Some of the negative comments here are quite startling. People here are not just historically challenged but politically challenged too. You don't seem to understand what socialism is and neither do you know of the socio-political and economical programs put in place by Hitler in Germany. Of course you shouldn't be talking about what you don't know, but ignorance has never stopped a left winger from speaking out about things...
@apowell65 You are the dickhead. Hitler's Nazi's were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS and their fight with Russia was with the INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISTS. You CLEARLY do not understand SOCIALISM.
@tinydancer1965 If you actually believe that socialism is the same thing as nazism, then you're not worhy of my time, and although my response only reflects what real socialism is and not what history has made of it, I am only making my comments to make people recognize that socialism isn't a bad idea. History has made it such! Please leave a mature response, or I won't keep disgussing this with you. I do value that you have the integrity to argue, at least donät insult me,noneed
@tinydancer1965 If you actually believe that socialism is the same thing as nazism, then you're not worhy of my time, and although my response only reflects what real socialism is and not what history has made of it, I am only making my comments to make people recognize that socialism isn't a bad idea. History has made it such! Please leave a mature response, or I won't keep disgussing this with you. I do value that you have the integrity to argue, at least donät insult me,noneed
Hitler was for the working class because he came from it, The work environment of NSDAP Germany was better then any of the western countries in the world at that time which had improved working conditions, paid vacations and higher salaries for your average German worker. Adolf Hitler noted that both capitalism and communism exploit people and feed on divisions in society to benefit the few where national socialism bridges the gaps and strengthens bonds between the social and economical classes.
Le's review. Young Adolf Hitler hates his authoritarian father , is a strict vegan, goes to art school, then when he discovers he can't live off his art, and has to look for a real job blames it on Zionist Jews. Yeah sounds pretty right-wing to me, if he were around today he'd fit right in with the Occupy Wallstreet crowd.
Socialism like any totalitarian ideology can have different variations but they share the same root and those variations hated each other.
After all the anarchists, and I dont think you are going to argue that anarcho-communist werent socialists, in the USSR were also sent to concentrations camps and subject to massive executions.
@LibertyRealm Socialism and totalitarianism are polar opposites. The concentration camps and mass executions did happen, and went AGAINST what the Russian Revolution was about.
"Socialism and totalitarianism are polar opposites."
Prove it, show me a single socialist state in history that didnt use force and terror as a tool to "change" society.
"what the Russian Revolution was about"
The dictatorship of the proletariat, class struggle and state collectivization of all property........ yeah the bolsheviks dream sounds like love and peace alright XD
@metamaggot The socialists did not fight the nazis. The socialists in Germany WERE the nazis, shortened for the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
"The socialists did not fight the nazis. The socialists in Germany WERE the nazis, shortened for the National Socialist German Worker's Party. "
According to those pesky jews you and your fellow Nazis hate:
"Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany were political opponents -- primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders. "
@MrReco12 Leftist sects are very prone to rivalry, dissension, schism and hatred of one-another. One has only to think of the Bolsheviks versus the Mensheviks, Stalin versus Trotsky, China versus the Soviet Union, China "teaching Vietnam a lesson", the Vietnamese suppression of the Khmer Rouge etc. Similarity does not preclude rivalry and in the end it was mainly competition for power that set Hitler and Stalin on a collision course.
@MrReco12 he said in his book the only difference between himself and marxism was race and nationalism he said in another book "I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate." Look it up XD And most socialists arent marxist anyway and corporatism is left wing "progressive" democrat idea, like price and wage controls.
LOL, Hitler never said that: video evidence what he said about Marxism: watch?v=FDbmB_QKPo4
"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
- Adolf Hitler
LOL, you fail again and Corporatism has always been a rightist idea.
price and wage controls- Hilarious!: name me one country that did not have wage and price controls at the time:D
@MrReco12 "Without race National Socialism would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". -Adolf Hitler Mein kampf
"Now that the age of individualism had ended, the task is to find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution". - Adolf Hitler in private
and wage and price controls were introduced by FDR. The left hates free markets and liberty!
@SuperGOPman price controls were introduced under Churchill in Britain and sir Robert Menzies here in Australia.
What Hitler really said:
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish he exernal appearance of the preset State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground......
@MrReco12 "Churchill in Britain and sir Robert Menzies" were only forced to use liberal ideas because of a war started by your liberal socialists who already had them, so they are still a liberal socialist fasctst invention.
"We are trying out the economics of Fascism without having suffered all its social or political ravages." George Soule
and mein kampf still proves Hitler to be a socialist leftist XD
@MrReco12 Govt control and tax increases? Yep liberal ideas!
"increased military spending"
North Korea, China, USSR all increased military spending.
Mein Kampf proves that Hitler is ANTI MARXIST LEFTIST but most leftists even today are anti-marxist XD
"I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate." - Hitler
"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
- Adolf Hitler :D
Hitler's economic polices show that he believed this.
You should learn more about REPUBLICAN NAZI FASCIST HISTORY!
watch?v=EeUF_H8RBCQ
Republican Nazi's have a lot of blood on their hands.
@MrReco12 Govt control and tax increases is what the national SOCIALISTS did! Yep they had liberal ideas!
"I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate." - Hitler :D
Socialists even invented Nazi salute!
watch?v=L82lVcmIMSk
Socialist Nazi's have a lot of blood on their hands.
The National Socialists privatized state-owned enterprises, including the Commerz-Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag”, the Deutsche Reichsbahn, Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. and other huge corporations."
Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006). Available at SSRN:
LOL, Reagan was copying the policies of Adolf Hitler!
@MrReco12 private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: The position of the alleged private owners was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
LOL, Democrats are copying the policies of Adolf Hitler.
@MrReco12 The "pensioners" were FORCED by the STATE to USE their profits for BENEFIT for THE STATE only. so the private property was IN NAME ONLY.
Oh and Ferdinand Lassalle is remembered now for his endeavours to make socialism and private property compatible" so is Lasalle fascist or socialist now? XD
They cetaintly did, indeed they were the "UPPER CLASS" of the Nazi society. The Nazis had in fact a very strict a very strict class. Indeed, it a well known historic fact that the Nazis turned millions of German Jews, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, Jehova's winesses into second class citiznes.
The upper class: Military, Nazi officials, wealth businessman.
LOL, you Fascist republicans are absolutely hilarious,.
@SuperGOPman your account labels you as a troll. fascism = socialism? Since when did Hitler, the man who vehemently detested socialism and had millions of them killed, suddenly become a socialist? German corporations such as volkswagon made millions off of Hitler, even Ford, a well known conservative anti-semite only stopped manufacturing there when America joined the war.
take a crash course in history, please, next you'll start telling me the KKK and arabs are socialists too.
@SuperGOPman rofl what a fucking idiot! The national "socialist" workers party was merely a scheme to draw the commoners away from the rising communist parties of post WWI Germany. The NY Times is correct, they did masquerade themselves as a leftist organization at first, but by the 1930's they had completely reversed those policies.
Racial supremacy and obsession with nationalism is a clear trait of the right wing. Furthermore, the Nazis detested socialists and communism
@Andy180084 "The NY Times is correct" that they were socialist? XD
"masquerade themselves as a leftist organization at first but by the 1930's they had completely reversed those policies."
They were always leftist XD
"The German dictator, Adolf Hitler, is seemingly prepared to try communism, or something like it, at home, despite his ceaseless tirades against communism abroad, in order to halt Germany's steadily increasing economic difficulties." Baltimore Sun Sep 9, 1937
@SuperGOPman lol some conservatives are so blind and arrogant they cannot even acknowledge that the fascists go down as right wing. the leftists have the dignity to acknowledge communism as a left-wing form of government, but you simply cannot read a history book, or even a free encyclopedia such as wikipedia.
@Andy180084 lol some leftists are so blind and arrogant they cannot even acknowledge that the fascists go down as left wing. the leftists have the dignity to acknowledge communism as a left-wing form of government as they should, but they quote modern leftist progressives today to prove hitler is right wing instead of Hitler direct or newspapers of the times XD
@Andy180084 "I am a German nationalist. That means I am openly committed to my Volkstum [ethnic community]. All of my thoughts and actions belong to it. I am a socialist. I see before me no class or rank but rather a community of people..." From Hitler's second book: the unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf.
