What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

If dys' opinions are wrong "most of the time," you're wrong 100%; quite a feat for even an idiot like you!

Again okie:



I just want to point at the FACT that the Prussian PM and Chancellor of the German Empire, introduce the laws for a universal, mandatory health insurance for Germany, in 1882/3.
That's something which started already in 1180, with the statutes for the builders/mansions in Speyer, a Christian brotherhood and guild.




What started in Speaer in 1180 was developed over the centuries; for instance, the hospital brotherhood (founded pre-1328) in my native town built a hospital for free health care in 1374.
Pre-1845, there were dozens of "helping banks" in most Westphalian (only mentioning this part of Germany since I've read those sources in original) villages and towns - one of the largest still existing health insurance company within our mandatory system was founded by (the follower-ups of the) guilds around 1850 in my native town ("Innungskrankenkasse").

I doubt that anyone considered and considers such as "soialist" - besides you, of course.




Well, of course you can argue that for instance Germany never got out of the old pitfalls - hell, as noted above, we are even digging even deeper in it, over 900 years now, in the deepest Socialist pitfall.
And the lazy Europeans have not only copied our system - they even made it better more socialistic.

However, I do appreciate your job here as our vox clamantis in deserto.

Wait . . . uhm . . . now you're saying Okie is a house plant?

I'm quite famous for my typos - but I really didn't mean clematis .... though, it's worth re-thinking ...

well Okie does have a valid complaint, I do indeed resort to posting "my opinion" while Okie remains unfettered by his agenda, bias or distortions because he only posts "facts."

You are welcome to actually post something that you would consider evidence or something about an issue or policy that you think indicates Hitler was a right winger, feel free, instead of simply calling names here. Just in case you did not know that you were permitted to do that, and actually that is the purpose of this forum, dys, it has more purpose than simply posting your opinion about the character of some other poster.

Okie - with all due deference, and because - possibly mistakenly - I think I understand your general concept in this thread, I'm taking the liberty of giving some personal reasons (including other people's names, which I would never normally do, even though they're all long dead) in hopes of getting you to see reason and just plain walk away from this particularly illogical construct you have somehow set up - and btw beware, inertia is still the greatest force in thermodynamics, but there's no law to say we can't get our mathematical constructs or physical models wrong, so please don't take what I say amiss: I worked for years in cleaning out East Germany from those pestilential communists who had occupied it for 4 decades. Many people helped, 3 persons in particular helped, then president Bush, then chancellor Kohl, and the then chairman of the successor to the -hopelessely corrupt, even lower than central African standards, central bank / finance ministry of the then DDR - whose name was von Pannwitz. He was an elderly gentleman clearly of the very old school who told me he never dreamed of sending a woman out to deal with communists but, sadly, because of his family name, the folks about to start departing eastwards refused to see him, period. Walter has some background details on that part of the colossal work undertaken by the US and EU and others and he's an honest man, so you needn't worry about him misleading you, and both Walter and Thomas know my own relatives's last name in the old east Prussia, still occupied by Russians, though I'm sure neither man will ever post the name online. All this to tell you, Okie, please drop the subject - you can't possibly imagine that either George OB or I are the enemy and we're both giving you the same heads-up. Do it as a favor to us, if nothing else - George and I and others have done our level best to explain matters to you but nothing seems to sink in. Sorry for long post - can't even re-read what I'm typing as only see 2 lines at a time on tiny screen and my flight just got called, so permit me to sum up: Hitler was not a left-winger. Thank you for repeating this to yourself each and every time you feel inclined to post something to the contrary - and good bye until next month. Keep well

Perhaps okie is working here according to the old saying "Halte aus Kasak"?

just a general comment
-----------------------------

so okie seems to think that hitler was a LEFT-WING politico .

i wonder why all the big industrial enterprises ( krupp , I.G. farben - there are many more , but i'm too lazy to look them all up ) supported hitler - were they all LEFT-WING capitalists ?

just curious ... ...

High Seas, I have read your post, and plan to read it again until I can absorb whatever your point is about. I respect your opinion, so it carries more weight than most detractors. I will try to answer it in an honest and forthright manner, and if you actually convince me of the basis of your argument to back off, I will do it, but in any case I will always be true to what I believe. I also respect George OB's opinion as well.

