Obama The Filthy Liar

[Nessus]

The goal of socialism is to create equality. The end goal of Nazism was to promote some people over others (even if you exclude the "undesirables"), take away economic rights from both workers and employers, while providing a minimal standard of living to the former. None of those objectives are socialist. You can make a weak case for the last one, but that's been done before socialism and even most non-Ron Pauls would accept it today.

Equality for the people. The volk did not include some people which were then exterminated. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum, there is always a context to consider. Dr. Goebbels was not making shit up when he spoke of freedom for the German people, he literally meant and believed in the freedom from Jewish cum foreign influence and the possibility of the volk to make their own destiny.

[Loki]

Equality for the people. The volk did not include some people which were then exterminated. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum, there is always a context to consider. Dr. Goebbels was not making shit up when he spoke of freedom for the German people, he literally meant and believed in the freedom from Jewish cum foreign influence and the possibility of the volk to make their own destiny.

The point was that some Germans were still considered to be superior to others, and the state was to utilize them for the glory of the state. Decent living standards for the people was a secondary objective; the promotion and subservience to the state was the main one. Even racial policies aside, I doubt you'd get too many socialist parties backing a ban on strikes and wage increases.

[Nessus]

The point was that some Germans were still considered to be superior to others, and the state was to utilize them for the glory of the state. Decent living standards for the people was a secondary objective; the promotion and subservience to the state was the main one. Even racial policies aside, I doubt you'd get too many socialist parties backing a ban on strikes and wage increases.

*shrug* That is what democratic socialism shaped up to be today, that metric cannot be applied to the situation seventy years ago.

[Loki]

*shrug* That is what democratic socialism shaped up to be today, that metric cannot be applied to the situation seventy years ago.

The end goal of socialist was always socioeconomic and political equality. Even most national socialist parties (i.e. the nationalist leftist parties in the developing world, not Nazis) would claim that nationalism was needed for practical reasons and would become unnecessary once the evil imperialists were driven out.

[Nessus]

The end goal of socialist was always socioeconomic and political equality. Even most national socialist parties (i.e. the nationalist leftist parties in the developing world, not Nazis) would claim that nationalism was needed for practical reasons and would become unnecessary once the evil imperialists were driven out.

Off-hand I can count 3 fallacies in that post. First, there was no significant difference between Germany and say UK and France before the first world war that'd classify them as somehow "un-developed". Second, the need for lebensraum is not inherently anti-socialist, after all, we are giving more land to the working volk. Thirdly, I'd like to see sources on the "socialism demands political equality" claim. Even if that were something Snowball or Lenin wrote, it doesn't really make it so in the real world.

[Lewkowski]

The goal of socialism is to create equality. The end goal of Nazism was to promote some people over others (even if you exclude the "undesirables"), take away economic rights from both workers and employers, while providing a minimal standard of living to the former. None of those objectives are socialist. You can make a weak case for the last one, but that's been done before socialism and even most non-Ron Pauls would accept it today.

What is the central part of socialism? Government control. What is an example of a piece of socialism? Health that is a national interest issue as opposed to an individual choice. From NAZI to Obama to random socialists there is a belief that the government has a central role in health care. And that it is "bad" (immoral/un-patriotic ect) to jeopardize your health. Again the key component is government control.

NAZI/Socialist/Communist/Facsim are all different views of the command and control hierarchy. They are brothers and sisters not opponents.

The dividing line between ideology is more or less government control.

[LittleFuzzy]

In his interpretation, and evidently yours. But none of us are objective, and none of us are able to ever know another human being.

It might not be the way you intend it, but it is the way you present it.

[Loki]

Off-hand I can count 3 fallacies in that post. First, there was no significant difference between Germany and say UK and France before the first world war that'd classify them as somehow "un-developed". Second, the need for lebensraum is not inherently anti-socialist, after all, we are giving more land to the working volk. Thirdly, I'd like to see sources on the "socialism demands political equality" claim. Even if that were something Snowball or Lenin wrote, it doesn't really make it so in the real world.

1. Did I say otherwise? My point was that even that national socialists believe that the nationalism aspect should eventually go away. Fascists aren't socialists for precisely that reason: they believe that equality is a secondary objective that simply helps the state become stronger.

2. I wasn't referring to the Lebensraum policy. I was referring to Germany emphasizing degrees of purity, with the purest Germans considered superior to the rest (again, even if we exclude the Jews, gypsies, disabled, homosexuals, etc.).

3. Why do socialists oppose economic inequality, even in instances where the worst off live comfortable lives (if you don't think such a situation exists, imagine that it did)?

What is the central part of socialism? Government control. What is an example of a piece of socialism? Health that is a national interest issue as opposed to an individual choice. From NAZI to Obama to random socialists there is a belief that the government has a central role in health care. And that it is "bad" (immoral/un-patriotic ect) to jeopardize your health. Again the key component is government control.

NAZI/Socialist/Communist/Facsim are all different views of the command and control hierarchy. They are brothers and sisters not opponents.