"We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolf Hitler: reported by German Wiemar Journalist Konrad Heiden
The Nazis also privatized the economy, destroyed labor unions, sent gays to concentration camps, anti communist, anti social democrat etc.
So thats where conservatives have been getting their ideas from! :D
The National Socialists privatized state-owned enterprises, including the Commerz-Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag”, the Deutsche Reichsbahn, Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. and other huge corporations."
Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006). Available at SSRN:
@metamaggot The North Vietnamese Army(Viet Cong) invaded Cambodia to fight and defeat the Khmer Rouge and both were communist. Using your logic, that couldn't have happened.
In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.
Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead."
Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich. Some prosperous industrialists were convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party
From the Jewish virtual library dumbass :D
Oh, the guy who was responsible for putting the socialist measures in the program was shot on the orders of Hitler in 1934 in the infamous night of the long knives.
mrinsano555 that is without question the single most assinine description of what the right stands for I've ever seen! Individual rights and "liberty" my ass! The people fighting against equality and against free speech and for an economic system where the rich get richer and the poor get screwed, that is NOT "LIBERTY".
There was nothing remotely "socialist" about the Nazis, any more than the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic.
@LibertyRealm NO, idiot, I'm very well aware that socialism and Marxism are not the same thing, related though they may be. Socialism is an economic theory (one absolutely NOT followed by the Third Reich) while Marxism is a more over-arching change in all society. I am not a Marxist, but am a socialist.
@xTheOxx Did the German Democratic Republic espouse free markets, freedom of speech and free trade? No. Did the Nazis and Socialists desire to impose governemtn control on the means of production? Yes they did. Did either the Nazis or Socialists allow free speech and free markets? No they did not. I hope that didn't confuse you ? You see, it's not just the name but common principles that bond nazism with socialism.
Nationalism is just a vehicle for propaganda, now they just use NGO's like the UN and the EU, environmentalism and pander to minority groups etc. But it depends on whay you mean by totalitarian. The genocidal type or the authoritarian type? I agree that most maniachal dictators are nationalists.
@Samsgarden nationalism is a feeling that politicians exploit for their own purposes..to get followers...racism is another one too...and money is another...
ie:if you elect me I'll get rid of those foreigners you don't like ,because our nation is better,and they're the ones making us poor...
socialists are'nt so keen on blaming foreigners as they are rich people for the way everything is.
but a lot of people need an "enemy" so anybody might end up being labeled as such.
@metamaggot blamed for the less than perfect running of the system...because there is no perfect system there are allways people who get the short end of the stick...
itellectuals who question the validity of the system in place...people percieved as lazy,parasitic or simply represent values of another time...(like during the cultural revolution in china)
so socialism is not perfect but it still is more adequate at raising the general living standard of countries...even if they end up in debt.
@metamaggot but let's face it debt is a product of a capitalist idea...profiteering from banks and companies etc...where socialism (is supposed) to be about people's welfare ,debt not being that important..in fact if we where to change the banking system there would not be debt in socialism...that calls for regulation of banks...but does'nt mean it's a dictatureship...there are regulations on driving cars over 3/4 of the planet...does that mean they are dictatureships???
This is getting monotonous, your are just denying the obvious for the sake of denying it
"Please tell me on what page of the Communist Manifesto genocide is advocated."
LOL, I expected such a reply.
The "revolutiionary" dictatorship of the proletariat, class struggle and the collectivization of private property implies the death of those who oppose it.
@LibertyRealm No, I'm denying bald-faced lies. There's nothing "obvious" about the phony claim that gulags were "socialist".
There's nothing CLOSE to an "implication of death to those who oppose it" in Marxism, it's not even vaguely CLOSE to "dictatorship". How can THE PEOPLE be a "dictator"? Class struggle exists NOW, you just want the rich to win and the poor to go die quietly.
You're stunningly naive, swallowing red-baiting propaganda that was discredited decades ago.
"There is no such thing as a "socialist dictator."
I could show you like 10 example right now........
"A dictator is BY DEFINITION not following the ideals of socialism"
Have you ever wonder why socialism always ends in dictatorhip? Its not a coincidence, but the natural conclusion of concentrating all power in the hands of the state, and such state is run by people.
@LibertyRealm No, you could not. There is no such THING as a socialist dictator. If you show a dictator, he is NOT a socialist. Castro isn't a socialist.
Socialism does NOT always end in dictatorship. That's preposterous red-baiting propaganda. Socialism is the power in the hands of the PEOPLE. There's nothing so unAmerican as making "the state" seem like some distant, evil, uncontrollable force. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE ARE THE STATE.
@metamaggot Ever hear of Joseph Stalin? Go ask someone of Ukrainian origin about the genteel nature of ordinary "socialism". Bottom line is Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever dreamed of. Mao killed more fellow Chinese than Stalin ever dreamed of. It's not the nationalism, comrade.
@dalmatian847 yes but stalin was'nt socialist...because he was a dictator....dictators cannot be socialists socialism is exactly what it's name suggests.social...society is constituted of the entirety of humankind...socialism suggests all people of society are equal in rights and status...so there is no place for dictators or pyramidal social strata...which a dictatureship,and a democracy are..
@metamaggot Socialism implies that all the means of production are owned by the state. This means that no one owns anything. This also means that public planners control all resources. However controlling is another name for owning. Thus the planer(s) own/control/dictate all capital/resources/power.
Capitalism implies that private citizens control/own what they earn. This means that private interests can both create wealth and bargain with that wealth.
@SexDrugsFinance no no you got it all wrong lol...the 1st rule of socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers...anything other than that and it's not socialism..that means the factories are run and managed by the workers...decisions are taken by vote...and private owners are unneeded,the salaries they would have had are shared among the workers,de facto making it more profitable to the people actually working...as there are no useless mouths to feed...
@metamaggot capitalism implies that all things should be privately owned by individual people.(the upper class let's say)
they decide what the workers do,what the wages are and who gets a job...it is in fact a form of dictatureship as the bosses are not elected,and they have a choice over who eats and who dies
(lose your job=no cash=no food)
that's why it's better to have a worker/representative state owned industry..because every one involved get's their say as they elect the person or
@metamaggot choose the fact they want no person to decide wether they should have bread or starve...captalism is a very mediaeval concept where a few people get a lot for contributing nothing...of course rich people say it's freedom but it is'nt freedom for all...it's just their freedom to rip people off,disagree and you starve get locked up or beaten by the "police" they employ as a means of preserving the status quo...
@metamaggot But business owners don't get to choose who works for them in this absolute way you imply. They have to select someone who will add value to their company and pay them for that added value. If they chose poorly their company may go bankrupt and everyone will starve.
@SexDrugsFinance business owners don't chose who works for them? have you never had to do a curiculum vitae to get a job?in the hopes you will be chosen over someone else...
bankruptcy nearly always come from mismanagement as bad workers are fired before they can bankrupt a company ,owners are not chosen or fired for incompetence... so they can stay at the head of the company and ruin it because nobody else has a say in management...
@metamaggot I was saying that business owners don't have arbitrary choice. They risk loosing profits by hiring the wrong people and are compensated for their risk if they hire the right people. The risk of the business falls on the shoulders of the boss. So if a company makes a bad product or is corrupt the owner goes out of business and the worker looses a job. In that case the worker is payed for his labour until the business dissolves...
@metamaggot So, my question was, given a system where businesses are owned by the workers, what happens to disgruntled workers who are outvoted? What happens if a 60% of the works vote to do something unethical or stupid? Do the other 40% have to go along with it until the company is ruined? Also if the majority vote to do something unethical who is punished?
@metamaggot Ok, so say we have a country where all the businesses are run by workers. I have two questions. First, what happens if a machine is invented that can reduce the number of workers needed to produce something. Do those workers that are laid off still get payed for the production of the machines that replaced them? Secondly, what do the workers do if they lose out on the vote? What happens if I vote against making a widget and then that widget isn't profitable?
@SexDrugsFinance ,no workers are laid off......and all the workers need to work less for their wage...or alternatively work the same hours but produce more,which means more money,and higher salaries ...
then secondly
a second vote is called ,to decide wether an unprofitable widget should still be produced...if you actually lose money the outcome is predictably the end of production... your concerns are definitely not socialist ones you might find people would not want to work with you
@metamaggot I don't understand how not having socialist concerns means people wouldn't want to work with me. Many people have enjoyed working with me in the past.
