open a history book you will find that Hitler and Mussolini both did so, both labor and industry had their respective party/state offices that they answered to. Fascism is opportunistic, any idea, left or right, that can help the state consolidate power will be embraced long enough to attain that power. Fascism is about authoritarianism and nationalism, not left or right.
Aren't Nazi's Socialists? (ie, leftist?)
Parochialism, cognitive dissonance and terrible education -- especially history.
You are actually describing why some think fascism is politically "right". See other response to parent.
Movements like the Nazis are more accurately described as authoritarian.
Wouldn't it be better to describe them with the property that stands out from the others?
It is not like you can't find a hundred other authoritarian movements.
Heck, if Neo-Nazis just liked the politics of the Nazis then there are plenty of less controversial fascist movements to go for.
The only reason to go for Nazism specifically instead of any other fascist movement is because you like the holocaust.
Everything else about them you can find elsewhere without having so much opposition against you.
We know what Nazism is and where it ends up and supporters of it should be treated accordingly.
Yep, it's a pretty regular thing in all political circles. First you get power, then you slaughter your political opponents en masse. Here in the US we've automated the executions of the previous Administration officials, just as a prophylactic measure.
Fucking wingnuts.
taxation (aka theft)
And there goes your credibility.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Communism is like that drunk husband that always need the next chance because *this time* he's gonna make it. Everything that happened before somehow *was not* his fault.
I find it amazing when I see all this people bashing Nazism and Fascism while praising communism. An entire generation of soulless drones repeat everything their teachers told them and believe that, this time, communism will work, even though it never had.
>Imperial Japan, Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mao's Red China, Pol Pot's Cambodia
Japs, commies, and brown people and all 'over there'. Jews, on the other hand... look white, are fine with capitalism, and live among us in the West. That wouldn't be as big a thing today, but back when it was occurring it made a difference, and we ultimately get our history lessons from the people who experienced that history.
And then there's the whole cold, calculated, methodical attempted genocide employed by the Nazis. Somehow it's different when they treat it like a clerical task.
Words hurt and other them so much that I'd bet not a single one of them could take a real-life dressing-down. These are the kinds of people psychologists classify as shut-ins and generally unproductive people.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Everybody's trying to get everywhere else, America has no exclusivity in being a place people are trying to get to.
I expatriated myself after I was turned away from a hospital while injured. Thanks Obama!
There are more than two directions and trying to apply the labels left and right to what's going on in America and the world today is foolhardy at best.
Awesome job of Strawman manufacture there, you're rebuttal argues perfectly against no statement he made at all!
However, Kill all x is compatible with a government that is too small to protect the rights of its citizens which is how the Federal government got so big.
When did people start getting so bloody offended by everything? Next thing it'll be illegal to say "power by the barrel of a gun".
The deletionist villains responsible for this censorship have provided more effective pro-Hitler propaganda than 1000 uniformed wannabe Nazis marching through New York. The main reason to censor political speech is because you feel it's true but inconvenient to your agenda.
Why stop with Hitler? By some estimates Caesar killed half the population of France. I for one am gravely offended by any reference to the Roman empire. We should wipe them from the history books.
You statement proves my theory, it is not the politically ideology it is the psychopaths who hide behind it. They clamber all over every single political ideology, to twist it to their personal lust and ego driven needs, hence, disagree with them and they want to toss you from a helicopter, drive fear into you on the way up and then kill you, watch you splat, so they can get off on it, seriously get off on it, ugh, ugh ugh, ahhh, oh yes, I am your deity of choice. It's a sickness, a social learning disability brought on by a lack of autonomic empathic response and a shallow range of emotions, technically due to the substantive cerebral and resultant social differences no longer homo sapiens but a parasitical sub-species. So the counter to your claim, well, looking to hire abortionists to get rid of genetically tested psychopaths in the womb. In a world like that communism never becomes Stalinism and even capitalism does not become fascism and of course the monarchy holds no sway.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
You do no seem to understand what an apples to oranges comparison is. Apples and oranges are not completely dissimilar and things that are good for you are not completely dissimilar from things that are bad for you. So it would not be surprising if there are two different things that borrow from Marxism and one is bad for you and the other is good.
Oh my brother - Mao was actually greater thinker than you'll ever be.
Exactly.
Right vs Left is only really about taxation:
"Individuals can be trusted to do the right thing with their money so let's let them manage all of it"
vs
"Individuals can not be trusted to do the right thing with their money so let's take a bit of it and do the right thing for them".
It's on a completely different axis from governance Authoritarian vs Anarchist, and again from moral Conservative vs Liberal.
People often align into clusters where one axis correlates with another to have a sense of belonging to a particular group, but there is no real reason that has to be the case.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Property is also theft.
Thank you for admitting that you are gullible and fall for revisionist history. Or are you trying to say Trump and his Nazi brigade that's killed over 1,000 people this year alone are all leftists while spouting right wing propaganda?
No, it shows that killing lots of people is compatible with having roads.
1) The Germans did bad things ...
2)
3) The Germans had roads!
Don't worry about the bad things, worry about the roads!
Nazi apologist detected.
Not when you are trying to identify what about them they feel is important about themselves. The main reason people identify themselves as Nazis these days is because you like the Holocaust, but that's not the main reason people did it back then and in the future people will find still other reasons.
Aren't Nazi's Socialists? (ie, leftist?)
Short answer: obviously not.
The NSDAP may originally have been founded (prior to Hitler joining) with syndicalist notions in mind. And it had a faction that for a time persisted Hitlers takeover, the Strasserians, which was rightist in terms of their nationalism and racial orientation, but nonetheless retained a socialistic/syndicalist flavour. However the party Hitler led into power clearly abandoned any claim to be either socialists (Hitler explicitly favoured the captains of industry and in contradistinction to the USSR the Nazi government took no steps place industry into state/party control), nor leftists.
Prior to their ascendancy they were unambigiously part of a large coalition of right-wing parties united primarily in the aim to keep the socialists (SDP), --the party which prior to the dictatorship enjoyed the largest popular support, --out of office. It was as such an unstable coalition which frequently changed leadership from member party to member party. Eventually it was Hitler's turn to lead the right-wing coalition ... the rest is history.
I have textbooks from 2012
Liar.
You don't have books, you certainly don't have textbooks.
AM radio, I would believe. A semi-annual newsletter, I would believe. A blog, I would believe. A handout posted on a utility pole, I would believe.
Got to make room for the new somehow. We throw away lots of things without a second thought.
Please, please, please, don't recommend primary documents to "that sort" of person on this particular topic.
I know it is normally a good place to start, but it is not universally true.
Quit telling us what we think, you commie!
Oh, wiat
>And then there's the whole cold, calculated, methodical attempted genocide employed by the Nazis. Somehow it's different when they treat it like a clerical task.
