Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
WW2 ended after the Battle of Britain? Wish someone had told the rest of Europe.
You seriously cannot be this dumb
Politics Aussie Fascists and (neo)Nazis
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
WW2 ended after the Battle of Britain? Wish someone had told the rest of Europe.
You seriously cannot be this dumb
If the Poms had surrendered the Germans would likely have crushed the Soviets and the US may well have stayed out of the war.
Anyway its just another deflection from the FACT that Hitler considered himself to be a socialist. Its the argument of a fool that the NAZIS were somehow on the right of the political spectrum. May as well argue that Adam Smith and Hayek were fascists. Utter unhinged nonsense.
Oh but they were the bad guys so they must be right wing. Misology 101. Another crap thread on an absurd topic.
Fascism - Econlib
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal...
www.econlib.org
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
They defeated the Germans then.
The rest of Europe was too busy surrendering or collaborating.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
So the whole thing in Stalingrad, didn't happen because the germans were defeated? Or D-day, battle of the bulge, invasion of italy, or any if that?
Big tip, an army isn't defeated if they are still fighting just in different places
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Yes, yes he can
If the Poms had surrendered the Germans would likely have crushed the Soviets and the US may well have stayed out of the war.
Anyway its just another deflection from the FACT that Hitler considered himself to be a socialist. Its the argument of a fool that the NAZIS were somehow on the right of the political spectrum. May as well argue that Adam Smith and Hayek were fascists. Utter unhinged nonsense.
Oh but they were the bad guys so they must be right wing. Misology 101. Another crap thread on an absurd topic.
Fascism - Econlib
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal...www.econlib.org
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
As has already been pointed out to you. Hitler absolute despised Marxism. But you seem incapable of responding to those posts. Why don't you just read Mein Kampf, that will clearly point it out to you.
Anyway, to follow your delusions for a moment. Where would you put modern day lets say, Australian Nazi's on the political spectrum?
- May 1, 2016
- 28,720
- 55,951
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #184
I don't know if he needs to, he seems to have a decent handle of the Big Lie.
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
Absolute moron
Capatilists are practically progressive, i:e centred. They don't give a flying about social issues like left and right wing.
If you believe in progressive practically implemented then you're definitely not a 'lefty', centred and left leaning but certainly not a 'lefty'.
JustaBattler
Everyone Looks Better In Blue
- May 31, 2012
- 26,964
- 63,150
- AFL Club
- Carlton
History doesn't show much difference between the actions of extremists - whatever labels or clothes or manifestos they choose to dress themselves with. Stalin killed as many Russians as the German army and famine managed to do...the US killed more people in two days - than any other country has managed to do - so far, hopefully the record will never be beaten....
Modern Australia has bent the knee to farkwittery since embracing Howard - who amongst many other nonsenses - insisted that any person wishing to become an Australian citizen was familiar with the greatness of Don Bradman as part of their 'test' ...before the self described lefties on here get too chest puffy - it was the Australian 'Labor' Party which brought in the White Australia Policy.....
What people 'call' themselves is of less importance to what they actually do - what they do is the reality of things.
throwing around a bunch of tags and labels and then using them without regard to actual history or fact - is drivel.
The Nazis described their party as a Nationalist Socialist Party - the Chinese describe their form of Government as being Democratic - people do vote over there...the fact that they internalise their political differences in a one party system is of more practical interest to those wishing to understand what 'communism' means to the Chinese versus what it means to another country - there is no universal 'communism ' just like there is no universal 'socialism' and there as many flavours of democracy as one could possibly imagine....
these funny blokes burning a cross whatever that means in the bush and wearing funny clothes are just plain DH's - you can find lots of these types in all walks of life - some preaching lefty politics some playing guitar in so called Christian Churches or Synagogues or the Muslim equivalent....
If we want to be scared - be afraid of politicos who are interviewed carrying bibles in front of their local churches - a tradition Rudd started and is now being carried on by ScoMo - these types are the really scary types we should be worried about- scumbag hypocrites - leaders of a secular society - but increasingly cosying up to religious totems.
Modern Australia has bent the knee to farkwittery since embracing Howard - who amongst many other nonsenses - insisted that any person wishing to become an Australian citizen was familiar with the greatness of Don Bradman as part of their 'test' ...before the self described lefties on here get too chest puffy - it was the Australian 'Labor' Party which brought in the White Australia Policy.....
What people 'call' themselves is of less importance to what they actually do - what they do is the reality of things.
throwing around a bunch of tags and labels and then using them without regard to actual history or fact - is drivel.
The Nazis described their party as a Nationalist Socialist Party - the Chinese describe their form of Government as being Democratic - people do vote over there...the fact that they internalise their political differences in a one party system is of more practical interest to those wishing to understand what 'communism' means to the Chinese versus what it means to another country - there is no universal 'communism ' just like there is no universal 'socialism' and there as many flavours of democracy as one could possibly imagine....
these funny blokes burning a cross whatever that means in the bush and wearing funny clothes are just plain DH's - you can find lots of these types in all walks of life - some preaching lefty politics some playing guitar in so called Christian Churches or Synagogues or the Muslim equivalent....
If we want to be scared - be afraid of politicos who are interviewed carrying bibles in front of their local churches - a tradition Rudd started and is now being carried on by ScoMo - these types are the really scary types we should be worried about- scumbag hypocrites - leaders of a secular society - but increasingly cosying up to religious totems.
How so? Unless you're getting capitalists mixed up as right wing?
- Moderator
- #190
You cant say 'Capitalists' are either right or left wing, any more than one can say 'Christians' are left wing or right wing.
Left wing/ Right wing is a political distinction. Capitalism is not a political ideology - its an economic one.