Another thought occurs to me. What about special needs people? If I were a business owner I would hire people with mental handicaps for low skilled labour. But if they had the same voting power as me I wouldn't want to work with them. I wouldn't want their votes to carry the same weight.
@SexDrugsFinance the first bit is irrelevant..i don't like bosses that does'nt mean I work badly or they don't keep me...
the second bit...well ok for the first bit...it's not for retards to control nuclear missiles or something too dangerous(even though they allready do)
as for vote...well there is no reason mentally handicapped people could not vote...unless they where the majority any ridiculous ideas they could have would not have much chance in getting implemented...
@metamaggot if they where the majority yoiu should probably ask yourself what the hell you're doing associating with such a bunch of idiots(although if you did in the first place you might be stupid anyway)
@metamaggot Ok, so say we have a country where all the businesses are run by workers. I have two questions. First, what happens if a machine is invented that can reduce the number of workers needed to produce something. Do those workers that are laid off still get payed for the production of the machines that replaced them? Secondly, what do the workers do if they lose out on the vote? What happens if I vote against making a widget and then that widget isn't profitable?
@metamaggot Under what definition of socialism negates a dictatorship? Please supply the reference to this obvious fallacy. Socialism suggests NOTHING of the kind.The whole basis of socialism depends on the state controlling the means of production. It doesn't matter who is the government head, only that said government controls the means of production. A prime example of this is Nazi Germany. Hugo Chavez is a socialist dictator. The state controls the oil industry in Venezuela. Checkmate.
@MrReco12 Ever hear of Volkwagen, you idiot? Hitler's "people's car"?(or the predecessor to Obama's Volt) There is no question who was controlling industry in Nazi Germany, whether it was the Krupp Steelworks or the German car indusrty. Nice try, you uneducated maggot.
it is a fact that the government of the National Socialist Party sold off public ownership in several state-owned firms in the middle of the 1930s. The firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyard, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector
@MrReco12 So what? The National Socialists of Germany couldn't care less what figurehead they put in charge because the bottom line was the STATE controlled the industries for what was good for the STATE. In the movie Casino, they had their straight man propped up as the "owner" but there was no doubt who was really in control. The same can be said for Germany under the National Socialist German Workers Party, aka the Nazi Party.
"The National Socialists privatized state-owned enterprises, including the Commerz-Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag”, the Deutsche Reichsbahn, Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. and other huge corporations."
Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006). Available at SSRN:
P Lease get an education before you make a fool of yourself again.
@MrReco12 The Program of the National-Socialist (Nazi)German Workers’ Party(1933) 13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises. 15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
Yeah , demanding nationalization of all enterprises is SOO not socialism. Neither are old-age "safety nets" like social security and profit-sharing among workers.
The National Socialists privatized state-owned enterprises, including the Commerz-Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag”, the Deutsche Reichsbahn, Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. and other huge corporations.
Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006). Available at SSRN:
Read the rise and fall of the third reich you dunderhead instead of Facist Reismans garbage :D
In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters.
@MrReco12 21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people(The National Socialist German Worker's Party 1933)
Ah, yes, healthcare provided by the state.Child labor laws... always the tenets of capitalism, no?
"In the process, they cannot be expected to make the distinctions present in a judicial process. They must act quickly and decisively to remove what threatens them. That is the nature of war. "
watch?v=u2A3nO4uTRM: LOL. is Reisman related to of this murderous Nazi?
@MrReco12 If nazis are so right wing why are they joining the filthy and violent socialists, liberals, Jihadists, Antisemites and communists at occupy?
National SOCIALISTS!!! are for big govt like ALL socialists are!
@MrReco12 Public Interest before Private Interest. 25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states
"The Program of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party" Berlin [1933].
Why is everyone on this page arguing left or right when its common fact that the Nazi's were the first centrist's. They took nationalism & married to Socialism because both were dying under the current sciences. Eg Nationalism from the right & Socialism from the left because Communism & Capitalism were both outdated. The Nazi's were years ahead of they're time, that's why people wanted them out if the way. By the way i quote Joseph Goebels- We are better off under the Bolsheviks than Capitalists
@PrisonerNumber9653 And what precisely, if anything, does it prove that the nazis loathed the marxists? The fact that they disliked a competing faction of socialism doesn't indicate that they weren't socialists. The right wing of the political spectrum means private property, individualism, personal liberties, free trade, autonomy and a small state, not a single one of these things were endorsed by the nazis. They resented socialists not out of ideology, but as rivals for the same followers.
@mrinsano555 It proves they don't have an argument is what it proves. Trotsky and Lenin hated each other, each wanting to grasp power, but was there any doubt both were marxists?
So long as Marxists are content merely to write, speak, and otherwise fantasize about the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of socialism, they have every right to be left alone, just as every one else has who harms no one but himself. But when they begin to act out their fantasy in the real world and commit armed robbery, which, as I have shown, is the only means of achieving their goal, then they forfeit their rights, including their right to life." -George Reisman
@DrCruel You so hilariously dumb: The democratically elected JEWISH president is a "leftist fascist"(theirs an oxymoron for you) whilie the man who -Destroys Latin America's oldest democracy(Hitler destroyed German democracy!) -established a secret police: the DINA(like Hitler) -Banned all political parties(like HItler) -executed Marxists(like HItler) -Had capitalist economic polices etc,etc. God, Reisman would have been saluting Hitler if had been victorious!
Reisman is a fascist hypocrite who, as i have proven, would have supported Hitler and Mussolini given half the chance!
Thankfully his side lost world war II, however Hitler's mass murdering capitalists ideas still have a firm place in every right wing conservative heart!
@MrReco12 "Since Chávez took the oath of office at the beginning of 1999, there has been an unprecedented surge in anti-Semitism throughout Venezuela. Government-owned media outlets have published anti-Semitic tracts with increasing frequency. Pro-Chávez groups have publicly disseminated copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the early-20th-century czarist forgery outlining an alleged worldwide Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world...."
"... it turned out that a few minorities--the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia--they took possession of the riches of the world, a minority took possession of the planet’s gold, the silver, the minerals, the water, the good lands, the oil, and they have concentrated all the riches in the hands of the few ..." -Hugo Chavez
He was talking about the capitalists,you know how Jesus(also a jew) angry tipped over money lenders in the temple?, for example THE JEWS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GETTING RID OF BOLIVAR!
Prominent Jewish figures have been publicly denounced for supposed disloyalty to the “Bolívarian” cause, and “Semitic banks” have been accused of plotting against the regime. Citing suspicions of such plots, Chávez’s government has gone so far as to stage raids on Jewish elementary schools and other places of meeting...."
"... The anti-Zionism expressed by the government is steadily spilling over into street-level anti-Semitism, in which synagogues are vandalized with a frequency and viciousness never before seen in the country...."
I take it then, that your answer is yes.
There is a bright spot. You at least have enough moral scruples left to know that the anti-Semitism of your Leftist friends is wrong - at least enough to lie about it.
AS a supporter of the Anti Semtic Dictator Pinochet you have no right to talk!
From a moral point of view, the State of Israel, as the national home of the Jewish people, cannot host individuals like Pinochet who caused so much damage, sorrow and pain to Jews. Your intervention is therefore requested regarding this painful subject in order to prevent the visit of the murderous dictator, defender of Nazi war criminals like Walter Rauff.
@MrReco12 I support neither Pinochet nor D'Abuisson. What I do support is people fighting back against Marxist aggression. I will repeat - if all Pinochet was guilty of was using violence to stop Marxists, I'd be fine with him.
Marxists are vicious thugs. I'm as in favor of aggressively fighting back against them as I am of fighting their Nazi cousins. They're all just different versions of the same thieving, murderous socialist scheme - and I'm always happy to see their numbers decline.
@MrReco12 "Rightist" doesn't mean anything today outside of Marxian myth systems. It used to refer to monarchists, but today the left is more representative of such people. The most ruthless, absolutist kingships run by families today (the Cuba of the Castros, Syria of the Assads, North Korea run by the Kim dynasty) are all Leftist regimes.
Nazism was Leftist too, by virtue of their socialist ideology and practices. In fact, they were more authentically socialist than the Bolsheviks.
@MrReco12 Yes, I've heard this before. All the other socialisms weren't REAL socialism. but this NEXT one is the real thing for SURE.