As opposed to the warm fuzzies of the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Red Terror? the Great Purse?....
All of them were officially decided planned moves with the specific intention of genociding a specific subset of their population.
Each of them killed many times the largest estimates of Nazi Jewish deaths.
None of them were involving a war (directly) (and not that that is any excuse).
If you want cold and calculated, nothing comes even CLOSE to the Russians, Lavrentiy Beria is a good place to start for reference.
Neither of the "sides" you posit is even addressing taxation, what it is, or why it exists.
You're presenting two different false constructions that are both propaganda pieces for the same side.
Wait, what?
The only books being burned are the ones that explain science. Are these old white suburban guys the ones protecting science?! Durrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Well, some of you have. The truth is the Nazis were fascists. Fascists adopt ideology from both the political left and right. For example they coopt both the workers and the industrialists, putting both under the control of an authoritarian nationalist state. You can't plot fascism on a left/right political line, the line is a flawed model.
If the truth were that trite, we'd all be twits. The scholarly consensus has been that Nazism was a far right form of politics. You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
So you are going to double-down on your historical ignorance and claim such things are the exclusive domain of the right?
Hey, I've had a really good idea for a political debate: how about you don't purposely reduce the points I make to trite straw men either-or statements that I didn't make, and I'll do the same for you? I already explained in the section you didn't quote what links there are between a strain of right wing thought and anti-egalitarianism. I didn't make any claim that this was exclusive. Stalin had antisemitic purges too.
When categorize Nazi party as being left or right ...
There was no ambiguity at the time. Right wing parties such as the DNVP and the NSDAP were understood to be of the political right. The notion that the NSDAP can seriously be described as a left-wing party is like the notion someone in the future may hold up the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea as a bastion of democracy, is something only an ignorance of history can foster.
Personally, I think that labeling parties right/left (or even worse policies as right/left) engenders sloppy thinking ...
Personally I think anyone who pretends to question the political alignment of the NSDAP is guilty of prevarication and obfuscation.
I can't see any other response to the parent.
And your statement is unclear: do you mean "right-wing" or "correct"?
You say that, but I'm pretty sure you had to take another breath to let that last one out.
I'm used to seeing... lower case.
Wikipedia debases everything sacred. They don't even know the difference between Perl and perl.
Nazis hated the communists because both were forms of "populism". And populism, by nature, depends on a claim that "we, and we alone, are the authentic Voice Of The People. Those who oppose us are not really "our People", they're outsiders and infiltrators and traitors."
De-legitimizing the opposition is the sine qua non of populism.
Populists can't tolerate even peaceful, pluralist opposition. A second populist movement as an opposition is just anathema. (And that's what's happened to the USA today. Both political parties are staking out their claims in these absolutist terms. Both believe that the others are, at best, traitors. It's not a good time.)
America is the most powerful nation on Earth.
Yes. The military-industrial complex and corporate welfare are two communist policies that America implements more or less successfully.
People from around the world come here for the best medical care and education.
The people who go to America for medical care and education are the rich ones who can afford it. Poor people in America go elsewhere for medical care if they live close to a border, or they go bankrupt or go without. Poor people in America don't get an education.
Places like Germany, Australia, and the UK aren't exactly short of foreign students.
They're begging to get in.
If you're talking about refugees, no. They're begging to get out of other places.
The platform plank "kill all the Jews" is not compatible with a small government whose sole role is to protect the rights of each individual (rather than the rights of some nebulous "collective"); that platform plank is not compatible with the notions of voluntary interaction (e.g., capitalism).
Of course! Real capitalists would just let individuals decide not to employ or give charity to Jews, so they are forced to do "dirty" work that respectable people wouldn't touch.
Pretty much what happened in the Middle Ages, basically.
Do your textbooks teach the "lost cause" theory of the US Civil War, too?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You just inadvertantly, yet perfectly explained why the Nazis were hard right wing, thank you.
despite at least 70 years of it being commonly accepted that it was right wing. .
That says more about which echo chamber you associate with, rather than if it were true or not.
The people most afraid to hear or see a hitler quote are also the people most likely to become guards in concentration camps.
Sure but only because of intolerance and inflexibility; not because of some imaginary "left" and "right" us vs them idiocy.
In many public schools in the US, children are shown footage like this so that they remember:
https://archive.org/details/34...
Some quotes from some nazi moron isn't what we need to remember. Who the fuck cares what he said?!
I don't think there was every very much Pol Pot in the fortune file, though, for one thing.
If it is was in there, then it would be included in the cleanup.
You're just randomly flailing, and your nazi is unzipped.
No one said anything about Russia or Stalin. You are the BSer. He said China. China is not marxist communism. The US infiltrated it and brought juicy juicy capitalism so it's now some kind of hybrid money monster. You know this already though. You're being a partisan hack.
... looks like I'm late at the trollfest.
Propaganda for one side? A little sensitive are we?
Let's put it another way that perhaps you might have a better chance of understanding:
A Right wing political system has low taxes.
A Left wing political system has high taxes.
A Right wing political system assumes that people who earn money will use it for good (ie help the poor, maintain the community, etc).
A Left wing political system assumes that people who earn money will not use it for good, so takes some of their money (tax) to do this good themselves (build hospitals, roads, etc).
Sorry if you inferred a preference for one system over the other from my prior post.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
It is of concern that history is not really being taught at schools. Kids today know nothing about WWII and it origins. There are deep and important lessons there. The Hitler quotes are at least a bit of a teaser.
Stalin was far more evil than Hitler, have his quotes been removed? And what about quotes relating to minorities. Or the Catholics? Or attacks on the lazy?
A proper purge is long over due. I'm sure there will still be a few bland quotes that survive.
"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong." Darwin could have said that. Hitler's quote about having a dumb wife is wrong -- you need a smart wife in order to have smart children. Darwin could have corrected him.
Wait, isn't that last one really a Robert A. Heinlein quote? IIRC there was something very like it in Starship Troopers.
We aren't talking about muslims and bhuddists. You are attempting distraction and false equivolency.
Any amount of blinders is not going to help these people, they will find offense wherever they go.
The Nazis definitely weren't capitalists - they had a planned economy.
Nope! You're buying into a myth.
Real story was that they had a conquest-based economy, which let them leave things relatively normal at home.
The exact opposite of German socialism which if you remember your World War One history, was opposed to the war-mongering and a force for peace.
> A marketing slogan with no actual meaning. How democratic is the DPRK?
The National Socialists forcefully dispossessed the rich 1% of their day (Jews) and gave the proceeds to the German worker. They claimed the workers had been oppressed by the Jews, because many were rich due to being willing to lend money with interest, controlling much of the world's banking, when others felt this was usurious. Being rich bankers (on average) led to an accumulation of wealth that they were later vilified for by jealous Nazis.
