What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@dyslexia,

"A common dysfunction" is an apt description.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not sure I would have read as much into it as Okie did and probably wouldn't have coded it as pure leftist doctrine as Okie did. But I can also see where he is coming from and since none of us seem to be sure about the intent of the phrase, his perception is as good as anybody else's.

I would like to discuss all the concepts on the list more in depth and would find discussion of the various principles presented interesting. We might all come to agree that the coded red points are in fact 'left of center' as that is defined in America, or not. At any rate it could make for a good discussion.

okie had studied the history of the NSDAP, as he noted frequently.

When you say "the coded red points are in fact 'left of center' as that is defined in America, or not" - are you talking about 'left' and center' as it was 1919 when these 25-points were written or today?

If you see like it should be done - compare it to other countries in the same period - then I totally agree: it is left of the centre re USA.

But it wasn't published in the USA.
So it would be more honest to compare it with similar programs in Bavaria, or in Germany. Perhaps, even wide it to Europe.

I feel fairly safe that Okie's intent is to use definitions as we define them in America now. I'm pretty sure that he is aware that the definition of a term or word might be some different in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, and that the definitions for various sociopolitical or ideological terms have changed over time. So let's go with here (America) and now.

But why would it be more honest to compare any illustrations with similar programs in Bavaria or Germany? Certainly those places aren't the only ones that have been plagued with ruthless dictators or ruthless totalitarian governments.

This is not a discussion of Nazi history or German or Bavarian history as such. I took this to be a discussion on whatever common denominators can be found among those who became ruthless dictators or headed ruthless totalitarian regimes. Okie seems to be pushing a theory that leftwing ideology (as we define that now) has contributed to that.

He may be right. He may be wrong. But for me, the topic is interesting. It becomes much less interesting to me when the focus is on bashing Okie instead of exploring the plausibility or implausibility of his or anybody else's theories.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

As I have maintained for awhile now that okie doesn't understand how to correctly interpret the books/materials he reads, and has the ability to ignore the primary message being conveyed. That really takes a special skill that's beyond the realm of reality.

If you would actually read the book, page 154, that you cited, it confirms what I have been saying here, it supports my view. Heres the quote:

"However, it now appears that the magnitude of left/right rivalry has been overstated and that the distance between Hitler's and the Strasser' positions was not substantial. It is true that in 1926 Hitler personally chided Gregor Strasser and Goebbels for their support of the national plebiscite on the proposed expropriation without compensation of the German princes and their pro-Russian conception of foreign policy. But rather than signifying that Hitler and Munich headquarters sought to steer the party away from working class concerns, this simply suggests that there was more political capital to be gained by opposing the national plebiscite and the atheistic and anti-private property Soviet Union. "

Anyone that would know Hitler's mindset, such as by reading Mein Kampf, I think would know the above. Have you done that, ci?

Politicians today, as they have always done, will give lip service to some things because it is politically expedient, but they really don't believe them. This is obvious with Obama, he says stuff to appease conservatives from time to time, but his mindset is wildly liberal and leftist, that is what he gravitates to.

2 Replies

@okie,

Mein Kampf makes it very clear that pretty much everything must be sacrificed in the interests of the folkish state, and the State was to oversee all of this. This is undeniable, whether it be private property, ones possessions, his job, whatever, it was all to be done for the "folkish state." And the all powerful State was to determine all of this. Even the children, the State's interests did not end at the end of the school day, Hitler said this, he wanted control after school hours.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I feel fairly safe that Okie's intent is to use definitions as we define them in America now. I'm pretty sure that he is aware that the definition of a term or word might be some different in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, and that the definitions for various sociopolitical or ideological terms have changed over time. So let's go with here (America) and now.

Well, in that case I better leave the discussion to experts like okie and you.

Foxfyre wrote:

But why would it be more honest to compare any illustrations with similar programs in Bavaria or Germany? Certainly those places aren't the only ones that have been plagued with ruthless dictators or ruthless totalitarian governments.

We are discussing a paper from [pre-) 1919, which was written be (Austrians and) Germans in 1918/9 under some ... well, extraordinary conditions.

Foxfyre wrote:

This is not a discussion of Nazi history or German or Bavarian history as such.

No, it's about the 25-points program of the NSDAP.

Foxfyre wrote:

I took this to be a discussion on whatever common denominators can be found among those who became ruthless dictators or headed ruthless totalitarian regimes. Okie seems to be pushing a theory that leftwing ideology (as we define that now) has contributed to that.

So you are talking about Drexler's influence on Hitler here?

0 Replies

@okie,

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

"Marxism also had a goal, and it, too, has a constructive activity (even if it is only to erect a despotism of international world Jewish finance)....