The dividing line between ideology is more or less government control.

The central part of socialism is equality. Government control is the means of attaining that objective. Wanting government control isn't inherently left-wing or right-wing. You can want government control in order to promote free market policies for instance (e.g. Pinochet, the South Korean dictators, etc.). Hell, even American conservatives want government control, in order to prevent people from engaging in undesirable social conduct (i.e. having abortions, marrying people of the same gender, etc.)

[Nessus]

It might not be the way you intend it, but it is the way you present it.

And how you and Hazzy see it. And round and round we go.

[LittleFuzzy]

They were socialist in 1933. They weren't by 1941 (not to any large extent anyway).

Corporatism, as it is practiced in a fascist model, is not all that different from socialism.

[Loki]

Corporatism, as it is practiced in a fascist model, is not all that different from socialism.

Sure it is. Germany and Austria are still corporatist. The chief objective of corporatism is maintaining peace between labor and capital. It doesn't necessitate privileging the former.

[Nessus]

1. Did I say otherwise? My point was that even that national socialists believe that the nationalism aspect should eventually go away. Fascists aren't socialists for precisely that reason: they believe that equality is a secondary objective that simply helps the state become stronger.

And the Third Reich wasn't strictly fascist. It adopted some principles, certainly, and I defer to the wondrous work of Kershaw in this, but there is a very open question of how fascist the Third Reich truly was (as fascism was defined at the time, and as it should be defined today). The socialist portion of national socialism, believed mainly by dr. Goebbels and his band, meant giving a basic living for the German volk, no matter the circumstance. Of course the NSDAP was mostly defined by Hitler himself, as far as ideology goes, so we can just throw our hands in the air and say Goebbels was a piss-poor Nazi in this regard.

2. I wasn't referring to the Lebensraum policy. I was referring to Germany emphasizing degrees of purity, with the purest Germans considered superior to the rest (again, even if we exclude the Jews, gypsies, disabled, homosexuals, etc.).

Again, you seem to be blinded by the current red-green level-headedness. The socialism was for the pure, the true Germans. The unworthy were to be disposed of before the true society could emerge, that is one of the key points of Hitler's program.

3. Why do socialists oppose economic inequality, even in instances where the worst off live comfortable lives (if you don't think such a situation exists, imagine that it did)?

I don't understand.

[Loki]

Again, you seem to be blinded by the current red-green level-headedness. The socialism was for the pure, the true Germans. The unworthy were to be disposed of before the true society could emerge, that is one of the key points of Hitler's program.

As far as I know, the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and generous vacations weren't just given to workers who had the purest German blood. The minimal standards were meant to be for every German who met a minimal set of criteria. But the people who were the most pure were considered to be worthy of special treatment by the state. You didn't address the fact that the end goal of Nazism was the glorification of the German state, not the German worker.

I don't understand.

Let's say we have a society with significant economic inequality, but one where the worst off still have a very good quality of life (e.g. the bottom quartile end up with $40k a year in income, while the top quartile ends up with $10 million, without prices increasing). Would socialists support the status quo in such a society? If not, why?

[Nessus]

As far as I know, the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and generous vacations weren't just given to workers who had the purest German blood. The minimal standards were meant to be for every German who met a minimal set of criteria. But the people who were the most pure were considered to be worthy of special treatment by the state. You didn't address the fact that the end goal of Nazism was the glorification of the German state, not the German worker.

We can't truly know either way. As Shirer so cynically points out, the nation that was meant to overcome a thousand years only lasted twelve. Hitler himself was obsessed with perpetual war, but what would have happened after his passing had operation Barbarossa turned out differently, who can say?

You are correct that the SS represented a special class of people, uplifted over the rest due to their responsibility. I'm not sure if that is un-socialistic in and of itself, but I suppose I am not very clear on what socialism means today and what it meant in 1934 to begin with.

Let's say we have a society with significant economic inequality, but one where the worst off still have a very good quality of life (e.g. the bottom quartile end up with $40k a year in income, while the top quartile ends up with $10 million, without prices increasing). Would socialists support the status quo in such a society? If not, why?

I do not know. Should I know? And what does this have to do with anything?

[Loki]

I do not know. Should I know? And what does this have to do with anything?

Socialists would oppose it because they don't believe economic inequality can produce political equality. If they didn't care about the latter, they'd be fine with the former.

[Nessus]

Socialists would oppose it because they don't believe economic inequality can produce political equality. If they didn't care about the latter, they'd be fine with the former.

Well, if you think me a socialist, that definition doesn't fit, and vice versa.

[Loki]

Well, if you think me a socialist, that definition doesn't fit, and vice versa.

Your views on social policies is pretty damn close to Minx's views though. I think you just don't really feel strongly enough about the economics.

[Nessus]

My strongest feelings are elsewhere

[Hazir]

I can't believe how people can seriously debate a hotchpotch like nazism, as if it had an actual philosophy. It couldn't even make up its mind about its defining priciple of racism.