Anyhow, being Socialist, left or right isn't what people should hate them for. They should hate them for all the violence they inflicted to hurt the people they hated. In that vein, feel free to blame anyone, left or right, antifa or alt-right, who goes around hurting people with fists or pistols because they hated someone's words.
Why can't we just agree that "right wing" and "left wing" are inherently vauge labels?
You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
Actually Fritzsche agrees with me. From Fritzsche's "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
Actually Fritzsche agrees with me. From Fritzsche's "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
Parochialism, cognitive dissonance and terrible education -- especially history.
You are actually describing why some think fascism is politically "right wing". See https://slashdot.org/comments.....
Anti-fascists are the only smart group right now, as they are the primary group fighting against Russian territorial grabs. Russia needs to focus on North Korea or they will just get Vladivostok nuked and face Siberian revolt for independence using fascist techniques
TFTFU
Oh for heaven sake - sure they claimed to be socialist when they started - but during the "night of the long knives" putsch they killed the leaders of the socialist wing of the nazis after Röhm called for a second revolution to redistribute the wealth.
So in short, yes there were socialist nazis, and they were killed at Hitler's orders to consolidate his grip on power
People also like to forget that antifa were instrumental in pushing the nazi party into the height of popularity. When antifa was brutalizing people in the streets, it was nazi members defending them. And antifa had the stated goal of making society unlivable in order to overthrow the government and make it communist. The exact same bullshit the little scum are trying today.
Om, nomnomnom...
When you define ALL "nationalist" movements as right-wing, then the NATIONAL Socialists become right-wing.
In Europe, that's how it works. FFS, the straight-out Communist Le Pen was considered "far right-wing" compared to Macron, even though he was to the right of her on EVERY social or economic issue except nationalism.
The Nazis:
Condemned capitalists, and put strict limits on how much profit a business owner could make
Forced business to reinvest profits according to government plans
Forced businesses to hire people according to government plans
Prevented businesses from firing employees without government approval
Redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor through confiscatory taxes and wealth and income limits
Expanded social services to provide complete government cradle-to-grave care, driving out all alternatives
Placed government officials on the directing boards of corporations
Required all children receive schooling in government schools, where they were taught service to the government and "people"
Which of those policies is "right wing"? This sounds like the standard socialist platform for the past 100 years - you know, the same stuff that you read today in /r/LateStageCapitalism and similar far LEFT-WING locations.
Yeah, they went after anything with "Hitler" in it, regardless if it was actually a Hitler quote. The Starship Troopers version is
I don't know where the fortune file version comes from; maybe the framing of "Expanded Universe" or "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
Nah. I've old relatives who were forced into the Hitler youth once the Nazis invaded.
They considered the social democrats thoroughly like the Nazis, minus a little bit of the killing of gays and Jews.
Just as disastrous for the economies, long-run, and society.
Human biology and economics don't care about your ideals. Neither do those who survived the atrocities of your slightly-less-sophisticated forerunners.
Socially Democratic Europe is mathematically failing though so there's really little reason to argue.
In Germany we memorialize the victims, not the criminals. That is the better method. The majority of the confederate statues are not from the US civil war but from the era of the fight for civil rights. They functioned as intended then, as threats to the people fighting to be equals. That is why now they have no history worth saving, and must be destroyed to destroy the last vestige of implied approval for segregationist idiocy.
Yes, destroy all history you don't like - just like the Taliban. After all if you personally decide it's not worthy then that's enough.
Fuck-em they're traitors. Grant was wrong to not have field trial against Lee for treason then lynched, corpse burnt, and the traitor's ashes scattered. The traitor Lee had the blood of hundreds of thousands of loyal soldiers on his hands.
Erecting statutes traitors is like pissing on the graves of the good soldiers who fought against them.
It is verbatim to what Rasczak said in his history class near the beginning of Starship Troopers (1997) the movie.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
It's nearly 2018 and we STILL don't have basic UTF-8 support at Slashdot!
FUCK!!
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
Nope.
Actually, that not even vaguely close.
News flash: Fox News is not teaching you what libraaals think! They're feeding you newsvertainment.
That is horseshit. Kids in public schools learn all about WWII.
Kids in public schools learn all about Stalin. He killed 5 million people just trying to goad America to attack! Trying to be horrible enough. That is why his advisors eventually killed him.
Which is why nobody ever overstays a visa, or enters the United States illegally.
for starters:
1. You are participating in the current left-wing historical re-write. Hitler's party was indeed the National Socialist Deutsch (German) Arbeit (workers) Party. In most footage of things like Neuremburg you can see NAZIs marching with standards that hold placards with either a region of Germany named, or with the label "NSDAP".
2. Hitler and his henchmen ranted and raved about their "National Socialism" all the way to the end. Read their writings and listen to their speeches. It is a modern left wing lie to claim that Hitler hijacked the socialist party and made it "right wing".
3. A fixation on race has ALWAYS been a leftwing thing. In the US it was the Democrats who owned all the slaves, the Democrats who segregate the government, the Democrats who implemented and enforced "Jim Crow" laws and Democrats who created the KKK (and who implemented "gun control" to keep guns away from blacks to protect KKK members from being shot by blacks). It was Republicans who ended slavery, a Republican president who first sent troops in to enforce the rights of blacks, etc. Even today, it is Democrats who organize/mobilize along racial lines, Democrats who allocate tickets to their conventions according to race, and favor government policies that take race into account.
4. Hitler's favoring of industry was two-fold: [a] he needed industry to support his war efforts, and [b] he was initially following the model of fascism created by Benito Mussolini, who was a leader of the socialists in Italy when he invented his new hybrid form of socialism - "fascism". Mussolini realized he could get the supposed advantages of both socialism and capitalism by controlling things indirectly through the corporations. Rather than blatantly having the government take over the means of production and introduce all the bureaucratic inefficiencies, he allowed the captains of industry to pretend to still be in control and still get the perks, as long as they allowed government full indirect control. Hitler borrowed alot of this and even the cult of personality, and then he surpassed Mussolini to become the new master of the fascist nighmare, but Mussolini and Hitler were both self-proclaimed socialists.
Marxists have no answer to the problem F.A. Hayek exposed in "The Road to Serfdom". Marxism will inevitably be run by evil men and go evil. As a result, every example of Marxism-gone-mad has to be dismissed by supporters of Marxism as "the wrong people tried it" or "they did it wrong" or "they were not REALLY Marxists at all" etc. You are just carrying on the tradition of the apologists.
When people on the left tear down US Confederate monuments, or erase Hitler or Mussolini quotes, etc there are often people who support this historical rewriting/whitewashing by saying something like "it's so trivial, why are you getting so upset about it?"
Interestingly, if it is so trivial and inconsequential a thing to do this history rewriting, WHY DO IT?
