20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 09:20 pm
@okie,
Let's see: he detested Communism, he hated Bolshevism, he agitated against Marxism. He hated Trotzky, Lenin and Marx. He passed laws "for the defense against communist seditious acts of violence", he had members of the Communist party imprisoned and murdered, he denigrated even centrist Social Democrats. He had all Bolshevists and socialist-revolutionaries purged from the party, and when the left-leaning members left the party they published an open letter titled "The Socialists are leaving the NSDAP", attacking Hitler for betraying the socialist ideals of the party.

On the other hand, he tried to win the support of industrialists, he declared that he stood firmly on the side of private property, that the concept of collective ownership of means of production and land was destructive. He formed coalitions with nationalists, right-wing extremists and conservatives.

Your refusal to accept that political ideologies might be better categorized using at least a two-dimensional spectrum and your denial that any form of government that is authoritarian could possibly exist on the right side of the spectrum really doesn't help your argument. Of course Hitler is the opposite of a free-market libertarian - because he was an authoritarian dictator. Extremely individualist ideologies and extremely authoritarian dictatorships exist on both sides of the spectrum. A socialist-anarchist society is pretty much the opposite of a Stalinist regime, and yet you certainly wouldn't consider it a right wing ideology. Likewise, a fascist dictatorship is pretty much the opposite of a libertarian free-market society, and yet that doesn't meant that fascism or Nazism are left-wing ideologies.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 09:39 pm
@old europe,
oe, I am simply breaking it down to simple terms. I think fascism or nazism is a hybrid of pure socialism or communism crossed with free market systems like we have in America where the rights and responsibilities of individuals are held more dear than the Common Good or collectivism. At least they once were. What I think Hitler did was borrow what he thought he wanted from both sides of the spectrum to form his brand of government. I know this flies in the face of what many historians have contended, and I also know it gores your ox, and the ox of people on the left, but sorry, I think I stand on good solid reasoning.

Actually, Obama is enacting alot of the same stuff, getting in bed with industrialists, and making deals, controlling and dictating the bankers and other areas of the corporate world. He wants more power to run the energy business, the auto business, the banking and lending business, what else? Is Obama a right winger? Hardly, oe, hardly, in fact no way.

Do I believe Obama is Hitler, no way. Do I think Obama is wrong, even dangerous, yes.

I think some of your statements are wrong, such as in favor of private property, ha ha, unless you happened to be a Jew. His belief in private property was very watered down and highly selective.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 10:04 pm
@okie,
If you want to have a serious discussion about Nation Socialism, I suggest you stop bringing up Obama in every other post.

Your theory about National Socialism would be all fine and dandy if you were only looking at parts of the propaganda targeted at various groups of voters; and even then you have to be quite selective and ignore Hitler's speeches to industrialists, his newspaper interviews or contemporary sources like e.g. the accounts of other party members. It breaks down if you look at the actual policies.

Look, I agree that the enormous privatization project undertaken by the Nazis was not necessarily ideologically motivated, but I doubt you'll find any socialist government that privatized government-run services. I also agree that the fact that the Nazis expropriated Jewish business owners runs contrary to any kind of democratic government, and yet I doubt that you'll find any socialist party platfrom that only advocates collective ownership of the means of production if the business is run by Jews.

I also note that you've still failed to come up with possible reasons why parties on the right side of the political spectrum, from center-right to right-wing extremists, were willing to support Hitler and form coalitions with the NSDAP, while left-wing parties, from the center-left Social Democrats to the Communist Party were fiercely opposed to his policies. Why do you think that was the case?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 02:55 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

I also note that you've still failed to come up with possible reasons why parties on the right side of the political spectrum, from center-right to right-wing extremists, were willing to support Hitler and form coalitions with the NSDAP, while left-wing parties, from the center-left Social Democrats to the Communist Party were fiercely opposed to his policies. Why do you think that was the case?


I suppose when you follow okie's theory, we had only a political spectrum from the left centre (=NSDAP) to to extreme left (= communists) in Germany between 1918/9 and 1945.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 08:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

old europe wrote:

I also note that you've still failed to come up with possible reasons why parties on the right side of the political spectrum, from center-right to right-wing extremists, were willing to support Hitler and form coalitions with the NSDAP, while left-wing parties, from the center-left Social Democrats to the Communist Party were fiercely opposed to his policies. Why do you think that was the case?


I suppose when you follow okie's theory, we had only a political spectrum from the left centre (=NSDAP) to to extreme left (= communists) in Germany between 1918/9 and 1945.

That could be a possibility, Walter.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 09:09 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

If you want to have a serious discussion about Nation Socialism, I suggest you stop bringing up Obama in every other post.