[Nessus]

I can't believe how people can seriously debate a hotchpotch like nazism, as if it had an actual philosophy. It couldn't even make up its mind about its defining priciple of racism.

If only they could see the light of Islam instead

[Hazir]

If only they could see the light of Islam instead

Given that one of the two excludes people for all eternity, where the other in essence is inclusive you mean?

[']['ear]

I'm gone for a while, come back, and find the same horse shit.

You have no idea what a huge favor you are doing for me.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thread about Obama turns into thread about nazis. Well done, well done indeed. Delivers!

By the way, Lewk, Whaaambulance ring a bell? Whaaa Obama is lying! Whaaaa Obama is a tyrant. Whaaa whaaa!



Turnabout, fair play. Nice innit?

[Nessus]

Delivers!

Delivered something. Not what it said on the tin, but something.

[Dreadnaught]

I like this whole meme of Obama-as-Joker images, mainly because I can't quite figure out exactly how they are comparing him to the Joker. And I suspect they aren't, but rather it's just a weird photoshop that people assume has some kind of meaning and so they keep using it all over the place.

[Nessus]

I think Lewk's posts in this thread are a good indicator as to why. To him, socialism amounts to the worst offense against both human dignity and human rights. It has nothing to do with what the word means, but that is the message he gleans from it. In that light, it makes perfect sense to portray 'Bama as an inhuman sociopath who only wants to harm other people; that's what the word socialism means to them.

[Ominous Gamer]

And I suspect they aren't, but rather it's just a weird photoshop that people assume has some kind of meaning and so they keep using it all over the place.

I suspect you've read more into this than you're letting on. I'm pretty sure we're already covered its origins anyway

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...er-artist.html

It was the result of a photoshop tutorial, and the original artist didn't try to connect it to socialism, or blaster them all over the city.

[Lewkowski]

I think Lewk's posts in this thread are a good indicator as to why. To him, socialism amounts to the worst offense against both human dignity and human rights. It has nothing to do with what the word means, but that is the message he gleans from it. In that light, it makes perfect sense to portray 'Bama as an inhuman sociopath who only wants to harm other people; that's what the word socialism means to them.

Sigh.

I don't think he is an inhuman sociopath. I believe he is a cold calculating politician who does truly believe that a central command form of government is the best approach for the United States and mankind as whole.

Loki -

How do socialists want to bring about their equality of outcomes? Via government. There is no other possible method of creating equality of outcomes. That is why big government is intrinsically linked to socialism. You use the example of how the Right wants to support things like moral laws. Yeah that is what is truly messed up about our political system. Right/Left is not a true distinction in systems. Authoritarian and Libertarian is a far more accurate dividing line.

People who want to legislate morality (prostitution, drugs, gambling not working on Sunday) are far more alike to those who want to ban smoking, raise minimum wage or pass confiscatory tax rates then either party really wants to believe. Their goals may be different but HOW they want to do it is what separates the government types. You have the people who want to enforce their world view at the point of the gun (elements of the Christian Right and nearly all liberals) and those who support freedom, individual liberty and the use of persuasion (libertarians, fiscal conservatives, some blue dog democrats).

[ar81]

The end goal of socialist was always socioeconomic and political equality. Even most national socialist parties (i.e. the nationalist leftist parties in the developing world, not Nazis) would claim that nationalism was needed for practical reasons and would become unnecessary once the evil imperialists were driven out.

If you dig out the history of Russia you discover that indeed soviet revolution in the first moments was more a capitalist revolution.
You had lazy elite people from the royalty owning everything, and poor and slaves having nothing and working hard. There was no property because everything was owned by elite landlords.
The reform of Lenin gave land to people, the first time people had private property, and it also should allow people to start producing and start a healthy economy.
Also, soviet revolution issued freedom of speech which allowed people to express they wanted not ot fight in WWI.

But then Lenin came and turned things upside down, the soviet party became the new elite, and absolutism from the czar era was restored. And Stalin became a virtual czar.
It was a sad thing that the work of Lenin towards a more democratic regime was wiped out by Stalin.

[Loki]

Loki -

How do socialists want to bring about their equality of outcomes? Via government. There is no other possible method of creating equality of outcomes. That is why big government is intrinsically linked to socialism. You use the example of how the Right wants to support things like moral laws. Yeah that is what is truly messed up about our political system. Right/Left is not a true distinction in systems. Authoritarian and Libertarian is a far more accurate dividing line.

People who want to legislate morality (prostitution, drugs, gambling not working on Sunday) are far more alike to those who want to ban smoking, raise minimum wage or pass confiscatory tax rates then either party really wants to believe. Their goals may be different but HOW they want to do it is what separates the government types. You have the people who want to enforce their world view at the point of the gun (elements of the Christian Right and nearly all liberals) and those who support freedom, individual liberty and the use of persuasion (libertarians, fiscal conservatives, some blue dog democrats).

Did authoritarianism exist before socialism? If yes, then why equate the two?