It's clearly VERY important to erase these bits of history to the people who are doing it, otherwise BY THEIR OWN RHETORIC, why do it?
I worry that the modern left is prepping for another super-evil mass-murdering jack-booted swerve to the hyper-left and before they do it they feel compelled to suppress the historical proof of just how bad it can get. "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it". The only reason I can see to erase evidence of cautionary tales is to remove the caution signs from sight of the younger generations in order to more-easily lie them into a greater evil whose price will be mountains of skulls and lakes of blood.
The one key idea of socialism is that everyone has a common value.
Jzanu, but i do not see you tear down the ugly communist oppressive monuments. And i do not see you talk about the NKVD slave and kill concentration camps in actual German soil till 1950-s ... (Stalins death was 1953).
You are being very emotional. Doubling-down does not make the truth. Liberal universities are teaching that you and people that believe the things that you do are wrong. Simple as that.
Unless you wish to gain tenure and dedicate your life to your emotionally driven belief here today, the army of historians and political science professors say you are wrong.
But, anti-fascists are always been financed by Kremlin.
It started in Lenins time and goes on till today.
Liar.
As Goering said, the enemy of National Socialism is an active liberal conscience!
Accurate history known to all would have the Capitalists hanging from lampposts
Anyone here think Bohpal was due to error, instead of greed?
Why do you think Hollywood is expelling people regardless of evidence or severity of sexual misconduct right now. The people were probably wrong in most scenarios, but this is leftist fascism in the speed and unity of response.
"that sort" of person
Bigotry becomes you.
There is this trend in your posts where you throw criticisms at others that you see in yourself. Perhaps the next time you criticize someone, take a hard look at yourself and check if you are not just angry at who you have become.
How long has it been since you were in university? You can go and visit the political science and history professors yourself and have a chat, or just pick up a selection of textbooks and start similar research to what my graduate class is doing on authors rewriting the past to fit their political leaning.
And that other poster above you, what he claims is incorrect as well. Concentration camps were built for Jews and "the mongrel races", and thus could not be "filled with communists, etc.." before Jews were placed within. The rest is just non sequitur. Does Soviet Russia doing things that negatively impact communists make it no longer communist? Does Mussolini executing fascists for having ideas that threatened the state make Mussolini's Italy not fascist? And the quip on "actual data and primary documents", what a silly thing to say to a person making their living reading through such things. Makes me want to know how many people commenting here even went to university.
So you are attempting an appeal to bias, rather than analysis, followed by faux logical appeal as attempt to parry against the reality that Nazi Germany was an extreme right-wing state. Try again, you are just brainwashed to thinking that the right can't be wrong, when in reality regressive policies are always wrong.
Joseph Goebbels may be the least reliable source in history, right up until the Iraqi Minister for Information started speaking in public.
I'm really not.
In British terms, the argument "ooh the Nazis were National *Socialists* and they had collectivist ideas and thus were completely pragmatic and took ideas from the left and the right" would be considered good for a B in your A levels. It wouldn't even get you a 3rd in a degree course at an ex-poly. The scholarly consensus is quite clear that fascism is right wing.
Your statements are internally incoherent. It's really not at all clear what you're arguing. I guess the use of "liberal" means you're on the right politically, but it's pretty much impossible to tell what point you think you're making. You appear to be saying that I disagree with the scholarly consensus. I don't.
That's not a quote from him, you muppet! It's a quote from the blurb!
The arguments the book makes are rather more profound. It describes the success of an idea of populist nationalism that was focused on the aspirations of the working and middle classes, laced with vitriolic hatred of those perceived to stand in its way -- which sometimes included traditional conservatives alongside Jews et al.
How about you actually read it, instead of pretending to.
The count goes up all the time.
In this case, the echo chamber being "scholars of Nazism", "politicians of almost every stripe" and "generally, just about everyone in the civilised world".
Can you do me a favour? I'd love a really good laugh. Can you go and film yourself telling a couple of robust FN party members that you think they're communists? I'd love to see what happens.
Le Pen is not a Communist, ffs. She's engaged in what she calls "de-demonisation", which entails her moving her party from its Poujadist origins as a socially, politically and culturally right wing party that espoused anti-egalitarianism in every aspect of its policies towards a different set of policies that are more appealing to its new base of the economically vulnerable. Hence, a focus on secularism, republicanism, protectionism.
She remained well to the right of Macron on law and order, the display of religious symbols, same-sex marriage, and any number of other issues.
The world just isn't that binary.
Thank god youâ(TM)re not a NAZI. Those guys are dangerous.
Donâ(TM)t forget actual Germans who lived through it.
By your logic, North Korea is both democratic and a republic rather than an authoritarian autocracy. Hey, it's in the name, right?
Yet Rwanda's government, despite barely limping along, successfully spearheaded a large scale genocide of the Tutsis.
Except youâ(TM)ll find an awful lot of wanna-be Nazis that say the holocaust never happened, or some varying degree thereof. Many will say something like, âoeit never happened. But so what if it didâ. Some think it did and that it was awesome, but that just puts them into conflict with the revisionists in their ranks on that subject.
I think that for most of them, you canâ(TM)t look at it as political ideology any more than you can look at being a Crip as an ideology. Theyâ(TM)re gang members looking for belonging. Skinheads are just a white street gang. They happen to have found a gang that borrows imagery and savagery from a gang that one time got political power, but beyond âoejews bad,â most of them donâ(TM)t seem to really understand any of the philosophical roots of nazism either as political platform or as an esoteric semi-religion. Theyâ(TM)ve almost certainly never read any Italian fascist writings, donâ(TM)t understand the difference between Franco and the Falanage, or falangists and fascists, or why Spain stayed neutral in the war.
Of course, there are some who have done those things and do understand. There are, in any extremist movement or basic street gang, those who are able to manipulate and control people. Most of them are hurt, lost and looking for something and they got picked up by exploitationists who offer them belonging and purpose. But that comes with a massive outgrouping which continues into dehumanization. It isnâ(TM)t so much that the holocaust is what theyâ(TM)re clinging to so much as an extremely exclusive sense of identity. Even if they actually are politically motivated, the major difference between fascism and nazism is that while fascism in-groups the citizen, nazism places ethnic and racial limitiations on citizenship and then seeks to push all the newly-non-citizens out.
Cool. America is the most powerful nation on Earth.
But also a pretty shitty one to live in.
People from around the world come here for the best medical care and education. They're begging to get in.
Then why don't they go to places that actually have the best medical care and education instead?
But I wouldn't expect a German to understand American history, getting it all from orwellian propaganda sources
Why would you expect a German to have been educated in the US?