Before I answer again after more examination of your post, I would like to say however that I am far from alone in my argument here, far from it. I would like to ask, have you read Jonah Goldberg's writings on this, and I would also ask you to read the following link by a John Ray, PhD. Walter and others scoff at it, and they say "who is John Ray," but when I read it, it makes alot of sense. If there are falsehoods in it, point it out, but mostly people dismiss it because it does not match their beliefs, not because they can point out obvious errors.

Title is "Hitler was a Socialist."

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

okie, YOu are not capable of absorbing anything; your brain has already absorbed up to its max, and nothing new will penetrate as been shown on all these boards in which you participate.

okie can't relate that Germany had universal health care for centuries, but became the third largest economy in the world in contemporary times.

When somebody like okie is that dumb, I doubt very much trying to explain it goes way over his head.

Why should he bother? People have been doing that for pages and pages and pages . . . and it just doesn't sink in with you.

Invincible ignorance, thy name is Okie.

what? what? "stop the cheese out" ??? why would anyone say such a thing? really, walter...

what does that mean anyway? i've never heard that one.

I've answered this before. I believe some of them at least saw Hitler as the lesser of the evils they had to choose from at that point in time, in terms of policies, as compared to even more socialistic possibilities. And I do not believe the capitalists had any truly conservative or perfect safe havens that had enough political strength for them to place their hopes in, so they chose what they thought offered them the best chances. And hey, even here in the U.S. where the Republicans offer a truly more favorable situation for industry or capitalism, it is not uncommon for capitalists to support liberals or left wingers, even when much more conservative politicians are available. Look at financier George Soros, or investor Warren Buffet, and many many others. Also, I think this quote from Time Magazine's January 1939 issue which had Hitler as man of the Year is pretty telling in terms of Hitler's support of capitalism, or lack thereof. It basically said he stabbed them in the back. He fooled them. Here's the quote:

"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. "

In conclusion, using an analogy of color, just because orange or burnt orange are not the same as red, I think it is closer to it than it is to blue. I believe Nazism is much closer to the left than to the right. I believe proof of that is demonstrated by the following policies by Hitler, 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.

okie, You are one dumbnut; Hitler was supported by capitalists, and Hitler also knew that to build a super race, he needed capitalism to succeed. He just wanted to destroy the commerce of the Jews. He was much smarter than you! He was a monster, but much smarter.

High Seas, I have read and reread your post, and it seems like a personal plea that you consider to be of paramount importance, which I don't quite understand. This forum does not make policy, and just because I express my opinion it does not seem like it should be that big of a worry to you. We can agree to disagree. I am not sure why it matters that you and others you know helped clean out East Germany of communists, etc.? It seems like the idea is put forth here that anyone opposing communists had to be right wing? I have argued that coalitions or political movements can oppose each other and still reside on the left side of the political spectrum. I believe political movements should be judged mostly upon their policies and beliefs rather than who they happen to be opposing at any particular time. This seems to me to be common sense, but this point is argued over and over and over here.

I have used points from Mein Kampf, from the Nazi 25 points, and I was told they don't matter, so I used information from the actual governing policies as outlined in Time Magazine article January 1939, yet none of this fazes you guys that reject my argument in the least. You blithely go on and accuse me of building a false case, a false construct, and so on. I have not done anything different than what anyone should do that examines an issue, I am simply stating what I believe to be sound evidence. I have listed bullet points in previous posts, in regard to how Hitler governed, and all of them I believe are leftist. It all seems very obvious if you just read them and realize many of them are pretty close to what liberals or leftists right here in the United States are advocating.

Bottom line, nobody is going to coax me into agreeing with them if I don't based upon the information presented, simply for the sake of doing that. Nor am I going to be intimidated by the likes of cicerone imposter that makes it his job to name call all day long. Forget it. If that is all this forum is good for, then it perhaps is a waste of time.

okie wrote (but I believe it's only for the moment):

Hey okie. As you have already posted your list of points that, in your opinion, clearly makes a government a left-wing dictatorship, could you maybe also post a similar list of points that would - again in your opinion - delineate a right-wing dictatorship?