No country in the world has a Capitalist system of government, or a Capitalist State. No person (when asked to describe their political views) describes themselves politically as 'Capitalist'.
Capitalism is an economic model. Some politically left wing people favor capitalist economics (I'm one of them). Some politically right wing people favor capitalist economics.
Meds is the latter (politically right wing, economically capitalist). He personally prefers a Capitalist model free from State interference as much as possible (aside from harsh tariffs for foreign investment and Nationalist/ protectionist measures as he clearly advocated for in the Brexit thread).
Myself (as a left wing capitalist) I view a liberal State with a capitalist economy as the best way to provide the greatest HDI, standard of living and benefit to society as a whole, while also protecting the liberal State from falling into a Socialist tyranny.
You're conflating economics with politics. Stop. They're not the same thing.
Looks like we completely agree, looks like I've got my wires crossed with your reply to medusala . I'm thinking you're correlating economist stereotypes with political ones. So your post here I completely agree with in absolution.
' I consider myself a capitalist. Am I right wing then Meds? ' - Apologies
This however does come across as antithetical.
'Myself (as a left wing capitalist)'
lol, just fishin Mal!
You cant separate the two. Laughable to think so. Why dont politicians follow rational economics? Obviously because they are too scared of getting voted out of office.
Lol. You only have to say this because you absurdly put Hitler next to Adam Smith on the political spectrum.
"Left wing capitalist". Oh yeah Pol Pot was all for free enterprise.
This thread not even worthy of QT.
- Moderator
- #193
Of course you cant seperate them. Economic policy is a key part of political agendas. But Political views cover more than just economics.
For example social policy.
If I'm a white nationalist/ KKK member (which surely we can agree is a far right wing philosophy) who advocates for control of the means of production (socialist economics) as the best economic model to achieve that political goal, I dont suddenly become 'left wing' on account of advocating for the State having that control in order to enact my far right wing social agenda.
No Mate, you're the goose putting Hitler next to Adam Bandt or the Nazis next to the Greens on the political spectrum.
You can obviously see how absurd your argument is. The fact you continue to argue it does your credibility no favors.
Elroo
Premiership Player
- Jul 2, 2014
- 3,993
- 6,808
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Yeh he is.
Just like his "friends" in the BNP who during the 2009 European Parliament elections ran a picture of a "Battle of Britain" Spitfire to rouse anti-immigration sentiment. Unfortunately for them, the Spitfire they used for their anti-immigration advertising was flown by a Polish pilot from No. 303 (Polish) Squadron during the Battle of Britain.
BNP uses Polish Spitfire in anti-immigration poster
BNP bosses have been ridiculed for using a Polish Spitfire to front a campaign calling for Eastern European immigrants to be barred from Britain.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Last edited:
Hated individual rights and freedoms. Loved the power of the state. Vegetarian and banned fox hunting.
About as far from libertarianism as you can get.
As for hating a certain ethnic group socialists are consistent.
A guide to Labour Party anti-Semitism claims
The roots of the row that continues to overshadow the Labour Party.
www.bbc.co.uk
Hated individual rights and freedoms. Loved the power of the state. Vegetarian and banned fox hunting.
About as far from libertarianism as you can get.
As for hating a certain ethnic group socialists are consistent.
A guide to Labour Party anti-Semitism claims
The roots of the row that continues to overshadow the Labour Party.www.bbc.co.uk
Almost all of their contemporaries would classify them as extreme right.
Because:
1). They were violently hostile to all center-left and far-left political parties for their entire existence as a party.
2). They formed coalitions with the traditional right in both electoral politics (the colation government that made Hitler Chancellor) and in bureaucratic politics (their uneasy detente with the German army, which becomes more of a co-option of the army as time goes on.
3). They were violently nationalist, and anti-internationalist , compared to the internationalism of the contemporary left.
4) As the 30's wear on, they form alliances with other far right governments.
5) They oppose class struggle, a central tenet of Marxists, Democratic and Bolshevik alike.
Basically, they are right wing because they define themselves in opposition to the left, even if they differ with traditionalist conservatives.
At one point, there was a left-wing branch of the NSDAP - the Strasserists. However, they were purged soon after Hitler got into power, in the Night of the Long Knives where Marxists and socialists were killed/driven out.
Note: note that I define their position in the spectrum based on contemporary politics, not ideology.
Source: Hitler: Hubris&Nemesis (2 volumes) Ian Kershaw
Even full fact have got this right, meds it's time to catch up old chap.
fullfact.org
The Nazis were not socialists - Full Fact
Despite naming themselves the national socialist party, the Nazi’s policies - including the persecution of left-wing critics - did not align with socialist ideals.
fullfact.org
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
They outlawed Trade Unions, murdered Communists and restricted workers rightsEven full fact have got this right, meds it's time to catch up old chap.
The Nazis were not socialists - Full Fact
Despite naming themselves the national socialist party, the Nazi’s policies - including the persecution of left-wing critics - did not align with socialist ideals.
Of course they were not Socialists and anyone saying they were has their own warped agenda
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." - Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, Knopf, 2004, p. 218.
From this point of view, socialism was not essential concept although it was clearly there in writing. Anything that moved masses could be used to gain power. Fascists made lip service to Christianity, socialism and conservatism whenever they hoped they could gain more supporters. Some strategies worked better than another.
This might already have been mentioned by other posters in this thread but socialism presumes class struggle in which the working class (as in wage workers) seize power and overthrow the bourgeoisie (as in large scale owners of the means of production). The nazi's rejected this theory in favour of national unity, so unity over different classes in what is defined as the nation, therefore they can be taken as closer to nationalism than socialism. Which is also supported by the fact that the nazi movement originated within the right-wing nationalist milieu, although off course recruiting socialist did occur as i mentioned above.
