From SilentOtto
hotmail.com>,
on Wed, 14 May 2008 17:54:20 -0700 (PDT)>On May 14, 2:28 pm, FACE
today.net> wrote:>> From "leonard7...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>,
>> on Wed, 14 May 2008 10:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>
>>>>>On May 14, 11:11 am, FACE
today.net> wrote:>>>> From Wes Penn
gmail.com>,
>>>> on Wed, 14 May 2008 07:37:54 -0700 (PDT)>>
>>>>>On May 13, 7:48 pm, FACE
today.net> wrote:>>>>>> From Wes Penn
gmail.com>,
>>>>>> on Tue, 13 May 2008 16:30:57 -0700 (PDT)>>
>>>>>>>On May 13, 5:41 pm, FACE
today.net> wrote:>>>>>>>> From Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com>,
>>>>>>>> on Tue, 13 May 2008 09:46:18 -0700 (PDT)>>
>>>>>>>>>The cover of this book says it all: a smiley face with a Hitler
>>>>>>>>>mustache sketched on it.
>>
>>>>>>>> The cover was designed by Doubleday, not Goldberg.
>>
>>>>>>>>>That is the level it is at.
>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently the content, of which there is much, exceeded you.
>>
>>>>>>>>>It has no content, other than a series of attempts to somehow associate the
>>>>>>>>>concept of "liberty" with the concept of "repression". They are, of
>>>>>>>>>course, opposites.
>>
>>>>>>>> Read Wells.
>>
>>>>>>>>>Currently, American liberals favor more government control
>>
>>>>>>>> You see no relation of that to fascism?
>>
>>>>>>>>>over the
>>>>>>>>>economy because they feel economic oppression by corporations and the
>>>>>>>>>rich -- excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the few --
>>>>>>>>>is limiting most people's freedom and opportunity.
>>
>>>>>>>> What was the reasoning that Hitler gave for his anti-semitism?
>>>>>>>> I think that he was nuts in it, but that's another story.......
>>
>>>>>>>>>So, propagandists
>>>>>>>>>like Mr. Goldberg feel compelled to try to attack all manifestations
>>>>>>>>>of governmental authority in any form as "statism".
>>
>>>>>>>> Herr Goebbels would be proud of you.
>>
>>>>>>>>>Like, we're all
>>>>>>>>>better off without a government. So, vague, rather half-hearted
>>>>>>>>>attempts are made to associate Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and
>>>>>>>>>Hitler.
>>
>>>>>>>> No kidding? I don't recall Kennedy being associated with fascism.
>>>>>>>> Please enlighten me -- with references.............
>>>>>>>> The Wilson was before Hitler, FDR was associated with Mussolini.
>>>>>>>> Refute that -- with references.
>>
>>>>>>>>>All carefully hedged. Oh, also "organic foods"! Yes, it's
>>>>>>>>>just one step from organic foods to the gas chambers.
>>
>>>>>>>> Where is that ridiculous fabrication of yours said by Goldberg?
>>
>>>>>>>> FACE
>>
>>>>>>>Why the hell does the right wing buy this junk? This idiot took to
>>>>>>>mutually opposite terms to make a cute little title for his book, and
>>>>>>>immediately it's nearly universally accepted as a truthful statement.
>>>>>>>Fascism is by definition a right-leaning totalitarian government
>>>>>>>style, yet because of a cutesy book title, it is automatically an
>>>>>>>accurate term? Please. Get an understanding of standard English.
>>
>>>>>> All of this had been around a long time. Goldberg brought it together in
>>>>>> one book and in doing so came up with a few new associations. I have given
>>>>>> two references to the term and the source that were before Goldberg's book.
>>>>>> I understand standard English, obviously you do not. oh, I
>>>>>> forgot........Please........
>>
>>>>>> FACE
>>
>>>>>Nice thought, but the fact remains...in standard American (and
>>>>>British) English, the term is composed of two mutually exclusive
>>>>>definitions. It is nothing more than a "cutesy" title of a book, NOT
>>>>>a factual statement. Nice try, though.
>>
>>>> Do you agree that Mussolini was a fascist?
>>
>>>•• ROFLMAO !!!!
>>> If he doesn't ~~ send the boys with the
>>> straight jackets
>>> Mussolini invented the name after the
>>> Roman symbol of power, the fasces
>>
>> Shhh.........
>> I'm building a profile........... ;-)
>>
>> Oh OK, let's return to the roots of "fascismo"
>>
>> ~~~~
>>
>> "Between 1912 and 1914, Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist Party
>> newspaper, "L'Avanti" (Avanti means "in front", "advance" or "forward" or
>> even "come in"). In 1914 he started his own socialist newspaper "Il Popolo
>> d'Italia" ("The people of Italy").
>>
>> He was considered by socialists to be a great writer about socialism. He was
>> a staunch proponent of revolutionary rather than reformist socialism, and
>> actually received Lenin's endorsement and support for expelling reformists
>> from the Socialist Party. He was in fact first dubbed "Il Duce" (the
>> Leader) when he was a member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party.
