Sorry Liberals, But The Nazis Were Progressive Leftists

LOL... Talk about wish thinking.. The name, National Socialists does sort of disagree with your assertion. There is no "right wing" on the left. It's just all left. Sorry you cannot understand this.

 

So north korea is democratic republic.

 

They are? Perhaps that's what Democrats believe they are trying to achieve then? To be a democratic republic, just like N Korea?

 

Clearly here is someone who has not read the thread where this has been explained, nor does the poster know WHY the party included the word socialist, also explained in contemporary papers at the time.in short...
Drexler and hitler wanted to attract the working population . I mean who would tell them "come to us and we will work you to death for the good of the state or we will put you into the military and tell you to attack and absorb Austria, and then who knows?"
No.
You tell them that they are working in a socialist manner for the good of the collective that will help them individually and ass a proud nation from the shame and poverty of the Treaty of Versailles.

Put it into context!

 

Then you should know better than to claim fascism is of the “right”. I think Hayeks chapter 6 is all about the socialist roots, with extensive footnotes to sources.

 

LOL So you have just describe the Democratic Party in the US to a T..... So much fun to watch. I doubt the democrats would appreciate you calling them hard righties... But who knows... This might be their new European strategy....

 

North Korea,[a] officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

According to you since that's what they call themselves then that's what they are.

 

LOL... Yes, Democrats are surely using them as their template these days... Isn't China also the People's republic? Kind of similar, wouldn't you say?

 

I didn't call anyone anything. Let alone hard.
Now how about staying on topic and stop the fairytales.
There are many countries Americans who know no better would call socialist and which are quite successful. Suck it up.

 

The Nordic model is not socialist.



Please educate yourself so I don’t have to continue to do it for you.

Those people working in teams you speak of so highly are doing so for PROFIT. Not the good of the collective lol that’s why your socialist countries contribute dick insofar as R&D compared to the us.

 

If you dont think the US has some notable socialist programmes including the military, you aren't understanding your own argument.
And the Nordic countries are considered socialist by the rest of Europe already with its centre further to the left than the US...what makes you think you know better?
And please address my points instead of scooting off to hide behind another tree.
The research and development you enjoy while cleaning toilets was done by TEAMS from all over the world. Cooperatively. Usually supported by government funds. Into which you pay. There is NOTHING in socialism that rejects profit. The point is that the profit is distributed fairly...it is called wages. And the public benefits from the results of the research. Like you cleaning toilets.
Ie the socialist model.

 

Oooo personal attacks lol fortunately for you I’m not a little bitch who goes around reporting posts.

Of course the US has socialist programs. You don’t even understand the paradigm of which you’re speaking.

Economic policy should be viewed as a spectrum. On the left end of the spectrum is communism. On the right end of the spectrum is capitalism while anything in between is socialism. It is not possible to successfully have a system which is 100% communist nor 100% capitalist. The further to the left you go on this spectrum the more you value the collective over individual rights. The further you go right on this spectrum the more you value individual Liberty over the collective.

The most effective systems are those which are as close to capitalism as possible. The further to the left of capitalism you reside on that line the less sustainable and less efficient your system will be and you will have less individual Liberty. Furthermore the further left you go, the more likely you are to end up in a tyrannical dictatorship.

Why is that? Because there will ALWAYS be people who disagree with the goals of the collective and whose individual desires are antithesis to what the collective needs. And those people are a threat and have to be eliminated eventually.

 

Tyrants take over in situ when there is socio-political strife & economic decline in the nation. Tyrants can also take over nations that are doing well through external forces, like CIA-sponspored coups (eg, Iran's Mousedeq, Libya's Gaddafi, Chile's Allende, and others).

But if what you say is true, then you must believe that it'd be a breeze for a tyrant to take over liberal/socialist democracies like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Bolivia, right? If so, then why haven't any? Why do these nations continue to thrive?

I'll tell you why. Because these nations actually practice a high form of socialism by favoring socialism over capitalism, which brings with it a high standard of living & contentment for its citizens.

By contrast, the American system favors capitalism over socialism. Thus America has been steadily declining in every way since Reagan by both reducing & failing to institute adequate social programs, and is thus vulnerable to opportunistic infections like Trump. If it were not for Biden's ignorant acceptance of the Covid hoax & its subsequent economic impact, I feel he would've won the support of many more of his detractors (except his die-hard white supremacy crazies). He's accomplished much already in the aftermath of the "pandemic" (though still much more needs to be done because of Trump's mess), and all within the first half of his term in office. Not expecting much from an establishment politician, I'm actually pleasantly surprised with Biden. He still has another half-term to go and it'll be interesting to see what else he'll do.