Sorry about that. I do that because it provides a measure of comparison in terms of policies and how they are currently considered to be left or right today. I think Obama is borrowing ideas from both left and right and trying to forge a model of government that he thinks will work, and I think the Nazis did the same thing. Lets forget the murdering of people for the purposes of comparison, it is not fair to Obama to compare him to Hitler in that way at all, I realize that, but in terms of left vs right policy, I think it is pertinent, it is something people can actually see and compare with today.

Quote:
Your theory about National Socialism would be all fine and dandy if you were only looking at parts of the propaganda targeted at various groups of voters; and even then you have to be quite selective and ignore Hitler's speeches to industrialists, his newspaper interviews or contemporary sources like e.g. the accounts of other party members. It breaks down if you look at the actual policies.

Look, I agree that the enormous privatization project undertaken by the Nazis was not necessarily ideologically motivated, but I doubt you'll find any socialist government that privatized government-run services. I also agree that the fact that the Nazis expropriated Jewish business owners runs contrary to any kind of democratic government, and yet I doubt that you'll find any socialist party platfrom that only advocates collective ownership of the means of production if the business is run by Jews.

I will try to look at more of Hitler's actual policies, and given time, I hope to do more reading on that.

Quote:
I also note that you've still failed to come up with possible reasons why parties on the right side of the political spectrum, from center-right to right-wing extremists, were willing to support Hitler and form coalitions with the NSDAP, while left-wing parties, from the center-left Social Democrats to the Communist Party were fiercely opposed to his policies. Why do you think that was the case?

Maybe it was a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, or what they perceived them to be at that time, I imagine they never dreamed of the potential evil wreaked upon mankind by Hitler at that time, before he embarked on it. Voters here do this all the time, they vote for the person that they percieve to be closest to their viewpoint, even if it isn't that close, perhaps it is closer than somebody at the total opposite end of the spectrum? In Germany, political coalitions did the same thing, if they could not find enough support for their preferred option, they would throw their support to the group that was not quite as totally opposed as some others to what they perceive the correct policies would be. For example, if I had to choose between Obama and Hugo Chavez in a general election, those were the only choices left, I would vote for Obama. Perhaps the true conservative or true right wing political clout in Germany at that period in history was so small percentage wise, that they had little choice but to try to choose the least of what they thought was the worst.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 01:57 pm
@okie,
okie, Your so-called comparisons aren't comparisons at all! They are mostly a figment of your imagination without any redeeming value.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 09:48 pm
Here is a summary for what Hitler actually did, how he governed, from our own Time Magazine, when he was chosen as "Man of the Year" in 1938. (Proof again that leftist media was not invented yesterday, these people have been at this for a very long time.) Following are pertinent quotes which obviously indicate Hitler was leftist in how he governed. I think the clincher is on Page 6: "The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539-2,00.html

"GERMANY: Man of the Year, 1938"

Page 2:
But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Führer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.

His shadow fell far beyond Germany's frontiers. Small, neighboring States (Denmark, Norway, Czecho-Slovakia, Lithuania, the Balkans, Luxembourg, The Netherlands) feared to offend him. In France Nazi pressure was in part responsible for some of the post-Munich anti-democratic decrees. Fascism had intervened openly in Spain, had fostered a revolt in Brazil, was covertly aiding revolutionary movements in Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania. In Finland a foreign minister had to resign under Nazi pressure. Throughout eastern Europe after Munich the trend was toward less freedom, more dictatorship. In the U. S. alone did democracy feel itself strong enough at year's end to give Hitler his come-uppance (see p. 5).

The Fascintern, with Hitler in the driver's seat, with Mussolini, Franco and the Japanese military cabal riding behind, emerged in 1938 as an international, revolutionary movement. Rant as he might against the machinations of international Communism and international Jewry, or rave as he would that he was just a Pan-German trying to get all the Germans back in one nation, Führer Hitler had himself become the world's No. 1 International Revolutionist"so much so that if the oft-predicted struggle between Fascism and Communism now takes place it will be only because two revolutionist dictators. Hitler and Stalin, are too big to let each other live in the same world.

But Führer Hitler does not regard himself as a revolutionary; he has become so only by force of circumstances. Fascism has discovered that freedom"of press, speech, assembly"is a potential danger to its own security. In Fascist phraseology democracy is often coupled with Communism. The Fascist battle against freedom is often carried forward under the false slogan of "Down with Communism!" One of the chief German complaints against democratic Czechoslovakia last summer was that it was an "outpost of Communism."