Bolshevism, Nazism and Maoism were Leftist movements. Fascism in Italy started as a Leftist movement too. Leftism was never about helping people who work for a living - it was about taking advantage of people, pitting them against each other, so a small group of seditionist assholes can get into power. And one of these pricks always tries to makes himself king.
I love making the point because its so very true: The only reason why Reisman and other conservatives claim that Hitler was "leftwing" is because he lost to the Soviet Union. If he had won he would been their greatest hero!
@MrReco12 No, you just like being a troll. But that's fine - I welcome the opportunity to remind people that the Nazis were socialist, and not some supposed "end state" of free market capitalism and private ownership of property.
You would be more correct in saying that Bolsheviks don't consider the Nazis as "Leftist" because Hitler betrayed his fellow socialist allies in June of 1941. The resulting savage east front war between Leftists saved half of Europe from the horrors of socialism.
I'm the troll, it is consus amoong Holcoaust survivors, historians and indeed Fmr Nazis that the Hitler and his Nazis were RIGHT WING CAPITALISTS. Indeed, Alfreid Krupp,German capitalist, admitted it at the nuremberg trials.
Reisman and other rightist liars are trolls who mock the victims of Nazism. The Right has never been about "end state", their destruction of countless democracies(Spain,Chilie,Italy, Germany etc.) have proven that!
@MrReco12 It is a consistent claim only amongst Marxists that Nazism represents the end state of capitalism. No one else claims this. No one else could - because it depends on Marxian theology and blind faith in this obscene dialectic ideology.
Socialism and especially Marxism has never been about helping the "toiling masses". The ruins of Eastern Europe are a testament to what they're really up to.
Yes, but Marxism,as you would know is against cult of the "individual"(as marx called it). They prefer collectivism over individualism. Thats an important thing to remember!
@DrCruel, if you don't see what is wrong with a jew giving a lecture about National Socialism then why don't you just ask the black panthers for a non-bias history of white America while your at it....
@MrReco12 Yes, Hitler was an anti-Marxist. But Nazi was a rival form of socialism, not a form of capitalist statism. The capitalists and "kulaks" of Bolshevism were replaced with Jews, and for the same reasons. Business was controlled (and looted) at least as effectively under Nazism as it was under Bolshevism.
The Falange was disposed of by Francisco Franco, merged into the Carlist Party after the war. In fact Franco was one of the few authentic fascist "Rightists" - an actual monarchist.
@MrReco12 There was as much "private industry" in Nazi Germany as there is in communist China now. Industry under the Nazis was an arm of the Nazi government, not the other way around. Only in Marxian myth is fascism thought of as an "end state" of capitalism.
The Falange was all but destroyed after WW II, and foled into the Carlist party after the war. Franco disposed of it - in part, because of the Falange's ties to Leftism. Go look it up.
Some of the negative comments here are quite startling. People here are not just historically challenged but politically challenged too. You don't seem to understand what socialism is and neither do you know of the socio-political and economical programs put in place by Hitler in Germany. Of course you shouldn't be talking about what you don't know, but ignorance has never stopped a left winger from speaking out about things...
thegreatfearblog 6 days ago
Only American conservatives think the Nazis were socialists. Even European right-wingers don't believe that.
Is it because a) American conservatives are right and everybody else is wrong b) They are dickheads?
apowell65 1 month ago
@apowell65
Hayek was an American conservative?
WSWarthog 1 month ago
@apowell65 You are the dickhead. Hitler's Nazi's were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS and their fight with Russia was with the INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISTS. You CLEARLY do not understand SOCIALISM.
tinydancer1965 1 week ago
@tinydancer1965 If you actually believe that socialism is the same thing as nazism, then you're not worhy of my time, and although my response only reflects what real socialism is and not what history has made of it, I am only making my comments to make people recognize that socialism isn't a bad idea. History has made it such! Please leave a mature response, or I won't keep disgussing this with you. I do value that you have the integrity to argue, at least donät insult me,noneed
Ichibaz 1 week ago
@tinydancer1965 If you actually believe that socialism is the same thing as nazism, then you're not worhy of my time, and although my response only reflects what real socialism is and not what history has made of it, I am only making my comments to make people recognize that socialism isn't a bad idea. History has made it such! Please leave a mature response, or I won't keep disgussing this with you. I do value that you have the integrity to argue, at least donät insult me,noneed
Ichibaz 1 week ago
What socialism wants: To take away the large diferences between poor and rich people. All people should be equal.
What nazism did: Killed people who were not deemed worthy and spent all it's money on war leaving the people starving back home.
So, you tell me what you think now Reisman!
Ichibaz 2 months ago
@Ichibaz TYPICAL INDOCTRINATED, BRAINWASHED STUPID response.
tinydancer1965 1 week ago
Hitler was for the working class because he came from it, The work environment of NSDAP Germany was better then any of the western countries in the world at that time which had improved working conditions, paid vacations and higher salaries for your average German worker. Adolf Hitler noted that both capitalism and communism exploit people and feed on divisions in society to benefit the few where national socialism bridges the gaps and strengthens bonds between the social and economical classes.
hunarf 3 months ago
Le's review. Young Adolf Hitler hates his authoritarian father , is a strict vegan, goes to art school, then when he discovers he can't live off his art, and has to look for a real job blames it on Zionist Jews. Yeah sounds pretty right-wing to me, if he were around today he'd fit right in with the Occupy Wallstreet crowd.
dalmatian847 3 months ago
History fail
xunderxdosedx 4 months ago
Reisman is numero uno. If you dont have his book capitalism get it asap its amazing.
Bigturns33 4 months ago
then why did the socialists fight against the nazis if they where so similar?
metamaggot 6 months ago
@metamaggot Just because you have similar philosophies doesn't mean you get along.
zaxophne 6 months ago
@zaxophne the fact you don't get along almost certainly means you have different philosophies...otherwhise you would get along...
metamaggot 6 months ago
@metamaggot
Why do brothers fight each other sometimes?
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@LibertyRealm they are different people...blood relations do not mean you get along...
genes don't make you predisposed to be with you family...that's just down to the fact you're born in it..
and people are'nt genetically predisposed to certain types of politics..that's just the uprbringing
metamaggot 6 months ago
@metamaggot
You missed the point.
Socialism like any totalitarian ideology can have different variations but they share the same root and those variations hated each other.
After all the anarchists, and I dont think you are going to argue that anarcho-communist werent socialists, in the USSR were also sent to concentrations camps and subject to massive executions.
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@LibertyRealm Socialism and totalitarianism are polar opposites. The concentration camps and mass executions did happen, and went AGAINST what the Russian Revolution was about.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrisonerNumber9653
"Socialism and totalitarianism are polar opposites."
Prove it, show me a single socialist state in history that didnt use force and terror as a tool to "change" society.
"what the Russian Revolution was about"
The dictatorship of the proletariat, class struggle and state collectivization of all property........ yeah the bolsheviks dream sounds like love and peace alright XD
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
You are arguing with a fascist that supporters Pinochet. He doesant know what he is talking about!
MrReco12 6 months ago
@metamaggot The socialists did not fight the nazis. The socialists in Germany WERE the nazis, shortened for the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
dalmatian847 3 months ago
@dalmatian847
"The socialists did not fight the nazis. The socialists in Germany WERE the nazis, shortened for the National Socialist German Worker's Party. "
According to those pesky jews you and your fellow Nazis hate:
"Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany were political opponents -- primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders. "
-United State Holocaust Memorial Museum
Anything else you would like to add?
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 Leftist sects are very prone to rivalry, dissension, schism and hatred of one-another. One has only to think of the Bolsheviks versus the Mensheviks, Stalin versus Trotsky, China versus the Soviet Union, China "teaching Vietnam a lesson", the Vietnamese suppression of the Khmer Rouge etc. Similarity does not preclude rivalry and in the end it was mainly competition for power that set Hitler and Stalin on a collision course.
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
Well Mr GOP, Hitler actually attacked Marxist ideology and supported corperations. More than "sibling rivalry" as your ridiculously claim!
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 he said in his book the only difference between himself and marxism was race and nationalism he said in another book "I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate." Look it up XD And most socialists arent marxist anyway and corporatism is left wing "progressive" democrat idea, like price and wage controls.
YOU FAIL!