Nobody ever claimed it never happened. Traitors should be treated like Benedict Arnold. Everyone knows his name
I had never heard of him before your post. If the Wikipedia article is correct, his relevance seems rather localised. I suppose few people outside the USA and maybe the UK have ever heard the name.
When categorize Nazi party as being left or right, rather than compare it to the communists, you could just as well compare the Nazis to the Weimar republic. You can't get consistent answers if you do that.
Personally, I think that labeling parties right/left (or even worse policies as right/left) engenders sloppy thinking and is often, if not usually, a tool for deceptive speech. In the case of labeling 20th century fascist movements as being right/left, you might as well try to categorize apples, grapes, and watermelons into right/left fruits. They are their own kind of thing and such simple binary labeling only serve to obscure what they are, and to obscure the nature of whatever they are being compared to.
Actually, most parties were distinctly left or right, the idea of a party not having a specific ideological bend is relatively new and was only really defined in the 80's and 90's as "third way" politics.
Nazism is an offshoot of Italian (Classical) Fascism which is distinctly a right wing ideology. Right wing means they expunged values that we associate with the right like nationalism, harsh criminal punishments, larger militaries, cultural isolation and xenophobia. The main difference between fascism and Nazism is that the Nazis baked in proper racism from the start, it institutionalised the idea of who and what was a superior man (ubermech). A fascist might be racist as a matter of accident, but a Nazi is required to be racist.
Fascism and Nazism are examples of extreme right wing (and authoritarian) governments, the same as Stalinist communism is an example of an extreme left wing (authoritarian) government. Both are bad because they're extreme, not because they're right or left. The big problem in the west is that we naturally lean a bit to the right, so we'll more readily accept extremist right wingers whilst demonising their counterparts on the left. There is nothing wrong with being a bit to the right, but it means we have to be more vigilant about the extremists who tell us the things we like to hear (because that's how Hitler got into power, he gave the Germans a scapegoat whilst feeding them complements).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I will give it a go with a European mind:
Grapes are used to make wine. That is more for the rich, thus the right.
Apples are used to make cider, more a drink of the common man, thus left.
I leave out the watermelon, because that would become racist.
(It's a joke: laugh!)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Nazi stands for national socialist workers' party.
The Nazis were originally socialist, and had a strong socialist faction up until 1934, when the leader of that faction, Ernst Rohm, was murdered on Hitler's order along with many other "leftists". This consolidated Adolf's authority, and made it easier for him to work with German industrialists. All economies are a mixture of socialist and private enterprise, but after 1934, saying Nazi Germany was "socialist" makes as much sense as saying that China is "communist".
The Nazis weren't left. Not even under Rohm.
In the 20's before the night of the long knives, the primary enemy of the Nazis were the Bolsheviks... as in the actual left wing supporters in Germany. Nazis were always a right wing government and Ernst Rohm was not the Nazi party leader, he was the leader of the Sturmabteilung (SA) or brown shirts (as opposed to the SS, who wore black shirts). The SA's job was to be the foot soldiers of the Nazi party whilst the SS were the ideological enforcers. The SA would beat up Bolsheviks, paint stars of David on Jewish businesses, threaten people who were supporting either of these groups and stand over elections to make sure the Nazis got enough votes. The SS were to ensure that party members were ideologically pure. After the Night of the Long Knives the SA was folded into the German Army or SS (which was also somewhat integrated into the military to continue their role as secret police).
Hitler was firmly the leader of the Nazis in the 1920's with a variety of others who are quite infamous, Goebbels, Goering, Himmler to name a few. Rohm was a lieutenant, not the leader. He was betrayed and murdered by Hitler and the other Nazis primarily because he was a political obstacle, but also because he was a homosexual.
If you read the soliloquy "first they came for" you'll notice the first people they came for was actually the left:
first they came for the communists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Before they even started with the Jewish, the Nazis had wiped out both the Bolsheviks and the Unionists. The closest thing Nazi Germany had to a social program was Action T4, which was the systematic forced euthanasia of anyone who might be a burden to the state, the elderly, the infirm, the mentally ill, so on and so forth.
Dont be confused because they had a word we badly translate as Socialism in their name, would you call the Democratic Peoples Republic of (North) Korea a democracy?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Wait, are you saying that Honest John's Quality Used Automobile Emporium is not a supplier of reliable and reasonably priced family vehicles?!
Yes, it's actually run by a bloke name Dave... but no-body trusts a Dave.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
fascists are collectivists
WRONG. Fascists are absolutely not "collectivists" for any reasonable definition of the term. As a fascist yourself who openly worships one of the most outspoken fascists in US history you should know that, Roman.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Well the nazis where the guys from the
"Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"
Which translates to "National Socialist German Workers' Party"
Socialist is generally seen as left wing
Personally I think this says more about the value of classifying things as left vs right then anything about the nazis, stalin or mao
Madalyn Murray O'Hair said that religion has caused more human misery than any other single idea in history. I think she omitted the fiction of personal property as #1.
Pisses off 4chan? That by itself is reason enough for the change! +1, SHIPIT
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
So called socialist and communist governments never live up to the purist ideals, because governmentnis an impossible problem, but national socialism is a very accurate way to describe the NSDAP's plan. It was not an international populist movement but a more local take care of your neighbor first populist movement. The corporatist elements of the behavior were deals that had to be made to survive as a party. Of they could have gotten away with nationalizing everything I have no doubt they would have. And they had a concept of universal care for all members of the state. They just excluded minorities from that tallying. From an economic standpoint I would call it attempted socialism in a very capitalist nation, with all the half measures and compromises that entails.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
But I don't like knock-knock jokes, so I said nothing.
Have gnu, will travel.
I wonder who thought that offensive.
That one should go back in.
Fairly well stated and I agree with your history. The follow up question is where do you think the needle should land on this right/left dial? People tend to talk in absolutes but I think the reality is closer to the middle for everyone.
To use common examples. Does your value of liberty and limited government mean that you think we should get rid of street lights? They do interfere with my freedom of mobility. How about fire departments? Why am I paying for the silly smoker next door who always falls asleep smoking?
Very few "leftists" think we should seek the permission of the "community" before leaving your house in the morning, and very few "rightists" think that we should get rid of street lights and drivers licenses.
Look at the extremes and then notice that people are arguing about a few points either side of the middle.
Well you know, except for the nutjobs and moonbats.
Is it BLACK?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
What else would you call a movement that advocates for state control over all production?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Too many haters are using BSD. It's bad karma to be filled with so much hate. I no longer use BSD because the mailing lists were dominated by hateful bitter people. They know who they are. And they peed on the pizza so to speak, utterly ruining BSD in the process.
What else would you call a movement that advocates for state control over all production?