It's completely relevant because the people were promised a lie, which is why they supported the future tyrant in the first place. It's the typical bait & switch tactic used by all tyrants. It's also the same tactic used by businesses. They routinely lie to the people to sell their goods/services. All con men do this, which is how Trump became president.

No one wants fascism except the tyrant & his inner core. Just as most Americans support the expansion of social programs, so do citizens of virtually every other nation. Hence, any would-be tyrant will use rhetoric that promises to satisfy common human needs, all the while indoctrinating the people with fear & xenophobia to win their support.

 

Do stop diverting around my posts.
I dont need a lesson in political nomenclature by someone who can only speak through a textbook.
BTW those whose individual desires are anthesis to what the collective needs are right wing fascists who don't want to work in coopération.
Look in the mirror. Before you think about elimination.

 

"Oooo personal attacks lol fortunately for you I’m not a little bitch who goes around reporting posts."

DO NOT IMPLY I NEED EDUCATING.
OR THAT I REPORT PEOPLE

especially by you who seems to reject being educated by most in this thread.

 

I didn’t imply you did anything. I said I’m not that kind of person. Awful defensive aren’t we

And I didn’t imply you need education. I stated it as a fact because you continue to make uneducated statements like Norway and it’s Nordic system are socialist.

They are capitalist market economies with large social nets with taxation at absurd rates.

 

This is so political Science 101.
There are a myriad of constitutional arrangements within socialism . And the USA is one of them.

 

Please return to the thread and remain there.

 

Which makes my argument. It’s easier for the tyrannical dictator to take over a socialist economy because he’s promising to give them a bunch of stuff.

That doesn’t work in a capitalist society. Which is the ENTIRE POINT of the conversation.

 

That is the description of a democratic socialist economy.
The taxation goes back into the general welfare. The health, education and social services are second to none.

 

Are you telling me that money grabbing capitalists aren't attracted by free stuff?
Give me a break.

 

Sure you did. For how long, and what kind of equipment/supplies did you take with you before heading back to the safety of society? lol

Neither socialism nor capitalism can take credit for innovation. Innovation is a natural human trait, and can be found throughout all cultures, both primitive & advanced.

In a money-less, socialist indigenous culture, innovation is immediately embraced to benefit all. These cultures need not "advance" because their system works perfectly to provide all they need. They also need not grow larger because they have no need to impose their will on foreign groups or larger territories. They need only to ensure that their small community is provided for.

In a monetary/capitalist system, socialism (ie, taxpayer money) promotes innovation in two major ways.
(1) It can fund innovation through research grants/loans/etc.
(2) It creates the foundation upon which innovation can benefit all members of society by ensuring adequate infrastructure, transportation services, energy services/benefits, postal services, communications services, education, healthcare, police & military security, emergency services, banking & business regulations, printing of money, patent & intellectual property protections, subsidies, tax credits, bailouts and many other perks that come from taxpayer support. Without any of this, innovation would go no further than the innovators mind (or garage).

By contrast, capitalism seeks only to profit from innovation, which confers no benefit to any society. Hence, as I've repeatedly said, capitalism, like a parasite, cannot exist without socialism. There are a ton of examples proving this, but here are a few:

(2010) Tesla also got off the ground with help from the government
In January 2010, the Department of Energy issued a $465 million loan to Tesla Motors to produce specially designed, all-electric plug-in vehicles and to develop a manufacturing facility in Fremont, California to produce battery packs, electric motors, and other powertrain components for powering specially designed all-electric vehicles.
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/tesla

(2015) Elon Musk's Growing Empire is Fueled by $4.9 Billion in Government Subsidies
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

(2021) Elon Musk Has It All Wrong on Subsidies
Musk’s company is built on the foundation of (mostly) good ideas that have been backed by public largesse. Government incentives have boosted sales in locations from Denmark to Hong Kong, while manufacturing operations in China have gone relatively smoothly thanks to state aid. In Europe, Tesla was looking to tap subsidies to get set up in Germany. For new markets, such as India, the firm is actively looking for an entry with exemptions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...45d06e-5773-11ec-8396-5552bef55c3c_story.html

(2022) Jeff Bezos is worth $160bn – yet Congress might bail out his space company (a $10 billion bail-out)
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-space-elon-musk-billionaires-bernie-sanders

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds

NIH grapples with rush to claim billions in pandemic research funds
https://www.science.org/content/art...s-rush-claim-billions-pandemic-research-funds