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
LOL, Hitler never said that: video evidence what he said about Marxism: watch?v=FDbmB_QKPo4
"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
- Adolf Hitler
LOL, you fail again and Corporatism has always been a rightist idea.
price and wage controls- Hilarious!: name me one country that did not have wage and price controls at the time:D
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 "Without race National Socialism would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". -Adolf Hitler Mein kampf
"Now that the age of individualism had ended, the task is to find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution". - Adolf Hitler in private
and wage and price controls were introduced by FDR. The left hates free markets and liberty!
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman price controls were introduced under Churchill in Britain and sir Robert Menzies here in Australia.
What Hitler really said:
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish he exernal appearance of the preset State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground......
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 "Churchill in Britain and sir Robert Menzies" were only forced to use liberal ideas because of a war started by your liberal socialists who already had them, so they are still a liberal socialist fasctst invention.
"We are trying out the economics of Fascism without having suffered all its social or political ravages." George Soule
and mein kampf still proves Hitler to be a socialist leftist XD
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
HA HA HA!
Is privatization, increased military spending and tax cuts for business Liberal today.
Why do Republicans steal Nazi ideas? :D
Mein Kampf proves that Hitler is ANTI SOCIALIST LEFTIST!
The real quote bellow shoes that you were lying.
GOP= Nazis and Fascists
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 Govt control and tax increases? Yep liberal ideas!
"increased military spending"
North Korea, China, USSR all increased military spending.
Mein Kampf proves that Hitler is ANTI MARXIST LEFTIST but most leftists even today are anti-marxist XD
"I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate." - Hitler
Dems = Nazis and Fascists
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
I said tax cuts you idiot not increases LOL!
"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
- Adolf Hitler :D
Hitler's economic polices show that he believed this.
You should learn more about REPUBLICAN NAZI FASCIST HISTORY!
watch?v=EeUF_H8RBCQ
Republican Nazi's have a lot of blood on their hands.
One of their heroes:
watch?v=HzvpxrbWpVM
MrReco12 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrReco12 Govt control and tax increases is what the national SOCIALISTS did! Yep they had liberal ideas!
"I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate." - Hitler :D
Socialists even invented Nazi salute!
watch?v=L82lVcmIMSk
Socialist Nazi's have a lot of blood on their hands.
One of their heroes:
watch?v=WgpaKkrZex4
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
The National Socialists privatized state-owned enterprises, including the Commerz-Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag”, the Deutsche Reichsbahn, Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. and other huge corporations."
Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006). Available at SSRN:
LOL, Reagan was copying the policies of Adolf Hitler!
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: The position of the alleged private owners was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
LOL, Democrats are copying the policies of Adolf Hitler.
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
LOL, quoting idiot Reismen again. The "pensioners" increased their profits by 150%. LOL!
"Name only"?
HAHAHAH GOOD ONE!
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 The "pensioners" were FORCED by the STATE to USE their profits for BENEFIT for THE STATE only. so the private property was IN NAME ONLY.
Oh and Ferdinand Lassalle is remembered now for his endeavours to make socialism and private property compatible" so is Lasalle fascist or socialist now? XD
I WIN YOU LOSE!!!! XD
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
watch?v=Uw0A36C2MyA
Krupp thanks Hitler for creating the perfect environment for profits. The profits went to the individuals PERSONAL!
Do you fascist republicans ever stop failing?
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 NO THEY DID NOT!!!
Hitler admits he a socialist
watch?v=3GWuoud11Fg
and you cannot even answer the question on Ferdinand Lassalle XD
Do you fascist socialists ever stop failing?
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
They cetaintly did, indeed they were the "UPPER CLASS" of the Nazi society. The Nazis had in fact a very strict a very strict class. Indeed, it a well known historic fact that the Nazis turned millions of German Jews, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, Jehova's winesses into second class citiznes.
The upper class: Military, Nazi officials, wealth businessman.
LOL, you Fascist republicans are absolutely hilarious,.
MrReco12 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrReco12 Nazis wanted to ELIMINATE CLASS after the war and you still cannot even answer the question on Ferdinand Lassalle XD
"German Jews" Antisemitism = left wing. the Word was even invented by a left winger XD LOOOOL
"gypsies, Jehova's winesses" Marx wanted to do the same XD
"upper class: Military, party officials, no buisnessmen", No differece between Nazi Germany and national SOCIALIST North Korea XD
LOL, you Fascist socialist Obamacrats are absolutely hilarious
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman your account labels you as a troll. fascism = socialism? Since when did Hitler, the man who vehemently detested socialism and had millions of them killed, suddenly become a socialist? German corporations such as volkswagon made millions off of Hitler, even Ford, a well known conservative anti-semite only stopped manufacturing there when America joined the war.
take a crash course in history, please, next you'll start telling me the KKK and arabs are socialists too.
Andy180084 3 months ago
@Andy180084 "At the beginning Nazi socialism worked as well as a socialist system ever could" - New york Times Jun 21, 1942
Ask the leftist New york Times why don't you? XD
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman rofl what a fucking idiot! The national "socialist" workers party was merely a scheme to draw the commoners away from the rising communist parties of post WWI Germany. The NY Times is correct, they did masquerade themselves as a leftist organization at first, but by the 1930's they had completely reversed those policies.
Racial supremacy and obsession with nationalism is a clear trait of the right wing. Furthermore, the Nazis detested socialists and communism
wikipedia.. please
Andy180084 3 months ago
@Andy180084 "The NY Times is correct" that they were socialist? XD
"masquerade themselves as a leftist organization at first but by the 1930's they had completely reversed those policies."
They were always leftist XD
"The German dictator, Adolf Hitler, is seemingly prepared to try communism, or something like it, at home, despite his ceaseless tirades against communism abroad, in order to halt Germany's steadily increasing economic difficulties." Baltimore Sun Sep 9, 1937
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman lol some conservatives are so blind and arrogant they cannot even acknowledge that the fascists go down as right wing. the leftists have the dignity to acknowledge communism as a left-wing form of government, but you simply cannot read a history book, or even a free encyclopedia such as wikipedia.
Andy180084 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Andy180084 lol some leftists are so blind and arrogant they cannot even acknowledge that the fascists go down as left wing. the leftists have the dignity to acknowledge communism as a left-wing form of government as they should, but they quote modern leftist progressives today to prove hitler is right wing instead of Hitler direct or newspapers of the times XD
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@Andy180084 "I am a German nationalist. That means I am openly committed to my Volkstum [ethnic community]. All of my thoughts and actions belong to it. I am a socialist. I see before me no class or rank but rather a community of people..." From Hitler's second book: the unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf.
Adolf Hitler, Gerhard L. Weinberg
LOL
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@SuperGOPman
"We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolf Hitler: reported by German Wiemar Journalist Konrad Heiden
The Nazis also privatized the economy, destroyed labor unions, sent gays to concentration camps, anti communist, anti social democrat etc.
So thats where conservatives have been getting their ideas from! :D
MrReco12 2 months ago
@MrReco12 Good to know that you fell for all their lies. Another dummy for socialism.
tinydancer1965 1 week ago
@Andy180084
LOL, SuperGOPman is an idiot. I completely smashed his arguments on the video "Left-wing roots of the Nazi" :D
MrReco12 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Andy180084 "Racial supremacy and obsession with nationalism is a clear trait of the right wing"
we can find both in North Korea
"wikipedia.. please"
LOL@wiki
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperGOPman
The National Socialists privatized state-owned enterprises, including the Commerz-Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag”, the Deutsche Reichsbahn, Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. and other huge corporations."
Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006). Available at SSRN:
The Republicans stole Hitler's IDEAS!
MrReco12 3 months ago
@metamaggot The North Vietnamese Army(Viet Cong) invaded Cambodia to fight and defeat the Khmer Rouge and both were communist. Using your logic, that couldn't have happened.
dalmatian847 3 months ago
@dalmatian847
In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.
Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead."
MrReco12 3 months ago
@dalmatian847
Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich. Some prosperous industrialists were convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party
From the Jewish virtual library dumbass :D
Oh, the guy who was responsible for putting the socialist measures in the program was shot on the orders of Hitler in 1934 in the infamous night of the long knives.
Open a book you idiot!
MrReco12 3 months ago
@dalmatian847 I suppose you still think stalin was a communist as well?
metamaggot 3 months ago
mrinsano555 that is without question the single most assinine description of what the right stands for I've ever seen! Individual rights and "liberty" my ass! The people fighting against equality and against free speech and for an economic system where the rich get richer and the poor get screwed, that is NOT "LIBERTY".