That is absolutely not a requirement for fascism. The hallmark of fascism is only the extreme concentration of power into the hands of very very few people (which roman happily champions endlessly). A capitalist could lead a fascist society without issue as a captain of industry with unchecked power.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm sorry, but when was the last time the American right wing of politics argued for smaller government? Exactly like the left, it's just less of the things we don't like, and more of the things we do. Neither of the major American parties actually fights for this via policy in my 30 years watching the show. The only real difference I see are the reasons for raising taxes. I can no longer reconcile right wing with small government. It's just trickle down and religiosity.
Hitler had a lot of regard for the German race, and talked about the Volk and such things, and didn't seem to care about individual Germans. I consider that to be a mystical sort of collectivism. I'm not sure about Italian Fascists or Spanish Nationalists, but they always had a strong emphasis on the nationality and/or race.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Nazis used their lying Socialist propaganda and unsustainable (except by conquest) economic policies to appeal to workers. They actually did get cozy with the industrialists. Industrialists typically don't care about politics as long as the government gives them free reign.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The National Socialist German Workers' Party actually did have socialists in in during its early rise. It wasn't just expediency. Of course, the socialists were murdered in the 30s, so at that point it became a matter of keeping the propaganda consistent.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Nazis used their lying Socialist propaganda and unsustainable (except by conquest) economic policies to appeal to workers. They actually did get cozy with the industrialists. Industrialists typically don't care about politics as long as the government gives them free reign.
However the industrialists did not have free reign. They were under the control of the party machinery. As long as they were making appropriate contributions to the party and the war effort the leash may have been loose but the leash was still there.
Is that really what Fox News tells you? I've no idea since I don't watch it. Perhaps you're some triggered liberal who has to think every definition that doesn't fit their narrative must be right-wing == authoritarian == conservative propaganda.
Do you think for some reason I'm right wing? Have you not yet seen the critical flaw in the right's basic premise? It has been demonstrated throughout history again and again that people DO NOT use their money foremost to benefit those around them.
That is why I am left-leaning, but feel free to continue with your narrow and wrong political definitions.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
If you separate his words from his actions though you will see that he was not a collectivist by any meaningful definition of the term. He wrote and spoke about "the people" and "the fatherland" and other such things, but his actions were primarily for his own self-interest. As a true fascist, he consolidated power around him and made himself the supreme decision maker. He openly embraced racism in the same way that a certain leader in the west has done so, while encouraging the belief in the supremacy of his own people in the same way that roman (and his fascist lords) love to do.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
In British terms, the argument "ooh the Nazis were National *Socialists* and they had collectivist ideas and thus were completely pragmatic and took ideas from the left and the right" would be considered good for a B in your A levels. It wouldn't even get you a 3rd in a degree course at an ex-poly. The scholarly consensus is quite clear that fascism is right wing.
Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster, I have not said the Nazis were socialists. I have said the nazis were fascist and fascism can not be simply plotted on the one dimensional left/right line since it opportunistically pulls ideology from the left and right. When forced to oversimplify and plot on that line many may choose "right" but as your esteemed reference Peter Fritzsche wrote in his book "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
Please continue telling me how my point is of low academic quality when the esteemed academic reference you cited says the same thing.
So it is, however it is a blurb written by the Harvard University Press describing the contents of Fritzsche's book. So if not in those exact words he must have expressed the idea that they adopted ideology from both the left and right. To use the logic you offered earlier, shall we accept a description of Fritzsche's work from the Harvard University Press, or from you claiming Fritzsche makes no suggestion that the Nazis used ideas coming from the left?
Nope. He amassed a greater murder count because he had longer to do it in. In the Ukraine in early WWII, the Ukrainians were ready to be helpful to their German conquerors, but the Germans managed the great achievement of making Stalin look good in comparison.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Collectivist-individualist doesn't jibe well with left-right. The extremes of both left and right tend to be collectivist, although with different groupings. Workers-capital does better. The Nazi Germany economy, probably even in 1944 and 1945, was less centrally controlled than the US with the War Production Board. The money was making more money, not caring much about politics as long as it didn't interfere with profit. What social programs are you referring to? There were some for indoctrination.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Nazi Germany was not socialist. Read up on socialism. Read up on how Nazi Germany worked. Compare the two.
Alternately, notice that the Nazis had nationalist and socialist factions until the 30s, and note which was terminated very bloodily.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, the reasons are more like attention to history and objective consideration.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In other words, many Americans prefer to make up their history or get it from someone who made up history that fits their ideological prejudices.
Nationalism is right-wing. Authoritarianism is found in both left and right. Internationalism in some form is left-wing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
or PERL.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
TL;DR: Slashdot poster acts as if trusting any word any Nazi said in public.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The US, by the same criteria, had a planned economy in wartime.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd say it's because we're closer to going Nazi. There's a lot of cultural differences, so militarist Japan isn't going to happen here. We're not going Communist. We're seeing an attempt at uncompromising one-party rule right now, complete with xenophobia, racism, and throwing sops to working people while giving big capitalists what they want.
I'm leaving Hitler in as contender for Worst Tyranny Ever. He didn't murder as many people as the Soviets or Chinese Communists, but he killed people at a greater rate, and simply didn't have the time before we took him down. I'd add militarist Japan in, but there's no one person to name as the leader there, so it tends to get overlooked in these comparisons.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Was a requirement for Nazis.
How do you concentrate power into the hands of the few, without the few gaining control over the means of production?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
There is really one and only one consistent feature of their ideology: Führerprinzip or the leader principle. That basically means leaving the thinking to the higher-ups. If your superior seemed to contradict himself, that wasn't your problem, it was his.
It's always about personalities with authoritarians, and the leader can say or do no wrong.
I have mod points, I would +6 you if I could.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
I take a more expansive view of history, that anything old is part of history. As many of the statues are old they seem to qualify. The statues are of real historical figures, so it's not a case of "fake history". At most you dislike what they represent or perhaps how they got there. However scrubbing the world of what one doesn't agree with seems futile. I see removing statues as a form of trying to show doing something, yet it really changes nothing.
Here's an expansive view on history: Lee got away with Treason and is the biggest murder of US soldiers in history.
Arguments over whether Nazis were or weren't truly socialists kind of misses the point that what most people take exception with was the "kill all Jews" part of their party platform.
Education opportunity. Please show us where they had this as part of their party platform. There are a number of years you can look at. They say Jews cannot be German citizens, that's as close as they get.
To say Nazis/Fascists were only about killing Jews is like saying Sigmond Freud was only about sex, or General Motors makes cars. While Freud has thoughts that involved sex, General motors makes cars, in both cases they are about so much more. GM makes trucks, buses, trains, tanks, etc.
The Nazis were socialists and this is different than Marxists and communists which usually confuses the crap out of people. To understand this stuff is a college course. Hint - communists and socialists hate each other.
Nationalism is also found in both left and right.
Actually, the reasons are more like attention to history and objective consideration.