Because it seems that you use "authoritarian" and "left-wing" pretty much as synonyms. Which would mean that right-wing dictatorships, by definition, cannot exist. Or that a totalitarian theocracy would be the same as a socialist dictatorship. At least that's what you have hinted at so far.

But maybe that's the thesis you're trying to propagate here: that right-wing dictatorships don't exist. Then again, maybe it isn't, and you can come up with a number of points that describe an totalitarian, right-wing regime... and you could point out what makes it so different from a left-wing authoritarian government.

Interesting challenge.

Yes, I have hinted that, and also I will not use text book descriptions, I will use common sense okie reasoning. Before further explanation, although I won't totally rule out the possibility of a right wing dictatorship, it does appear to me to be a bit of an oxymoron. After all, leftists believe in big government, while conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. However, conservatives do believe that we must be protected from each other, so that we can practice the freedoms of individual thought, speech, property rights, worship, commerce, etc. If too many people rebel against those principals, an existing government would step in to preserve the rights of people. However, conservatives also believe in representative government, so that if the numbers of people favoring a leftist idealogy, or collectivism of property, speech, worship, and / or other things, then they would have the power to elect representatives that would begin to institute those polices. Actually, that is how bigger governments and dictators usually arise, they result from popular support until they become powerful enough and corrupt enought to solidify and maintain their grip on power. You see, communists believe in democracy, until they gain power, and then they scrap it.

In regard to totalitarian theocracy, yes I would call that a collective of religious thought, everyone would be forced to subscribe to a certain creed, not unlike everyone being forced to being part of a collective of property and commerce in a communist society. Just as could be the case in a communist society, perhaps most of the people could agree or desire to be part of that collective in a willing way. The percentages of people that go along may vary from country to country, and with time, whether it be the collective of religion or the collective of commerce and private property. So, yes I would classify those things as socialistic in nature, wherein we all have to lose our own identity for the good of the whole. This can apply to property, commerce, religion, speech, and so forth.


I won't say a right wing dictatorship can't exist, I would need to think on that longer. Let me back up here and point out what you and others already know, I do not walk the party line or read a text book to regurgitate some opinion that may be correct or it could in fact be outdated or inappropriate now. I use my own common sense reasoning, as I see it from my views of the world. I am thinking outside the box, but I think that is necessary and good to come up with ideas that really make sense in today's world. For example, I have come up with the idea of a religious theocracy being a form of religious socialism, I did not borrow it from someone else, that idea may exist out there, I'm not sure because I haven't checked, but common sense tells me it is a pretty good parallel to the socialism of property and commerce.

Here is a preliminary attempt at describing a right wing dictatorship, in very general terms. It would only exist by democratic support, to enforce existing rights and freedoms of individuals, and not necessarily to force people to comply to government bureaucratic programs. It would only exist to the extent necessary to protect life, property, and freedoms of citizens.

Actually, I do not believe that true conservatism, or freedom without personal responsibility can endure. I think a right wing form of government is also a proponent of representative government by democratically elected means. Once there is enough resistance to this system that would require potential dictatorship, I think it will likely evolve into a leftist or collective system by popular support at the ballot box. Essentially, people will vote away their conservative system in favor of a collective wherein the government takes care of them. In other words, once enough people resist a conservative government that it may require force to maintain, it will likely be voted out of existence anyway. A truly conservative or right wing form of political system can only exist by popular support, whereby the majority believe in it and therefore will live according to its principals of individual freedom and responsibility. Thus, no force is required as long as the populace supports the system. And you cannot force people to be responsible in a free society. So I guess I do believe that a dictatorship is simply not part of the belief system of truly conservative or right wing principles, as understood in today's political situation in America.

If you think my description of right wing or conservative is wrong, sorry, I am only expressing how I think it is and should be thought of, as I understand it in today's world, not according to a textbook from decades ago, or whatever. I think I explained well that my judgement of this was in the modern American political context, not a textbook from Europe or somewhere else.

I may not have written the above in the most perfect way to explain my opinion, but it is as close as I can get this evening. Its been a long day.