There was nothing remotely "socialist" about the Nazis, any more than the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Socialism is not socialism
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@LibertyRealm The "national socialism" of the Nazis has nothing at all in common with economic socialism, no.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Please prisoner stop with the rambling and define me the "economic socialism".
I suspect you are confusing marxism with socialism.
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@LibertyRealm NO, idiot, I'm very well aware that socialism and Marxism are not the same thing, related though they may be. Socialism is an economic theory (one absolutely NOT followed by the Third Reich) while Marxism is a more over-arching change in all society. I am not a Marxist, but am a socialist.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
I have a question sir:
Was the German Democratic Republic a democracy?
xTheOxx 8 months ago 2
@xTheOxx Did the German Democratic Republic espouse free markets, freedom of speech and free trade? No. Did the Nazis and Socialists desire to impose governemtn control on the means of production? Yes they did. Did either the Nazis or Socialists allow free speech and free markets? No they did not. I hope that didn't confuse you ? You see, it's not just the name but common principles that bond nazism with socialism.
dalmatian847 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dalmatian847
That didn't answer my question.
xTheOxx 6 months ago
@dalmatian847 maybe but there is one fundamental difference between socialism and nazism
nazism is NATIONAL socialism...while socialsim itsself knows no bounds....
it's the nationalism that fucks everything up...nazis killed jews and waged war because they where nationalists not because of socialism...
metamaggot 6 months ago
@metamaggot
Not quite. Socialism rejects nationalism today,yet it is still clearly totalitarian.
Samsgarden 6 months ago
@Samsgarden totalitarians are more often nationalists than socialists...it's as simple as that...
metamaggot 6 months ago
@metamaggot
Nationalism is just a vehicle for propaganda, now they just use NGO's like the UN and the EU, environmentalism and pander to minority groups etc. But it depends on whay you mean by totalitarian. The genocidal type or the authoritarian type? I agree that most maniachal dictators are nationalists.
Samsgarden 6 months ago
@Samsgarden nationalism is a feeling that politicians exploit for their own purposes..to get followers...racism is another one too...and money is another...
ie:if you elect me I'll get rid of those foreigners you don't like ,because our nation is better,and they're the ones making us poor...
socialists are'nt so keen on blaming foreigners as they are rich people for the way everything is.
but a lot of people need an "enemy" so anybody might end up being labeled as such.
metamaggot 6 months ago
@metamaggot blamed for the less than perfect running of the system...because there is no perfect system there are allways people who get the short end of the stick...
itellectuals who question the validity of the system in place...people percieved as lazy,parasitic or simply represent values of another time...(like during the cultural revolution in china)
so socialism is not perfect but it still is more adequate at raising the general living standard of countries...even if they end up in debt.
metamaggot 6 months ago
@metamaggot but let's face it debt is a product of a capitalist idea...profiteering from banks and companies etc...where socialism (is supposed) to be about people's welfare ,debt not being that important..in fact if we where to change the banking system there would not be debt in socialism...that calls for regulation of banks...but does'nt mean it's a dictatureship...there are regulations on driving cars over 3/4 of the planet...does that mean they are dictatureships???
metamaggot 6 months ago
@metamaggot Says who? Castro a big time nationalist? Was Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Not even close, my man.
dalmatian847 3 months ago
@metamaggot
addendum:
I meant in the West.
Some Arab political movements are socialist, Libya Hezbollah, Hamas for example.
Samsgarden 6 months ago
@metamaggot
"nazis killed jews and waged war because they where nationalists not because of socialism"
I see, and what was the bolsheviks or the maoists excuse?
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@LibertyRealm They had no excuse, what they did was cruel and awful, and had NOTHING to do with Marxism or socialism.
Please tell me on what page of the Communist Manifesto genocide is advocated.
There is no such thing as a "socialist dictator." A dictator is BY DEFINITION not following the ideals of socialism.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
"had NOTHING to do with Marxism or socialism."
This is getting monotonous, your are just denying the obvious for the sake of denying it
"Please tell me on what page of the Communist Manifesto genocide is advocated."
LOL, I expected such a reply.
The "revolutiionary" dictatorship of the proletariat, class struggle and the collectivization of private property implies the death of those who oppose it.
Please tell you are not that naive.
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@LibertyRealm No, I'm denying bald-faced lies. There's nothing "obvious" about the phony claim that gulags were "socialist".
There's nothing CLOSE to an "implication of death to those who oppose it" in Marxism, it's not even vaguely CLOSE to "dictatorship". How can THE PEOPLE be a "dictator"? Class struggle exists NOW, you just want the rich to win and the poor to go die quietly.
You're stunningly naive, swallowing red-baiting propaganda that was discredited decades ago.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrisonerNumber9653
"the phony claim that gulags were "socialist"."
XD
"How can THE PEOPLE be a "dictator"?"
You mean that in a socialist state ALL the people are in charge of the omnipotent state?....... and you call me naive LOL
"Class struggle exists NOW"
Figures....... another crazy socialist.
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
"There is no such thing as a "socialist dictator."
I could show you like 10 example right now........
"A dictator is BY DEFINITION not following the ideals of socialism"
Have you ever wonder why socialism always ends in dictatorhip? Its not a coincidence, but the natural conclusion of concentrating all power in the hands of the state, and such state is run by people.
LibertyRealm 6 months ago
@LibertyRealm No, you could not. There is no such THING as a socialist dictator. If you show a dictator, he is NOT a socialist. Castro isn't a socialist.
Socialism does NOT always end in dictatorship. That's preposterous red-baiting propaganda. Socialism is the power in the hands of the PEOPLE. There's nothing so unAmerican as making "the state" seem like some distant, evil, uncontrollable force. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE ARE THE STATE.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@metamaggot Partially correct, it was nationalism that led to the deaths, but the Nazis were STILL not socialists in any way, shape, manner or form.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@metamaggot Ever hear of Joseph Stalin? Go ask someone of Ukrainian origin about the genteel nature of ordinary "socialism". Bottom line is Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever dreamed of. Mao killed more fellow Chinese than Stalin ever dreamed of. It's not the nationalism, comrade.
dalmatian847 5 months ago
@dalmatian847 yes but stalin was'nt socialist...because he was a dictator....dictators cannot be socialists socialism is exactly what it's name suggests.social...society is constituted of the entirety of humankind...socialism suggests all people of society are equal in rights and status...so there is no place for dictators or pyramidal social strata...which a dictatureship,and a democracy are..
metamaggot 5 months ago
@metamaggot
How would a socialist society allocate resources?
TheJpeate 5 months ago
@TheJpeate Poorly
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
@metamaggot Socialism implies that all the means of production are owned by the state. This means that no one owns anything. This also means that public planners control all resources. However controlling is another name for owning. Thus the planer(s) own/control/dictate all capital/resources/power.
Capitalism implies that private citizens control/own what they earn. This means that private interests can both create wealth and bargain with that wealth.
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
@SexDrugsFinance no no you got it all wrong lol...the 1st rule of socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers...anything other than that and it's not socialism..that means the factories are run and managed by the workers...decisions are taken by vote...and private owners are unneeded,the salaries they would have had are shared among the workers,de facto making it more profitable to the people actually working...as there are no useless mouths to feed...
metamaggot 5 months ago
@metamaggot capitalism implies that all things should be privately owned by individual people.(the upper class let's say)
they decide what the workers do,what the wages are and who gets a job...it is in fact a form of dictatureship as the bosses are not elected,and they have a choice over who eats and who dies
(lose your job=no cash=no food)
that's why it's better to have a worker/representative state owned industry..because every one involved get's their say as they elect the person or
metamaggot 5 months ago
@metamaggot choose the fact they want no person to decide wether they should have bread or starve...captalism is a very mediaeval concept where a few people get a lot for contributing nothing...of course rich people say it's freedom but it is'nt freedom for all...it's just their freedom to rip people off,disagree and you starve get locked up or beaten by the "police" they employ as a means of preserving the status quo...
metamaggot 5 months ago
@metamaggot But business owners don't get to choose who works for them in this absolute way you imply. They have to select someone who will add value to their company and pay them for that added value. If they chose poorly their company may go bankrupt and everyone will starve.