No, both of those lead to the understanding that fascism can not be simply plotted on the one dimensional left/right political line. Its just not that simple, the left/right line a flawed overly simplistic model. Fascism adopts elements from the left and right in a quite opportunistic way. Fascism sees both liberalism and conservatism as failures, they believed communism would fail, they believed they came up with an alternative to all the preceding. They were authoritarian and nationalistic, combined with a bit of militaristic, and any idea politically left or right could be a useful tool of the moment if it furthered control by the state.
To believe the fascists were simply right-wingers demonstrates inattention to history and quite selective consideration.
Saying that we should understand the ways in which important historical figures thought is not the same as agreement with their views. There are many, many leaders in human history that have done horrible things. It is important to understand and to be reminded of the modes of thought that lead to these sorts of tragedy.
Removing those quotes is just a reinforcement of a growing and disturbing trend of irresponsibility of thought. More and more we are encourage by our society to hide from the truth of history and not think about what disturbs us. In many cases the press shames people for even bringing up these topics. In fact the press wilfully suppresses intellectual discussions on many topics that they consider taboo.
I realize that it is easy to ascribe some kind of political motive to this sort of behavior, but really I am sure that their motive in this case was to avoid confrontation. They were motivated by fear of reprisal from the press and other anti-intellectual groups.
This is total fiction. The Nazis were a far left group that built their power on hate for the rich. The Jewish people were they bankers, shop owners, and land owners. They made an easy target for a socialist movement. It is easy to get people to hate the rich, as we have seen in our own recent history. The Nazi party had a list of 25 tenets that defined their movement. You should read them all, but I have included some of them here for your convenience. These are socialist ideals, in their own words. Everything from appropriation of property to replacement of the "materialist ordering of the world"
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
So Hitler never said "A problem has been detected and Windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer"?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
How do you concentrate power into the hands of the few, without the few gaining control over the means of production?
That depends on how strictly or loosely you want to define "control over the means of production". If you attain power by being the preferred leader of all the captains of industry are you automatically controlling the means of production? When government is lead by industry - rather than by working class people - is it inherently controlling production just because the people with the most say in production are the ones also leading government? If you have one dictator making the statements of everything government and the people will do, who is himself taking orders from industry, is he somehow controlling the means of production?
Fascism reduces the number of people who drive government. Those people who survive to be in those roles don't get there by accident.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I don't remember it exactly but the offensive database had an entry something like this:
It is sad that this fortune is offensive just because it contains the word 'fuck'.
Read up on Liberia. Then offer Liberians the opportunity to trade 1:1 citizenship with White Americans who will be deported to Liberia to create their perfect white state somewhere that only needs 4.5 million people relocated rather than 330 million :)
Be hilarious to watch as Liberia doesn't end up being any less of a shithole under the White Supremacists :)
For anyone who doesn't get the concept, go read up on the ACS and the history of Liberia for some very interesting reading on American Colonialism pre-Civil War :)
The key word that proves Nazism as left wing is the word "Socialist." otherwise your comment is valid concerning both left wing and right wing hypocrisy.
Your logic is unassailable; lol
Yes, you are. Even if they still pretend to be capitalists, if they're working together and everything is centrally owned, that's centralization.
Even when government is led by industry.
When you reduce the number of people who drive government, that is centralization. ALL centralization, be it from industry or the people, is bad in the long run.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Even if they still pretend to be capitalists, if they're working together and everything is centrally owned, that's centralization.
Except that it is not centrally owned - or at least, not owned by the government. When the companies have enough power to install their favorite goon at the top of government that does not mean that the government is now controlling those companies - in fact it generally means the opposite.
When you reduce the number of people who drive government, that is centralization.
You'll never convince roman (whose comment I replied to in this thread) of that. Nor will you convince any of his fellow paullower cult members. They will continue to campaign for a "government small enough to drown in a bathtub", which of course would be led by their favorite fascist.
Even when government is led by industry.
When government is led by industry, then government control of industry is only a facade. There is no centralization at that point.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If the industry is acting as the government, then they are the government. I don't see why you see that as a boundary.
Centralization on Wall Street, Centralization in Washington DC, doesn't matter to anybody living elsewhere. It's still centralization.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Right, two are things, the other is somebody shouting about a thing.
(Hint: it isn't an acronym, it is a backronym)
I don't know if you're right wing, what I do know is you have no idea who or what "liberals" are or what they believe, and instead you believe in an absurd caricature that is identical to what American right-wing media tells people.
Maybe you're just really ignorant of what other people believe, and all your friends are uneducated conservatives with false beliefs about what liberals believe?
I notice in your response a complete lack of interest in discovering what liberals actually believe, so surely you really are an ignorant conservative and are just lying.
What's wrong with you? I'm not addressing liberal vs conservative points of view, I'm talking about political left vs right. In fact I went to lengths to point out the distinction to you, something you seem happy to keep ignoring.
But, in the spirit of Slashdot snarkiness, I suppose I'd best turn your own words on you:
I don't know if you're left wing, what I do know is you have no idea who or what "conservatives" are or what they believe, and instead you believe in an absurd caricature that is identical to what American left-wing media tells people.
Maybe you're just really ignorant of what other people believe, and all your friends are uneducated liberals with false beliefs about what conservatives believe?
I notice in your response a complete lack of interest in discovering what conservatives actually believe, so surely you really are an ignorant liberal and are just lying.
Funny, that seems to fit quite well, doesn't it?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
If the industry is acting as the government, then they are the government. I don't see why you see that as a boundary.
The difference is whether the industry is controlling the government or the other way around. I don't see why you don't get that. Conservatives champion the former and constantly tell us we are sliding toward the latter (particularly when they don't have the power they have today). If you reduce government to only a small number of pro-industry folks, you have industry controlling the government, without question. That does not equate to centralization in any meaningful way as the government at that point has no meaningful influence on industry and instead is told by industry what it will - and will not - do.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Not equally.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's part of the mainstream of historical thought, not an inattention to history. Fascism included nationalism and capitalism. It often included the traditional religion. It was normally racist. These are primarily right-wing things. National Socialism, in particular, was hard right wing. The left is more socialist, as opposed to capitalist, It tends to be classist, as opposed to racist and/or nationalist. It tends to be anti-religion.
I'm getting real tired of this intellectually dishonest attempt to make right-wing politics look better at the expense of history.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's called authoritarianism, and exists all over the spectrum. The industrialists were somewhat freer than the US variety during WWII, under the War Production Board. Fascists tend to woo the industrialists and throw sops to the workers.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The ideology was mystical. Exactly who believed it is another question.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's part of the mainstream of historical thought, not an inattention to history. Fascism included nationalism and capitalism. It often included the traditional religion. It was normally racist. These are primarily right-wing things. National Socialism, in particular, was hard right wing. The left is more socialist, as opposed to capitalist, It tends to be classist, as opposed to racist and/or nationalist. It tends to be anti-religion.