Page 4:
"Discovering his powers of oratory, Hitler soon became the party's leader, changed its name to the National Socialist German Labor Party, wrote its antiSemitic, antidemocratic, authoritarian program."

Page 5:
In bad straits even in fair weather, the German Republic collapsed under the weight of the 1929-34 depression in which German unemployment soared to 7,000,000 above a nationwide wind drift of bankruptcies and failures. Called to power as Chancellor of the Third Reich on January 30, 1933 by aged, senile President Paul von Hindenburg, Chancellor Hitler began to turn the Reich inside out. Unemployment was solved by: 1) a far-reaching program of public works; 2) an intense rearmament program, including a huge standing army; 3) enforced labor in the service of the State (the German Labor Corps); 4) putting political enemies and Jewish, Communist and Socialist jobholders in concentration camps.

What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to Germany in less than six years was applauded wildly and ecstatically by most Germans. He lifted the nation from post-War defeatism. Under the swastika Germany was unified. His was no ordinary dictatorship, but rather one of great energy and magnificent planning. The "socialist" part of National Socialism might be scoffed at by hard-&-fast Marxists, but the Nazi movement nevertheless had a mass basis. The 1,500 miles of magnificent highways built, schemes for cheap cars and simple workers' benefits, grandiose plans for rebuilding German cities made Germans burst with pride. Germans might eat many substitute foods or wear ersatz clothes but they did eat. What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to the German people in that time left civilized men and women aghast. Civil rights and liberties have disappeared. Opposition to the Nazi regime has become tantamount to suicide or worse. Free speech and free assembly are anachronisms. The reputations of the once-vaunted German centres of learning have vanished. Education has been reduced to a National Socialist catechism.


Page 6:
Pace Quickened. Germany's 700,000 Jews have been tortured physically, robbed of homes and properties, denied a chance to earn a living, chased off the streets. Now they are being held for "ransom," a gangster trick through the ages. But not only Jews have suffered. Out of Germany has come a steady, ever-swelling stream of refugees, Jews and Gentiles, liberals and conservatives, Catholics as well as Protestants, who could stand Naziism no longer. TIME'S cover, showing Organist Adolf Hitler playing his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on, was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper (see p. 20), a Catholic who found Germany intolerable. Meanwhile, Germany has become a nation of uniforms, goose-stepping to Hitler's tune, where boys of ten are taught to throw hand grenades, where women are regarded as breeding machines. Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.

When Germany took over Austria she took upon herself the care and feeding of 7,000,000 poor relations. When 3,500,000 Sudetens were absorbed, there were that many more mouths to feed. As 1938 drew to a close many were the signs that the Nazi economy of exchange control, barter trade, lowered standard of living, "self-sufficiency," was cracking. Nor were signs lacking that many Germans disliked the cruelties of their Government, but were afraid to protest them. Having a hard time to provide enough bread to go round, Führer Hitler was being driven to give the German people another diverting circus. The Nazi controlled press, jumping the rope at the count of Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels, shrieked insults at real and imagined enemies. And the pace of the German dictatorship quickened as more & more guns rolled from factories and little more butter was produced.


Page 7:
Imprisonment also gave Hitler time to perfect his tactics. Even before that time he got from his Communist opponents the idea of gangsterlike party storm troopers; after this the principle of the small cell groups of devoted party workers.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 09:56 pm
To sum up in short phrases the meat of Hitler's policies, all of which I believe are leftist in nature.

State control of businesses, profits, wages, prices, etc.

Emphasis on public works, government sponsored projects, also highly organized, encouraged, or forced enlistment in service to the state.

State control of the media or press.

Suspension and control of democratic processes, individual rights, and freedom of speech.

A security force or police force under the direct control of the central State.

Centralized control of the educational system, with indoctrination of state mandated subjects and programs.

Devoted and fanatical party workers designed to maintain the power of the head of state.


I think I've caught most of the major items.

okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 10:23 pm
To repeat a quote from Time Magazine "Man of the Year" article on Hitler in 1938, I think this is so juicy, so powerful, to pretty much settle the argument over how Hitler actually governed, left or right. oe and Walter have essentially said I did not know what I am talking about, even George has done the same thing, and he is usually pretty reasonable. I used the Nazi 25 points and Mein Kampf, but was told that those did not matter because what really mattered is how Hitler governed. Okay, here is the summary of Hitler's economic policy, which I think is pretty important, perhaps central to the determination of whether a politician is a left or right leaning one. The following is a quote from TIME magazine on how he governed in this regard:

" Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539-6,00.html
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 12:17 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
Lets forget the murdering of people for the purposes of comparison, it is not fair to Obama to compare him to Hitler in that way at all, I realize that, but in terms of left vs right policy, I think it is pertinent, it is something people can actually see and compare with today.