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
@SexDrugsFinance business owners don't chose who works for them? have you never had to do a curiculum vitae to get a job?in the hopes you will be chosen over someone else...
bankruptcy nearly always come from mismanagement as bad workers are fired before they can bankrupt a company ,owners are not chosen or fired for incompetence... so they can stay at the head of the company and ruin it because nobody else has a say in management...
metamaggot 5 months ago
@metamaggot I was saying that business owners don't have arbitrary choice. They risk loosing profits by hiring the wrong people and are compensated for their risk if they hire the right people. The risk of the business falls on the shoulders of the boss. So if a company makes a bad product or is corrupt the owner goes out of business and the worker looses a job. In that case the worker is payed for his labour until the business dissolves...
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
@metamaggot So, my question was, given a system where businesses are owned by the workers, what happens to disgruntled workers who are outvoted? What happens if a 60% of the works vote to do something unethical or stupid? Do the other 40% have to go along with it until the company is ruined? Also if the majority vote to do something unethical who is punished?
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
@metamaggot Ok, so say we have a country where all the businesses are run by workers. I have two questions. First, what happens if a machine is invented that can reduce the number of workers needed to produce something. Do those workers that are laid off still get payed for the production of the machines that replaced them? Secondly, what do the workers do if they lose out on the vote? What happens if I vote against making a widget and then that widget isn't profitable?
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
@SexDrugsFinance ,no workers are laid off......and all the workers need to work less for their wage...or alternatively work the same hours but produce more,which means more money,and higher salaries ...
then secondly
a second vote is called ,to decide wether an unprofitable widget should still be produced...if you actually lose money the outcome is predictably the end of production... your concerns are definitely not socialist ones you might find people would not want to work with you
metamaggot 5 months ago
@metamaggot I don't understand how not having socialist concerns means people wouldn't want to work with me. Many people have enjoyed working with me in the past.
Another thought occurs to me. What about special needs people? If I were a business owner I would hire people with mental handicaps for low skilled labour. But if they had the same voting power as me I wouldn't want to work with them. I wouldn't want their votes to carry the same weight.
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
@SexDrugsFinance the first bit is irrelevant..i don't like bosses that does'nt mean I work badly or they don't keep me...
the second bit...well ok for the first bit...it's not for retards to control nuclear missiles or something too dangerous(even though they allready do)
as for vote...well there is no reason mentally handicapped people could not vote...unless they where the majority any ridiculous ideas they could have would not have much chance in getting implemented...
metamaggot 4 months ago
@metamaggot if they where the majority yoiu should probably ask yourself what the hell you're doing associating with such a bunch of idiots(although if you did in the first place you might be stupid anyway)
metamaggot 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@metamaggot Ok, so say we have a country where all the businesses are run by workers. I have two questions. First, what happens if a machine is invented that can reduce the number of workers needed to produce something. Do those workers that are laid off still get payed for the production of the machines that replaced them? Secondly, what do the workers do if they lose out on the vote? What happens if I vote against making a widget and then that widget isn't profitable?
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
@metamaggot Under what definition of socialism negates a dictatorship? Please supply the reference to this obvious fallacy. Socialism suggests NOTHING of the kind.The whole basis of socialism depends on the state controlling the means of production. It doesn't matter who is the government head, only that said government controls the means of production. A prime example of this is Nazi Germany. Hugo Chavez is a socialist dictator. The state controls the oil industry in Venezuela. Checkmate.
dalmatian847 4 months ago
@dalmatian847
The means of productions were in priviate hands in Nazi Germany you idiot.
Reisman is a fascist who glorifies Pinochet!
MrReco12 4 months ago
@MrReco12 Ever hear of Volkwagen, you idiot? Hitler's "people's car"?(or the predecessor to Obama's Volt) There is no question who was controlling industry in Nazi Germany, whether it was the Krupp Steelworks or the German car indusrty. Nice try, you uneducated maggot.
dalmatian847 4 months ago
@dalmatian847
it is a fact that the government of the National Socialist Party sold off public ownership in several state-owned firms in the middle of the 1930s. The firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyard, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector
MrReco12 4 months ago
@MrReco12 So what? The National Socialists of Germany couldn't care less what figurehead they put in charge because the bottom line was the STATE controlled the industries for what was good for the STATE. In the movie Casino, they had their straight man propped up as the "owner" but there was no doubt who was really in control. The same can be said for Germany under the National Socialist German Workers Party, aka the Nazi Party.
dalmatian847 3 months ago
@dalmatian847
LOL, again
"The National Socialists privatized state-owned enterprises, including the Commerz-Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag”, the Deutsche Reichsbahn, Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. and other huge corporations."
Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006). Available at SSRN:
P Lease get an education before you make a fool of yourself again.
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 The Program of the National-Socialist (Nazi)German Workers’ Party(1933) 13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises. 15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
Yeah , demanding nationalization of all enterprises is SOO not socialism. Neither are old-age "safety nets" like social security and profit-sharing among workers.
dalmatian847 3 months ago
@MrReco12 Does the name NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY compute in your feeble mind?
dalmatian847 4 months ago
@dalmatian847
LOL! Argument by name is the most idiotic and brain dead argument ever to exist. Do you also think North Korea and East Germany were democratic?
Care to point me to a capitalist party you ignorant idiot?
Brain-dead moron.
MrReco12 4 months ago
Comment removed
dalmatian847 3 months ago
@dalmatian847
The National Socialists privatized state-owned enterprises, including the Commerz-Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Schiff-und Machinenbau AG Bremen “Deschimag”, the Deutsche Reichsbahn, Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. and other huge corporations.
Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006). Available at SSRN:
Read the rise and fall of the third reich you dunderhead instead of Facist Reismans garbage :D
MrReco12 4 months ago
@MrReco12 13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
16. We demand the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen.
The National Socialist German Worker's Party 1933 Source:( JewishVirtualLibraryorg). Let me guess, those "lying jews"?
dalmatian847 3 months ago
@dalmatian8
In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters.
MrReco12 3 months ago
@MrReco12 21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people(The National Socialist German Worker's Party 1933)
Ah, yes, healthcare provided by the state.Child labor laws... always the tenets of capitalism, no?
dalmatian847 3 months ago
@dalmatian847
"In the process, they cannot be expected to make the distinctions present in a judicial process. They must act quickly and decisively to remove what threatens them. That is the nature of war. "
watch?v=u2A3nO4uTRM: LOL. is Reisman related to of this murderous Nazi?
They BOTH have genocidal views!
-Nazi Reisman!
MrReco12 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrReco12 If nazis are so right wing why are they joining the filthy and violent socialists, liberals, Jihadists, Antisemites and communists at occupy?
National SOCIALISTS!!! are for big govt like ALL socialists are!
SuperGOPman 3 months ago
@MrReco12 Public Interest before Private Interest. 25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states
"The Program of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party" Berlin [1933].
dalmatian847 3 months ago
Why is everyone on this page arguing left or right when its common fact that the Nazi's were the first centrist's. They took nationalism & married to Socialism because both were dying under the current sciences. Eg Nationalism from the right & Socialism from the left because Communism & Capitalism were both outdated. The Nazi's were years ahead of they're time, that's why people wanted them out if the way. By the way i quote Joseph Goebels- We are better off under the Bolsheviks than Capitalists
Steve96461 8 months ago
Absolute idiocy. The far right's remake on history continues with this big lie.
In reality-- the Nazis LOATHED socialism and Marxism, the movement was far, far right, not left.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 And what precisely, if anything, does it prove that the nazis loathed the marxists? The fact that they disliked a competing faction of socialism doesn't indicate that they weren't socialists. The right wing of the political spectrum means private property, individualism, personal liberties, free trade, autonomy and a small state, not a single one of these things were endorsed by the nazis. They resented socialists not out of ideology, but as rivals for the same followers.
mrinsano555 7 months ago
@mrinsano555 It proves they don't have an argument is what it proves. Trotsky and Lenin hated each other, each wanting to grasp power, but was there any doubt both were marxists?
dalmatian847 3 months ago
So long as Marxists are content merely to write, speak, and otherwise fantasize about the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of socialism, they have every right to be left alone, just as every one else has who harms no one but himself. But when they begin to act out their fantasy in the real world and commit armed robbery, which, as I have shown, is the only means of achieving their goal, then they forfeit their rights, including their right to life." -George Reisman
DrCruel 8 months ago
MrReco12 8 months ago
watch?v=BM7lQ2GTZDk
Is that you?