>>
>> When Mussolini differed with some Socialists it was over participation in
>> World War I, not over abstract theory, or economic doctrine. Many
>> socialists were neutralists in the First World War, whereas Mussolini
>> correctly foresaw that the Austro/German forces would not win the war and
>> therefore wanted Italy to join the Allied side and thus get a slice of
>> Austrian territory at the end of the war.
>>
>> During World War I, Mussolini publicized what he admitted was his new brand
>> of socialism."
>
>The thing is, that "new brand of socialism" was fascism.
That was so obvious a conclusion that I left it unsaid...........
>
>Mussolini foresaw that the path to power was to form an alliance with
>industrialists, creating a merger between the interests of the state
>and the interests of industry.
>
>That's one of the main components of fascism, a merger between the
>state in industry, and is one of the things (but not the only thing)
>that makes it distinct from socialism.
>
>Hitler took a similar path to power in Germany, and once the Nazis had
>control he created a similar relationship between the state and
>industry.
As I have said elsewhere i this thread, I believe he was on a power trip and
as I have implied but not outwardly said, I think that early on he had his
end game in mind.
>
>In Nazi Germany it was the states place to set national goals and
>facilitate the need of industry. And, it was industry's place to
>inform the government what it needed from government in the form of
>legislation and international agreements so it could meet the goals
>that the state had set.
>
>Within their own spheres, each was supreme. Government had very
>little power to dictate to industry.
Government dictated strongly to industry. In socialism, government holds
the titles to production de jure, in fascism government holds the titles to
production de facto. "If 'ownership' means the right to determine the use
and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every
real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a
formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its
holder."
>
>You mentioned Speer in an earlier post. Go back and read what he says
>about how little legal authority the German government had to compel
>industry to do what it wanted. The relationship between the
>government and industry was cooperative in nature.
>
>In Socialistic states, it's quite the opposite, with governments
>having a great deal of authority over industry.
>
>Further, when one looks at what the Nazis did once they achieved
>power, they created very few state programs that were socialistic in
>nature and did away with many that were already in place.
>
>Health care remained under they system that Bismark had created, tied
>to the employer.
>
>Workers were stripped of labor rights, and labor leaders who refused
>to get with the Nazi program were sent to concentration camps.
>
>The list goes on and on.
>
>Even programs which on their face appear to be socialistic in nature,
>weren't in reality. Many reference the "Milk for Mothers" program, in
>which expectant women were given enhanced ration allowances to
>encourage high fertility rates. It's would appear socialistic on the
>surface, but in reality it was a program that was funded and operated
>by the Nazi party, not by the German government which was a separate
>and distinct entity from the Nazi party.
>
>Others point to the Volkswagen factory that was built and believe that
>it was a state venture. It wasn't. It was wholly owned by the Nazi
>Party and was created in part to provide the Nazi party a source of
>revenue that was independent from the industrialists. The labor camp
>at Auschwitz was a similar venture for similar reasons that was owned
>and operated by the SS, another organization that was separate and
>distinct from the German government.
>
>People who try and claim that Nazis were socialists typically have a
>very poor understanding of the reality of the state/industry
>relationship in Nazi Germany and latch onto what they believe are
>similarities, no matter how superficial those similarities are.
You may find interest here in the 25 points of the nazi party:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
The main thing I have seen is that the very socialist Brownshirts, who paved
the way for hitler, were very unceremoniously dumped when they presented a
possible competition to Hitler --Night of the Long Knives -- and some were
unceremoniously executed. There is a school of thought that Ernst Rhoem was
the only person personally killed by Hitler, though no one really knows what
happened in that prison.
There are quite a few very socialist statements recorded by the upper nazi
tier up into the late 30s and on into the 40s.
Most of what I believe is the result of independent research; not any one
book.
>
>As to Goldberg's book...
>
>It's basically tripe that says socialism is responsible for all the
>evils in the world, therefore Nazis must have been socialists because
>Nazis were evil.
>
>Either he has very little understanding of how Nazi Germany operated
>in reality or he deliberately glosses over very real differences
>between fascism and socialism.
>
>Either way, it remains tripe and only rightards believe it.
I disagree with you and will leave it at that other than the above and other
than pointing out that in the case of the term "Liberal Fascism" I have
given two sources of it's usage *before* Goldberg's book -- one in 2000 and
one in 2006.
Anyone can go through my participation in this thread and see that I have
never referenced that book in my arguments though i do not find it to be
"tripe"(I did explain where the cover came from). I have had the majority
of people insult me at every turn and getting tired of that, one man of many
nyms got it back with brass bells on........
Come to think of it, how did this post get on Hitler? It was about
Mussolini and his socialist love child; his religion; fascismo......
FACE
--
"Picture the future, it is the heel of a jackboot stamping on a face -
forever." (paraphrased from Orwell)