I think anyone who forgets 6 million killed Jews, millions more victims of WWII and all the other cruelties, is ... well, I'm speechless.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 12:21 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Maybe it was a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, or what they perceived them to be at that time, I imagine they never dreamed of the potential evil wreaked upon mankind by Hitler at that time, before he embarked on it. Voters here do this all the time, they vote for the person that they percieve to be closest to their viewpoint, even if it isn't that close, perhaps it is closer than somebody at the total opposite end of the spectrum? In Germany, political coalitions did the same thing, if they could not find enough support for their preferred option, they would throw their support to the group that was not quite as totally opposed as some others to what they perceive the correct policies would be. For example, if I had to choose between Obama and Hugo Chavez in a general election, those were the only choices left, I would vote for Obama. Perhaps the true conservative or true right wing political clout in Germany at that period in history was so small percentage wise, that they had little choice but to try to choose the least of what they thought was the worst.


You do know - I posted a ballot paper - that there were about 30 parties in German general election in the 20's? With more than only the half what was thought here to be right of the centre?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 12:26 am
@okie,
You aren't really serious with your quotes from the article, isn't it, okie?
[Are you going to quote from other "Man of the year" articles as well? Like Joseph Stalin in 1939 and again in 1942, and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979?]

What I find especially fascinating with your 'argumentation' is that it is more or less a copy of what is produced by Neo-Nazis. Shocked
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:01 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
Lets forget the murdering of people for the purposes of comparison, it is not fair to Obama to compare him to Hitler in that way at all, I realize that, but in terms of left vs right policy, I think it is pertinent, it is something people can actually see and compare with today.


I think anyone who forgets 6 million killed Jews, millions more victims of WWII and all the other cruelties, is ... well, I'm speechless.

"For the purposes of comparison," Walter. Read the post and perhaps if you have the ability to reason, maybe you would not be speechless. Besides, for someone that claims to be speechless, you are sure talking alot.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:06 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

You do know - I posted a ballot paper - that there were about 30 parties in German general election in the 20's? With more than only the half what was thought here to be right of the centre?

No I did not know that. And......? And "thought to be right of center" by who, or in whose opinion? And why would it matter anyway?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:10 pm
@okie,
It matters because you keep telling us Hitler was "left" of center.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

You aren't really serious with your quotes from the article, isn't it, okie?

Yes, I am serious, are you, or are you just interested in ignoring what was written because it does not agree with your preconceived notions? Why don't you address the points, Walter, or rebut them if they are not true. Maybe the problem for you is that they are true, could that be the case?

Quote:
[Are you going to quote from other "Man of the year" articles as well? Like Joseph Stalin in 1939 and again in 1942, and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979?]

I was not aware that we were debating Stalin, or the Ayatollah Khomeini? Do you want to talk about them now? I would not wish to accuse you of weird questions, but those are rather strange.

Quote:
What I find especially fascinating with your 'argumentation' is that it is more or less a copy of what is produced by Neo-Nazis. Shocked

Prove your accusation, Walter. Are you making an accusation of who, the writer of the article in Time Magazine? Do you have any evidence or are you just making off the wall comments without any connection to anything. You seem a bit unhinged, and no wonder when your long held theories are shot down that easily. By none other than a hick from Oklahoma telling a German history expert he doesn't know what he is talking about in regard to whether Hitler was left or right, that must hurt an intellectual liberal, no doubt about that. The truth is on my side however, Walter, face it. I quote again because you must have missed it:

" Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It matters because you keep telling us Hitler was "left" of center.

Read my posts, ci, and this question would be answered for you. I first used Mein Kampf and the Nazi 25 points to evidence my argument, but was told that those didn't matter, that how Hitler actually governed is what mattered. Now I post how Hitler actually governed, and they still aren't happy. They are not happy because they continue to lose the argument, their theories are completely shot down and shown to be myths, myths that have been taught by intelligentsia in the colleges and universities for far too long.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:29 pm
@okie,
No, okie, you have it all backwards. Everybody who has bothered to respond to your posts have shot you down, but you keep getting up and keep shooting (off) as if your gun has any bullets left to fire. It's been depleted a long time ago, but you are just too stubborn to realize that you've been shooting blanks.

You can't call Fox News "intelligentsia," and FYI, they are not a university - although their "teachers" think they are. Most of their stuff has also been proven wrong.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You forgot how to read too? Its Time magazine from 1938, not Fox News:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html

" Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."

Sounds like a modern liberal leftist in America, ci.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 08:49:23