you have no idea or ideals but can LOL :confused: at what exactly ?

nota, have you ever considered that you do NOT have a firm grasp on reality?

So much HATE!

"CorpRAT ..RightWing...

just WOW.

Fidel is an oddball in that list. Before he came to power he went to lengths to make people think on one side was not a communist, yet to others (notably Che) that he was.

Initially he was keeping ties with the CIA and the CIA kept an open scenario that they might be able to work with him AFTER coming to power since well, he really wasn't a communist at least not openly. Hell Fidel got guns from the CIA via Sturgis who later on became a Watergate Burglar !!

So if anything, Fidel was , above all an opportunist.

The national in national socialism better translates today to ethnic.

A socialism on ethnic lines.

The Stalinists wanted one over all.
The NAZI's were more diverse in their idea of world governorship.

How that fits in left or right, I dunno.
Both were socialist in economic structure.

Hitler's regime kept the idea of "god"; but the regime worked to acquire total power in order dictate that "god".
Those in any religion that did not put the state first, bye bye.
IE - A "god" that served the head of state's purposes.

The Stalinist took a position where the state should be "god" directly.

you know my point was Batista's political position as a rightwing dictator being a necessary precondition to a commie take over

not about fidel who we know was a sneaky commie

BS nothing but pure BS
nazi's did not make one corpRAT LIKE KRUP OR SEAMENS state owned
hitler was supported by the capitalists who feared the commies :rolleyes:

sorry but history is not something you can distort to fit your fears SmileWavy

+1

There was nothing socialist bout Naziism or it's economic structure. not one thing about it was socialist.
Socialism was Hitlers mortal enemy.. he hated it as much as he hated jews if not more.

He did everything opposite of what socialisms/communism would do

He did not nationalize anything, not even at the peak of his power or in the depth of the war.
Socialists/communists do the opposite. They take ownership and run it as part of government.. Hitler didn't. In fact he typically would pitch competitors against each other in competitions for his designs the Tiger Tank and Porsche turret are an example of that

Socialists typically also don't exclude foreigners or different populations
Hitler did, he excluded jews , gypsies, anybody with a disability , not very social.

The ONLY reason he had the term "Socialism" in "National-Socialism" is for marketing purposes.. he used it to convince the German workers that it would be something that would make them better off.

Obviously they got scammed, because in the end they were drafted to go fight in the east, while able workers were brought in from occupied territories as forced workers.
Again, not very social to bring in foreigners to take your job while you are forced to go fight commies in the east.

To say Nazism was left wing and socialist.. is to make a fool of yourself, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the terms and of history.

Denmark Rules

Sweden Drools

It isn't private ownership if the government can take it without reinbursement.
Which is why so many stayed silent.
They knew that they didn't own their property, or their business.
And if they disagreed with the powers at be, any part, or all of it, could go goodbye.

Either system is fooling the people but in different ways:
The NAZI's pretended you owned property, unless.
The Stalinists pretended everyone shared ownership in everything, unless.
Both set prices, set wages, and had severe penalties for black market activities.

It is like putting different fiberglass bodies on a VW pan and claiming they are different cars.

As to left/right, I have no say.
They are words with little meaning I can extract via context other than that those that identify with one tend to use the other to describe their percieved villians.
It once had clearer meaning in the period before the reign of terror.

The only point I want to make is that you can't engage in a political conversation without insulting people.

This thread is not in PARF. If you want to insult people you should start a thread in PARF.
- Or maybe the Mods should move this on to PARF.

Regardless your attitude is the problem.

EDIT: And for the record... The Nazis were extreme Right Wing. I just started a thread in PARF about this.

And yet none of that changes the simple fact that Nazi's were not socialists in any way shape or form.
That they "could" take something without reimbursement simply means it was a totalitarian regime.. not that it was socialist.

And btw..
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-confiscated-half-billion-dollars-private-property-during-wwi-180952144/



You make the car analogy.. well, It would be a Porsche 356 to a Trabant.
One has a steel unibody with a 1300cc flat4, the latter has a FG/steel Duraplast body and a 500cc 2 stroke I2 . It's not potatoes potato's but Potatoes Tomatskies

If you think Nazi's were socialists, then You might as well start buying Trabants at 356 prices.. I'm sure some people will be very happy with you buying em like that.

And btw, the Allied governments also worked against black markets , with ration cards ..If a ration card isn't a price fix, then I don't know what is.. So there goes that argument out the window.
That they didn't use draconian punishments for black market simply means they weren't a totalitarian regime, it doesn't mean they were, or weren't socialist..

Other than the name?

And that they brought on price and wage controls? - the antithesis of free markets.


IOW, What you claim is ridiculous on it's face.

A National-Socialist is as much a socialist as an anti-rollbar is meant to roll your car

Ffs.. seriously.. READ MORE BOOKS on the subject.

Wow. Quite the retort thar. - "nu-uh" and a "U so unread stoopid"

And what of the price and wage controls they brought in 1936?

Let's get into the economics.. Businesses pOwned by the Nazi Govt.