The Rightist thugs modeled on HItler's and Mussolini's Bandits!
watch?v=r9xOg4JSClY
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 What's that? You support the anti-Semitism of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? Or was that the anti-Semitism of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua?
Leftist fascists or national socialists? The difference is like Coke and Pepsi - different flavors of the same socialist brew.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
"We Respect and Love the Jews"
-Hugo Chavez
Your blatant lies are becoming tedious!
Reisman is a fascist hypocrite who, as i have proven, would have supported Hitler and Mussolini given half the chance!
Thankfully his side lost world war II, however Hitler's mass murdering capitalists ideas still have a firm place in every right wing conservative heart!
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 "Since Chávez took the oath of office at the beginning of 1999, there has been an unprecedented surge in anti-Semitism throughout Venezuela. Government-owned media outlets have published anti-Semitic tracts with increasing frequency. Pro-Chávez groups have publicly disseminated copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the early-20th-century czarist forgery outlining an alleged worldwide Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world...."
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
Where did you get that information from?
The CIA propagandists?
MrReco12 8 months ago
"... it turned out that a few minorities--the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia--they took possession of the riches of the world, a minority took possession of the planet’s gold, the silver, the minerals, the water, the good lands, the oil, and they have concentrated all the riches in the hands of the few ..." -Hugo Chavez
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
He was talking about the capitalists,you know how Jesus(also a jew) angry tipped over money lenders in the temple?, for example THE JEWS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GETTING RID OF BOLIVAR!
MrReco12 8 months ago
Prominent Jewish figures have been publicly denounced for supposed disloyalty to the “Bolívarian” cause, and “Semitic banks” have been accused of plotting against the regime. Citing suspicions of such plots, Chávez’s government has gone so far as to stage raids on Jewish elementary schools and other places of meeting...."
DrCruel 8 months ago
"... The anti-Zionism expressed by the government is steadily spilling over into street-level anti-Semitism, in which synagogues are vandalized with a frequency and viciousness never before seen in the country...."
I take it then, that your answer is yes.
There is a bright spot. You at least have enough moral scruples left to know that the anti-Semitism of your Leftist friends is wrong - at least enough to lie about it.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
AS a supporter of the Anti Semtic Dictator Pinochet you have no right to talk!
From a moral point of view, the State of Israel, as the national home of the Jewish people, cannot host individuals like Pinochet who caused so much damage, sorrow and pain to Jews. Your intervention is therefore requested regarding this painful subject in order to prevent the visit of the murderous dictator, defender of Nazi war criminals like Walter Rauff.
Dr. Efraim Zuroff
Director
Simon Wiesentha...
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 I support neither Pinochet nor D'Abuisson. What I do support is people fighting back against Marxist aggression. I will repeat - if all Pinochet was guilty of was using violence to stop Marxists, I'd be fine with him.
Marxists are vicious thugs. I'm as in favor of aggressively fighting back against them as I am of fighting their Nazi cousins. They're all just different versions of the same thieving, murderous socialist scheme - and I'm always happy to see their numbers decline.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
Reisman does making him a hypocrite and a fascist! Facists and Nazis are anti communist pro capitalist killers!
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 No - fuck Nazis, Marxist, Maoists, and all other socialist fascists. If you want to be a decent person, you should agree with me.
Stop fighting the truth. Don't give into the Dark Side of socialism, young padawan.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
No your talking laughable and hysterical nonsense. Nazis were rightist much like PInochetistas such as Riesman!
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 "Rightist" doesn't mean anything today outside of Marxian myth systems. It used to refer to monarchists, but today the left is more representative of such people. The most ruthless, absolutist kingships run by families today (the Cuba of the Castros, Syria of the Assads, North Korea run by the Kim dynasty) are all Leftist regimes.
Nazism was Leftist too, by virtue of their socialist ideology and practices. In fact, they were more authentically socialist than the Bolsheviks.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
Nazism was Rightist!
The Cult of personality(cult of individual) is fundamentally against Marxism and indeed socialism!
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 Yes, I've heard this before. All the other socialisms weren't REAL socialism. but this NEXT one is the real thing for SURE.
Bolshevism, Nazism and Maoism were Leftist movements. Fascism in Italy started as a Leftist movement too. Leftism was never about helping people who work for a living - it was about taking advantage of people, pitting them against each other, so a small group of seditionist assholes can get into power. And one of these pricks always tries to makes himself king.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
You think the cult of the INDIVIDUAL is socialism?
Well it appears that i am arguing with an idiot!
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 I would say I am schooling an immoral hypocrite. Considering you an idiot would be a kind concession on my part.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
I love making the point because its so very true: The only reason why Reisman and other conservatives claim that Hitler was "leftwing" is because he lost to the Soviet Union. If he had won he would been their greatest hero!
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 No, you just like being a troll. But that's fine - I welcome the opportunity to remind people that the Nazis were socialist, and not some supposed "end state" of free market capitalism and private ownership of property.
You would be more correct in saying that Bolsheviks don't consider the Nazis as "Leftist" because Hitler betrayed his fellow socialist allies in June of 1941. The resulting savage east front war between Leftists saved half of Europe from the horrors of socialism.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel
HA HA HA!
I'm the troll, it is consus amoong Holcoaust survivors, historians and indeed Fmr Nazis that the Hitler and his Nazis were RIGHT WING CAPITALISTS. Indeed, Alfreid Krupp,German capitalist, admitted it at the nuremberg trials.
Reisman and other rightist liars are trolls who mock the victims of Nazism. The Right has never been about "end state", their destruction of countless democracies(Spain,Chilie,Italy, Germany etc.) have proven that!
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 It is a consistent claim only amongst Marxists that Nazism represents the end state of capitalism. No one else claims this. No one else could - because it depends on Marxian theology and blind faith in this obscene dialectic ideology.
Socialism and especially Marxism has never been about helping the "toiling masses". The ruins of Eastern Europe are a testament to what they're really up to.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@MrReco12 Didn´t communist leaders had also cult of personality?
crocve 8 months ago
@crocve
Yes, but Marxism,as you would know is against cult of the "individual"(as marx called it). They prefer collectivism over individualism. Thats an important thing to remember!
MrReco12 8 months ago
@MrReco12 Cult of personality is the definition of real socialism
xaviqaz 6 months ago
@xaviqaz
How so?
Cult of personalty is the cult of the individual, while socialism advocates collectivism.
MrReco12 6 months ago
Another jew giving a lecture on Hitler....it's as ridiculous as Ghandhi giving a lecture about the British....
DIEversity102 9 months ago
@DIEversity102 I don't see how Reisman's ethnicity has anything to do with his assessment.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel, if you don't see what is wrong with a jew giving a lecture about National Socialism then why don't you just ask the black panthers for a non-bias history of white America while your at it....
DIEversity102 9 months ago
@DIEversity102 One chooses to be a Black Panther. One does not choose to be an ethnic Jew.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel
HItler was an anti Marxist!
He was the only leader to launch an attack on the USSR!
The Falange was the only party allowed to exist under Franco!
Franco was HITLER"S ALLY!
watch?v=l9w6NG67T
MrReco12 9 months ago
@MrReco12 Yes, Hitler was an anti-Marxist. But Nazi was a rival form of socialism, not a form of capitalist statism. The capitalists and "kulaks" of Bolshevism were replaced with Jews, and for the same reasons. Business was controlled (and looted) at least as effectively under Nazism as it was under Bolshevism.
The Falange was disposed of by Francisco Franco, merged into the Carlist Party after the war. In fact Franco was one of the few authentic fascist "Rightists" - an actual monarchist.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel
Private industry flourishing under Nazi Germany and their slave labor polices!
Falange was the only party allowed to exist in Franco's Spain.
MrReco12 9 months ago
@MrReco12 There was as much "private industry" in Nazi Germany as there is in communist China now. Industry under the Nazis was an arm of the Nazi government, not the other way around. Only in Marxian myth is fascism thought of as an "end state" of capitalism.
The Falange was all but destroyed after WW II, and foled into the Carlist party after the war. Franco disposed of it - in part, because of the Falange's ties to Leftism. Go look it up.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel
Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista was the only party allowed to exist in Spain. Lying etas you nowhere!
Hitler was the best friend German big business ever had!
MrReco12 9 months ago