(2016) The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds
The 10 largest funding organizations together funded research for $37.1 billion, constituting 40% of all public and philanthropic health research spending globally. The largest funder was the United States National Institutes of Health ($26.1 billion), followed by the European Commission ($3.7 billion), and the United Kingdom Medical Research Council ($1.3 billion).
https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-015-0074-z

(2021) McDonald’s, Subway and other franchises got $15.6 billion in small-business funds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/28/ppp-loans-mcdonalds-subway-franchises/

McDonald's Low Wages Cost Taxpayers $1.2 Billion Annually
Earlier we reported on a new study that found half of fast food workers rely on some form of public assistance to supplement their low wages, costing taxpayers roughly $7 billion annually. A separate study released Tuesday by the pro-labor National Employment Law Project focuses on the cost of employees' government-funded benefits at the 10 largest fast food restaurants.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-costs-taxpayers-12-billion-annually-2013-10

(2021) Taxpayers are Subsidizing Soaring CEO Pay at Pentagon Contractors
More than half of the $14 trillion in Pentagon spending since 9/11, or $7 trillion, has gone to for-profit contractors according to a recent study by our colleagues at the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. The chief executives of these contracting companies typically pocket paychecks that dwarf the salaries of the U.S. president and military generals.
https://ips-dc.org/taxpayers-subsidizing-ceo-pay-pentagon-contractors/

The list is virtually endless, so I'll spare you. But one cannot help but ask why the right persistently questions where the money for free education and/or healthcare will come from. Obviously they have no clue about where their taxes are being spent.

No. It is the capitalist/monetary system that stifles innovation & advancement. Many innovations have been suppressed for decades because they were deemed a threat to the interests of big business (eg, fossil fuel industry, automobile industry, medical & pharmaceutical industry, farming & agricultural industry, food industry, chemical industry, mining industry, construction industry, weapons/defense industry, etc.)

Despite today's "advanced" tech, our lives have not really improved in terms of stress, illness, crime, violence/wars, drug addiction, govt structure & transparency, safety, air/water/food quality & security, green technologies, and environmental health.

We've also hardly done much in terms of space exploration----merely sent probes & satellites into space. Why aren't we flying to the planets (if not the stars) by now? Why are we still using gas-powered machines or fossil fuels in general? Why don't we have anti-gravity? Why aren't we using more advanced green energy technologies? Why do we still rely on the power grid rather than each home generating its own power using free-energy technology? Why aren't machines/robots doing all the boring/tedious/dangerous labor? Why are people still working in BS jobs that society doesn't need? Why is our medical care still making people sicker, still killing hundreds of thousands annually, and still unable to understand the cause of (let alone cure for) most chronic illnesses? Why are we still using dangerous forms of communication that sicken/kill people, animals & plants? Instead of mostly driving everywhere in heavy congestion, why aren't we using our own anti-gravity flying "cars" to reach our destinations? Why aren't all cities banning personal vehicles in favor of only mass transportation? Why are we still polluting & mining our planet rather than mining planetary bodies, moons, and asteroids? Why has the truth about aliens/UFO's still being kept a secret? Why are we even still using money?

Answer -----> capitalism.

Are you speaking of a "socialist" nation in name only, or a real socialist system?
If the former, then this is not socialism. It's a dictatorship.
If the latter, then the man's innovation (if deemed useful & non-destructive) would be embraced by society and immediately mass-produced & distributed to all.

Would you rather work in a capitalist system cleaning toilets and hope that you somehow escape this drudgery by inventing/selling something, winning the lottery, or inheriting it? Or would you rather work in a socialist system and not ever have to clean toilets (other than your own)?

I'd like to add a question to you though:

If the greatest purpose of innovation & advancement is not to benefit society, then what's the purpose? What better incentive to innovate than to benefit society? In doing so, not only the innovator, but all people & society benefit and can advance.

Is profit really the greatest purpose/incentive for innovation? Profit may make an individual rich, but how does individual wealth benefit or advance society? Doesn't the land & its resources belong to everyone? Is it right that money can be leveraged to hoard/control labor, land & resources or to gain political power?

Money-less indigenous cultures may not have the advanced tech that "developed" societies do, but is the latter really better off than the former? Think about it.

 

If it doesn't work in a capitalist society, then why did it (almost) work in the US when dictator Trump became President & then incited a coup to stay in power? lol

You still don't get it. A socialist economy has no need/use for a tyrant's empty promises to "give them a bunch of stuff" because they already have what they need. They're content, happy, and don't need a "savior", whether it be Trump or Jesus (interestingly, Nordic nations have a high rate of atheism). That's why liberal/socialist democracies laugh at people like Trump, and why you can't name a single liberal/socialist democracy that has a dictatorship.