Still doesn't make em socialist.. they were ANTI anything socialist or communist.
Why do you think they banned the unions??

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/today-in-labor-history-nazis-destroy-unions/

It was one of the first things they did when they got to power : Get rid of unions.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert


"Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaft — that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state."

Hitler himself said :
"“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”"

Unions? The Nazi Party WAS the union.

meh - you compare them to some ideal Socialist model so you can say SEE, NOT Socialists.

But they were totalitarians who used socialist ways to get control over the masses. Not all socialist ways, but none the less...

"Auto Union was considered to be firmly embedded in the Nazi regime"

You have a very confused understanding of what socialism is, or isn't.
you guys think US democrats are socialists, but when compared to Europe, their policies would be center right.

Explain to me why every university since WW2 has clearly taught that Nazism was the opposite (right) and hated everything there was about the left (socialists and communist).

You cannot re-write history based on modern day misinterpretations and confusion over a word.

Hitler used that word to trick the masses into backing him
And you are falling for that trick.. in 2021.. All the modern day information available to you, and you still fall the tricks of a his demagogy

I guess it's not surprising that Germans followed Hiter to hell.. if Modern day Educated people can't even figure out they are being tricked by a word.

I think you are getting confused on right/left as some how being the important factor.
And again, I can't talk right/left because the common present day usage of these terms seems to only have an ephemeral meaning.

Socialism is used by those wanting supreme power.
They present a false new world that never materializes.
What goals were maintained in private between top level NAZI's didn't always match what would be printed in public.
Whatever they thought would help them gain power, they said.
They'd delay some things becoming public policy until they could make that step.
They never got through all their steps, they were trounced in the war.

Saying he hated the (insert name here) doesn't mean actual policy was the oppisite. Just the (insert name here) didn't have power alliegiance to the party.

And yes, I get the name isn't the key part, just like the democratic people's republic of China isn't actually a people's republic but a select few's republic.
I also get the US democrat politicians are not liberals.(But again, I prefer to avoid left/right as a term.)

What if the religious fundamentalism doesn't call for racial purity and instead doesn't divide on those lines, and the religion's fundamentals call for greater personal freedom.
This definition of "Far-Right" falls apart when applied to a fundamentalist Christian movement.

After reading through that link, it looks like all three are the same structure of government in real world implementation.
They just provide slightly different sets of lies to get there.

"Lies are used by those wanting supreme power.
They present a false new world that never materializes."

FIFY

But its not socialism. It's funny how the word "socialism" has become in the USA, a modern substitute for the word "Communist" thrown about in the McCarthy era to cast aspersion upon opponents.

Best
Les

There was only 1 top level NAZI who ran the show and that was Hitler. The rest were sycophants.
And he ran his country with divide and concur, he frequently gave conflicting orders to 2 different subordinates to keep em all guessing.

Read Laurence Reece's books on how the Nazi's ran their show..
https://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Warning-History-Laurence-Rees/dp/056349333X
it was shockingly amateur government.
It all ran on propaganda and ideology, and the Ideology was Hitler, Country, And Hating Socialism (what they used to call out communism at the time)
People were dragged into it based on that ideology, and they did horrible things because they didn't understand what they were following.
the government policies were top down from Hitter, he would put 2 different people in charge of an overlapping area and let them figure it out..
He would not back either up against the other, and always give orders that were open to interpretation to keep em guessing..


the same can happen today
Speaking in vague deniable terms.. where have we seen that, earlier this year? right.
people who think this day and age "I wouldn't be one of those who followed Hitler, I would have been one to resist."
well, that's a load of nonsense and most likely they would have been a Nazi if they had lived in Germany in 1930. Because very few people go against the current. It's a very unnatural thing to do.

https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/201...andard_900x600
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser

People just went with it, they followed the crowd, and the crowd followed hitler, who made em all afraid for the socialist commie threat in the East and inspired them with his skills and charm as an orator.

LEFT and RIGHT have always been used to indicate opposites of the political spectrum
LEFT socialism : Stalin
Right Fascism : Hitler , Franco and Mussolini

So NO way shape or form was Hitler a Socialist, or left wing.
Again, whoever thinks Hitler was a socialist, or left wing, does not know his history. Full stop. It's an embarrassment.. Go talk to your grandparents if they are still alive and ask em.

So maybe I use the wrong word and you've got a better one?
I see the same pattern and methods of attempted ascension taking place today.
A more accurate name that comes across better to other people would be nice.

The common theme, magnify a problem; and all solutions other than giving up individualism are kept out of sight.
Societal reorder to a totaltarian society is how I percieve the many names or forms of socialism run.
It seems to be the only path it can go, as to function, it requires it.
Without private property, one cannot even own oneself.

And how was this defined before these cotemporaries?
To be clear, I do not see the NAZI's as either left or right wing, but rather they contain both.

Left and Right originated with people in France choosing where they sat to display either loyalty to the existing system, or oppisition to the same.
Originally as I believe:
Right meant the traditionalists in France,
Left meant the non-traditionalists in oppisition.