I'm getting real tired of this intellectually dishonest attempt to make right-wing politics look better at the expense of history.
The intellectual dishonestly is attempting to portray fascism as a "right-wing" thing. It is of both wings. Fascism attacks groups that are deemed "outsiders" to their respective right- or left-wing leadership. One may emphasize race in their propaganda, one may emphasize religion, 2 sides of the same coin. At its core fascism promotes an idealized model of behavior and culture, deviate and you are at risk. Its also not necessarily "normal" for fascism to be racist, well at least to the nazi degree. In some cases of fascism adoption of and compliance to the idealized model of behavior makes one a "good citizen" regardless of racial background. Again, to attempt to label fascism as a creature purely of the right or left is folly. Fascism is opportunistic, it adapts to the culture it is grafting itself upon. If that culture has a strong element of bigotry it will leverage that, but if the culture has more of an egalitarian streak it will accommodate that. Whatever is necessary to get to the idealized nationalistic authoritarian goal.
When the few control the many, that is a government, even if you call it industry. I champion neither, but then again, I'm more of a paleoconservative Catholic than an American. Industry and government are one and the same, when controlled by the few at the expense of the many, it's collectivism and centralization.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
When the few control the many, that is a government, even if you call it industry.
(...)
Industry and government are one and the same, when controlled by the few at the expense of the many, it's collectivism and centralization.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Industry can control government or government can control industry; if you want to insist that the two are the same you can go ahead and do that. Roman in particular would very strongly disagree with you as well (strange that you managed to find perhaps the first thing so far that he and I agree on). You are also in disagreement with pretty much every conservative (and plenty of liberals such as myself) in the USA on the notion of an industry-run government being a form of "collectivism" or "centralization".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm in disagreement with America in general on economics and government in general. I'm an anti-libertarian at this point, who wants extreme tribalism, solidarity, and subsidiarity. There is NEVER a reason to trust a man you can't march directly into his office and punch him in the nose, or shake hands with at Church. Collectivism, whether of capitalist or socialist variety, allows anonymity into the market so that the few can take power from the many without fear of retaliation, at which point they WILL begin abusing the many.
Industry or government doing the abusing matters nothing to the abused who are prevented from fighting back.
Decentralization and extreme distributed ownership is the answer to that. If the most people you can abuse through labor practices are your direct report employees, and through pricing are your direct customers, then the sphere of influence of your industry is very small indeed. If the most people you can abuse through your laws are your neighbors in a very small area, your friends and family, then your government is sufficiently small for me. And if you abuse these people, they're free to move and trade elsewhere; and that is sufficient control to prevent your abuse.
It's when your organization grows larger than that, when your direct reports have direct reports below them and when your customers and constituency are people you don't personally know, that the trouble arises.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I see. Thank you for clarifying your view. Am I correct then in taking it to mean you would favor then completely abolishing the US federal government and breaking the country into a large number (perhaps thousands or more) of small independent nation-states or nation-cities?
I'm not sure how that would work in the current global economy - the closest place I am aware of today that would fit that ideal would probably be Afghanistan where the national government is almost completely absent in many places - but if that is your opinion you are certainly entitled to have it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Am I correct then in taking it to mean you would favor then completely abolishing the US federal government and breaking the country into a large number (perhaps thousands or more) of small independent nation-states or nation-cities?"
Not just the United States. The problem is, as you identify, the current global economy.
And many of those nation cities are still far too large, yes, 11 million people are NOT going to agree on a single objective morality, and that is a pre-requisite for ethical behavior.
Multicultural globalism has become tyranny- because it is centralized. .1% of 1% own 50% of the world. 1% owns 75% of the world, under globalism. The other 99% of human beings on this planet pay rent to that 1% in some form- either interest, taxes, or direct rent for property borrowed.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm curious to know how that kind of setup would handle the development of a product that is destined for a large market. What if someone came up with some fantastical new flying car and wanted to sell it all over the world? It seems that your system would impede that rather severely. Communications could be severely hampered as well if a phone call to a place that was a few area codes away is now several nations away. For that matter how would currency work in such a scenario? This seems to be very counter to the goals of the EU so I presume you would envision each nation-state having their own currency?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
International IP licensing for local manufacture. And yes, it's designed to. Economy of scale is the economic enemy of the family.
And currency? Locally produced for local use, of course. Hopefully at the neighborhood level, with inflation replacing taxes.
And of course it is counter to the goals of the EU; the EU is an anti-subsidiarity system.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
International IP licensing for local manufacture.
I'm not convinced that works on the level required to keep up a modern society (or even a reasonable resemblance of one). If we think of any modern and complicated device (cars, phones, computers, etc) you are dealing with global supply networks to get components to the final point of assembly. What then if someone in (what we currently call) Iowa wants a car? Would it not be nearly impossible for one to ever make it there? It seems like this could plummet many areas back in time by a lot.
While I wouldn't mind knocking the financial sector back several pegs, I think the consequences on most of the working population would be too dire to handle.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Who said I wanted to keep up a MODERN society? The laws of physics don't change, perhaps if we weren't chained to the globalist narrative, we'd end up with devices that better fit the environment in which they are used, using locally sourced materials and parts. A farmer in Iowa doesn't need a Rubicon Jeep. A prius is pretty useless in a mountainous area with no roads. Iowa has more raw resources than I ever knew. http://www.miningartifacts.org/Iowa-Mines.html
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Who said I wanted to keep up a MODERN society?
I would expect that you might miss modern society when your computer needs a repair or upgrade and nobody makes or sells parts for it. Maybe aside from that you live completely off the grid, I don't know. I do feel reasonably comfortable in guessing that you own a computer though as IPOAC would be a really difficult way to post to slashdot.
perhaps if we weren't chained to the globalist narrative, we'd end up with devices that better fit the environment in which they are used, using locally sourced materials and parts
There are some things that are important that just aren't available everywhere. Even if we go back to 1950's level technology we still need certain raw materials for making circuits that come mostly from specific parts of the world. If you were to go further and assume that most people would be OK with never traveling at a speed higher than 20mph we can make things a little easier to make with only locally sources materials and parts but that's a big change for most people.
That is also ignoring the number of people who would be promptly and permanently thrown out of work by such an effort as many jobs are built around a global economy and modern amenities.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
At which point I go to the Knotted Rope Pulley AND Gate method.
https://hackaday.com/2014/05/30/using-pulleys-and-weights-to-explain-binary-logic-gates/
Or are you under the impression that strings, wheels, and weights are rare?
The modern global economy has, overall, destroyed more jobs than it has created over the years. That's why we need a welfare state under a global economy, where labor not in surplus in an isolated market.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.