So I think Hitler borrowed many things from Marxism, but he merely wanted to tailor it to Germany by making it national, not international, and leaving the Jews out of it. He also linked the Jews to the evils of capitalism.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, You purposely left out the important message of that page. That's fraud.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yeah, such as the "attacks on department stores."?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, You purposely left out the important message of that page. That's fraud.

Its not fraud, you are the fraud because you left out the conclusion of it all. I captured the essence of it by providing the summary, which was

"it now appears that the magnitude of left/right rivalry has been overstated and that the distance between Hitler's and the Strasser' positions was not substantial"

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Mein Kampf makes it very clear that pretty much everything must be sacrificed in the interests of the folkish state, and the State was to oversee all of this. This is undeniable, whether it be private property, ones possessions, his job, whatever, it was all to be done for the "folkish state."

You talked about Hitler's bad style and language before before (I do agree here).

But he wrote in German. He never wrote "folkish state". Besides that the German substantive 'Volk' and/or the prefix 'Volks-' is neither right nor left, but a normal, common German word.

The adjective "völkisch", however, has its origins in the Romantic nationalism, with a romantic focus on folklore.
It later, in thearly 20th century, became synonym for some 'nationalistic-germanic-religious' movements - which later were either forbidden by the Nazis or (the smaller part) became part of various Nazi associations (e.g. the 'German Christian Movement').

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Yeah, such as the "attacks on department stores."?

What's your idea where this reflects on?

Generally, it is thought that it is one of the strongest anti-semistic and anti-Jewish points of those 25 points.

0 Replies

@okie,

You're still missing the relevant sentences.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You talked about Hitler's bad style and language before before (I do agree here).

So we can agree he was one confused dude?

1 Reply

@okie,

I think this is instructive to post again:

okie wrote:

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

"Marxism also had a goal, and it, too, has a constructive activity (even if it is only to erect a despotism of international world Jewish finance)....

So I think Hitler borrowed many things from Marxism, but he merely wanted to tailor it to Germany by making it national, not international, and leaving the Jews out of it. He also linked the Jews to the evils of capitalism.

So Hitler did not believe Marxist Jews trying to right all the wrongs on an international scale would work, but Hitler thought leftist ideas to right all the wrongs in Germany would in fact work, with him directing it.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You talked about Hitler's bad style and language before before (I do agree here).

So we can agree he was one confused dude?

Certainly. And I include my congratulations for your good knowledge of German, too, here.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think this is instructive to post again:

okie wrote:

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

"Marxism also had a goal, and it, too, has a constructive activity (even if it is only to erect a despotism of international world Jewish finance)....

So I think Hitler borrowed many things from Marxism, but he merely wanted to tailor it to Germany by making it national, not international, and leaving the Jews out of it. He also linked the Jews to the evils of capitalism.

Hitler admired Marxism and Social-Democracy - for the dynamic they got from their fundamental weltanschauung. Thus, he wanted to create a new weltanschauung, which would be the victor in the fight with "brutal force" ('brutaler Gewalt") against Jews and Marxists.

Actually, Hitler didn't link the Jews to the evils of capitalism - this was a very common prejudice in Europe, and especially after the war (therefor the 'nationalisation of department stores').

But again: such was already said and published by the DAP before.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

So Hitler did not believe Marxist Jews trying to right all the wrongs on an international scale would work, but Hitler thought leftist ideas to right all the wrongs in Germany would in fact work, with him directing it.

Did Hitler now call Jews capitalists, to your knowledge, or Marxists?

0 Replies

There are only little differences between fascism, socialism, nazism, and statism. They all constitute systems that limit the liberty of the many, and increases the power of the few.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=fascism&x=14&y=5
Main Entry: fas·cism
...
2 a : any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition b : any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control (as over others within an organization) ...

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=socialism&x=22&y=5
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
...
1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=nazism&x=21&y=8
Main Entry: na·zism
...
1 : the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer : German fascism

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=statism&x=15&y=4
Main Entry: stat·ism
...
: concentration of all economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

There are only little differences between fascism, socialism, nazism, and statism. They all constitute systems that limit the liberty of the many, and increases the power of the few.

Right on, ican. And they all use central planning to control the economy, business, and other facets of society, in the so-called interest of the "COMMON GOOD," at the expense of individual freedom and responsibility. All are leftist idealogies.

Case closed.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, Please provide us with a list of our government controlling our economy? How did you determine our country uses "central planning and control of economy, business, and other facets of society?"

What part of your daily life does our country control? How does our country control how you earn income and spend income? What are all those other "facets of society" you list in your government controls? When and how is that done?

Or are you just letting off steam from your butt?

2 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know