There is a change once new traditions are in place where what was once the left becomes the new right.
Which was the case for the U.S.S.R., they made a new set of Soviet traditions that at the time were far left, and over decades of solidification became a new far right.

On the other hand, the Reign of Terror in France remained an accelerating extreme far left movement, ever changing to greater absurdities.
They never solidified, and the need for bringing about continual change brought about collapse.


Since Hitler did make use of German traditions, I won't argue that the movement did not have the costmetics of the right.
However, he was an upset on many other traditions, and as such I can see argument for placing him on the left.
Where one chooses to look or not look would redefine where one would place them.
Personally I do not see them as fitting a binary placement on left/right as originally used.
They both upheld certain traditions and cosmetics and threw away others for new inventions or changes.

I do not see socialism as inherently left or right:
Once implemented in a society, it would be right wing.
If not implemented in a society, it would be left wing.
This using originalist language.

You cannot be both left and right as an extremist. That's not possible. that would be center.

That's like saying something is extremely black or white. well they are a bit of both.. No, that's would be grey and it's not the extreme of either.

In modern political spectrum , Communists are far left, socialists are left.. Nationalists are right, and fascists are far right.

These terms have been used like that for the last 50 to 100 years. There's really no interpretation personal interpretation, it's taught like that in universities, it's used like that by all media.


You are confusing socialism. eg political parties
with social programs in society like healthcare, unemployment benefits, pension, care for the poor..
the two are often tied together as socialist parties tend to pander with social programs, but they are 2 separate concepts and social programs are not exclusive to socialist political parties.

The Right believes in the sanctity of life. Therefore the Left cannot ever believe in such a thing.

THere ya go.

Now what?

This may not be apparant to Americans since you guys essentially have a 2 party system..

But Left and right is a standard you'll see in every parliamentary democracy, it's physically visible in the chambers, senates, parliaments.
The socialists will always sit on the left, Greens just to the right of them, and nationalists sit on the right.. Liberals will usually sit in the middle (liberals doesn't mean what it means in your 2 party system).

Those are standards in most western democratic countries that have a multi party system.

Belgium
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ling_Kamer.png

Sweden
https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/999E/prod...8_seats-nc.png

EU parliament
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/images...e-512-en-1.jpg




In a thread called What can Americans learn from Sweden
You'll first have to learn to think outside American terminology
There's a whole world outside the US of A, and it doesn't think, talk or work like the USA does.

That's cute but it has nothing to do with political left or right in the world
you are thinking American Right wing Christian conservatives.. vs American left Liberal

That has very little to do with Socialist left and Rightwing facism outside the US

Furthermore it kinda confirmed what I said that you can't be both left and right at the same time , which is what Tervuuren suggested.

THE RIGHTWINGERS ARE RELIGIOUS NUTS
and want to impose their values on all others
esp on young girls who are sexually active

they are especially active in rural areas of flyover states
in banning access to needed medical care for women
they are willing to use terrorist tactic's bombing and killing

You said:
I gave you an example that blows up your contention. You pretend that it does not.

I said they had elements of both.

The NAZI's were strong traditionlists in some areas, and strong abolishinists of existing traditions in others.
I do not see them fitting a binary left/right metric in which the French original usage was of standing in oppisition vs support for the existing systems.

And yes, I am aware of left/right seating, as this is where the origin of it came from in France.
When I look at the issue, change, vs tradition, the NAZI's had both.

The best example of left vs right in the early United States would be Washington's appointments to the two top spots. That of Hamilton, and Jefferson:
Hamilton was the driving force for what would have been the rightwing, steeped in bringing about the same British systems in existence at the time.
Jefferson, the questioning one, ever wanting to go somewhere new, try something new, he was the spear point of what would have been the American leftwing.

I observe the NAZI's were a significant untried restructure which would not be right-wing.
I also observe the NAZI's held onto a lot of traditional optics, which would be right wing.

Isn't it the right who holds on to the death penalty?

Best
Les

Great question.
The death penalty from biblical perspective exists expressly because of the sanctity of human life.
Genesis 9:6.(Pick your translation.)

huh?

So on the spectrum
LEFT-------------------------------------RIGHT

I say.. You cannot be both left and right at the same time, you'd be CENTER

LEFT------------------CENTER-------------------RIGHT

To that you say

"The Right believes in the sanctity of life. Therefore the Left cannot ever believe in such a thing."



You have a weird way of arguing bud.


IF I say , you can't be red, and yellow at the same time, that would be orange

You'll come up with
"well red is the color of passion, and yellow attracts wasps, so there you're wrong"

WTF kind of meds do you guys get in from yer doc?? it must be strong stuff..

For the last time, you confuse social programs, with political socialism
US terms with world political terms (in context of Swedish thread)
and now you even interject right wing religious beliefs as a socialist trait, which it has nothing todo with..

I'm out of this thread.. Y'all are beyond logical debate.

There is certainly no arguing with logic like that. :rolleyes:

Best
Les

iffy

I believe what you are describing is the concept of "working towards the fuhrer."