In predominantly capitalist economies that lack adequate social programs (like the US), the right does indeed want a "bunch of stuff", which includes everything that everyone else in the world wants. The only difference between the right and the left is that the right places the blame for all their problems on a phantom "enemy" (eg, immigration, non-whites & minorities, non-Christians, Jews, gays, Iran/China/etc., the left, atheists, peace activists, BLM, gun haters, etc.) They're led to believe that their enemies have been stealing their "bunch of stuff" and in response have rallied around a dictator wannabe who has promised them he'll get back their rightful "bunch of stuff".

By contrast, the left typically places the blame on the spread of corruption, which, logically, is the cause of the demise of any nation that cannot control it. Hence, they address corruption as a means to reinstate what belongs to the working class. The left understands that handouts are sometimes temporarily needed, but are not the way to a better society. (As opposed to tyrants & the wealthy who push for policies providing them free handouts that they didn't earn.) Rather, they support social programs that empower each individual to help them become healthy, well educated productive members of society.

A tyrant will not go after corruption (even if he says he will) because he himself is completely corrupt. He will instead point the finger of blame to those who pose a threat to HIM. For tyrants, it's all about THEMSELVES.

In summary, both left & right want the same thing. The main difference is the right doesn't understand who is doing the robbing, while the left does. The right is also given to nationalism & emotions rather than reason & logic. Hence, a tyrant will always choose to exploit the ignorance & easily triggered emotions of the right.

 

Bro what are you talking about? The lefts ENTIRE PLATFORM is predicated on how minorities need to have protections from the evil white man. It’s like you live in bizzaro world.

And how are you even attempting to make that argument when you had people like Chavez and Madero and we still have China. Venezuela was the fourth largest economy in the world until those morons went socialist. Then they had to eat their dogs to survive. Why? Because ANOTHER tyrant took power and ****ed the people over.

Your claims are wholesale bs

 

Why the left keeps smearing its political rivals as Hitlers or Mussolinis.

“Want to be Hitler? You don’t have to hate Jews, invade Poland or grow a silly mustache. There’s only one thing you have to do: Win an election against the left, or even look like you might.”

'Democrats and the media (I repeat myself)', claim that the GOP is on the verge of 'a Nazi reign of terror over America, though none of those critics' who made that claim were 'targeted by the Gestapo.' Rather, it's open season on pro-life activists and Republicans under the Biden administration.

This is the protected connected privileged class defending their illicit class interests:

It’s not just in America. In France, farmers angry about government policies that were putting them out of business who protested by wearing yellow vests were quickly vilified as Nazi-like. “Immediately, the protesters were denounced as xenophobes, anti-Semites and homophobes,” observed French geographer Christophe Guilluy. “The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist, but this is merely a way of defending their class interests.”

'The story of recent politics is one of the West’s elites dividing people by race, fomenting antagonism to serve their own purposes, and posing as the only ones who can protect society from the bigotry and violence of . . . voters.'

'It happens over and over again and every time they run the same script. They’re doing it again in response to this week’s election in Italy, which elevated Giorgia Meloni to be Italy’s first female prime minister. She identifies as a mother, a Catholic and an Italian and says she wants what’s best for the Italian people, not what serves the agenda of the Western gentry class. This makes her . . . well, not Hitler exactly, but since it’s Italy, Mussolini.'

'Headlines call her the “most far-right” ruler since Mussolini and speak darkly of fascism and so on, according to the familiar script.'

Italy is pretty Leftist, even their "Right" are "Left". The roots of the party on the Left is the old Italian Communist Party. If Italy elected Mitt Romney, he would be "the most far right ruler since Mussolini'.

'There has been some pushback from her liberal opponent, former PM Matteo Renzi, who said, “Personally I was against Giorgia Meloni. I’m not her best friend. We are rivals, but she is not a danger to democracy. The idea there is a risk of fascism in Italy is absolutely fake news.”'

Well, GOD BLESS Renzi! How refreshing, a true Liberal who understands that fine people are free to disagree without being labeled as evil. The Danger to Democracy are these Semi-Fascist Fake News Authoritarians that want to hunt down any that cross their narrative and burn them at the stake as evil heretics. Do not believe the lie when these Progressive Puritans tell you that they are "Liberals". They are the opposite of Liberals.

They squared off as rivals, then honor Italy by coming together to govern.
​

The Odd Men out are the lying fake news authoritarian semi-fascists trying to stir up strife and dissension,