On May 14, 10:20 pm, FACE
today.net> wrote:> 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 could call it "new socialism" if he wanted to.
The rest of us call it fascism.
>>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.
I think it's clear that Hitler was attracted to the Nazi party by it's
positions on national defense and it's xenophobia more than it's
socialistic economic reform components, and as he gained control of
the party he swiftly relegated the socialistic economic component the
background and then eliminated it all together.
He was promising industrialists as early as the mid twenties that he
had no intention of pursuing any serious socialistic reforms.
He was good to his word on that point.
About the only thing that was socialistic in the Nazi party by the
time Hitler gained control was the name.
>>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.
That's where you're wrong. Germany told industry what it needed, but
left it to industry to determine how the governments needs should be
met.
Post war, many industrialists tried to claim that they had been forced
by the government to commit war crimes, but such claims were betrayed
by company records.
A good example of this was the prosecution of Alfried Krupp at
Nuremberg for using slave labor in his factories.
> 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."
That's not true.
Private property was held as inviolable during the Third Reich, in
practice as well as theory.
Again, a convenient reference is Speer's book, "Inside the Third
Reich". He goes on at length describing long meetings with
industrialists exhorting them to increase production and trying to get
them to agree to pool industrial resources in ways that they weren't
eager to do.
One of the highest things on industry's agenda was that no laws be
passed that would give the state the power to issue such orders.
We're Nazi Germany the sort of state that you believe it was, such
meetings wouldn't have been necessary. Speer could simply have
ordered them to do what he wanted and industry would have been forced
to comply. In reality, the government had no such power.
As the Third Reich began to near collapse, increasingly draconian
measures were taken by the government, but those measures were the
exception rather than the rule, and they were only implemented because
of the dire situation Germany was facing.
>>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.
I'm well aware of the 25 points of National Socialism.
Perhaps you should read them, and then take note of how few of the
clearly socialistic points were actually enacted once the Nazis gained
power.
The short answer is: None.
> 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.
Perhaps that should be a clue as to show socialistic the Third Reich
was in practice.
> There are quite a few very socialist statements recorded by the upper nazi
> tier up into the late 30s and on into the 40s.
They tossed the term socialism around from time to time.
But, it's more revealing to look at what the Nazis actually did, or
didn't do.
Take the annexation of Czechoslovakia as an example. The Nazis didn't
nationalize Czech industries when they took over the country, they
confiscated them and sold them off to German manfacturers. They did
the same thing in Poland and every where else they had annexed or were
planning to annex.
That doesn't sound very socialistic to me.
> Most of what I believe is the result of independent research; not any one
> book.
I suggest you need to revisit what your resources are telling you.
>>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.
I'm well aware that Goldberg isn't the first to attempt to make such a
connection.
Right wingers have been trying, and failing, to make the connection
between Nazi Germany and socialism on and off since WWII ended.
That others have done so before him doesn't make him, or them,
correct.
> 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........
I referenced the book because that's what inspired this thread.
> Come to think of it, how did this post get on Hitler? It was about
> Mussolini and his socialist love child; his religion; fascismo......
Hitler took fascism to a more extreme conclusion than Mussolini did
and became the classic example of a fascist state.
That's how it got on to Hitler.
