moonbattery logo

Jan 07 2016

What It Means That Democrats Can’t Explain Difference Between Themselves and Socialists

What’s the difference between a modern Democrat and a socialist? If anyone would know, it should be the leading Democrat presidential candidate. Let’s ask her:

In a softball interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Clinton vehemently denied she’s a socialist, but found herself unable to answer what the difference is between a Democrat and a socialist. …

Clinton joins Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in being unable to explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.

Watch her flounder, even in an interview with a sympathetic host:

You can see why Shrillary will never agree to be interviewed by Mark Levin.

Bernie Sanders admits that he is a socialist, but Shrillary won’t because she is shrewd enough not to want to terrify voters.

What’s so scary about socialists? This time we’ll ask someone who will give us a straight answer — Philip Vander Elst at the Foundation for Economic Education:

According to The Black Book of Communism (1999), at least 94 million people were slaughtered by communist regimes during the twentieth century. This is a truly colossal figure, yet that’s the lowest estimate. Professor R. J. Rummel, in his landmark study, Death by Government (1996), puts the death toll from communism at over 105 million—and his detailed calculations do not include the human cost of communism in most of Eastern Europe or in Third World countries like Cuba and Mozambique. Even so, his figure is double the total number of casualties (military and civilian) killed on all sides during World War II.

As one of the Founding Fathers of oligarchical collectivism noted, “The goal of socialism is communism.”

The full horror of this totalitarian socialist holocaust cannot, of course, be adequately conveyed by these grim statistics. Behind them lies a desolate landscape of economic collapse, mass poverty, physical and mental torture, and broken lives and communities. In fact nothing illustrates the destructive impact of totalitarian socialism more vividly than the tsunami of refugees it has generated in every continent on which it has taken root. Between 1945 and 1990 over 29 million men, women, and children voted against communism with their feet in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America (For details and sources see my book Idealism Without Illusions: A Foreign Policy for Freedom, 1989). Had it not been for the land mines, border guards, and barbed wire lining their frontiers, the world’s communist states would have been emptied of their populations long before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Yes, but Bernie Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist.” That’s different. Or is it?

One-party rule, the secret police, the imprisonment and torture of dissidents, concentration camps, mass executions, the political indoctrination of the young, the persecution of religious minorities—all these horrors have been the inevitable result of that concentration and monopolization of power that invariably corrupts the ruling elites and bureaucracies of all full-blown socialist societies. As an eminent Russian-born political scientist, the late Tibor Szamuely, wrote a generation ago in a pamphlet that should be read by the citizens of every civilized democracy: “How could it be otherwise? . . . How can there be any freedom when one’s livelihood from cradle to grave depends totally upon the State, which can with one hand give and with the other take away?” (Socialism and Liberty, 1977).

Unfortunately, left-wing intellectuals and other critics of free enterprise have always been reluctant to acknowledge the totalitarian logic of socialism, wedded as they are to a benevolent vision of the State and the dream of using its power to create a more just society. Consequently, despite all the evidence to date, many of them still pursue the phantom of “democratic socialism,” believing that democratic institutions can be relied on to prevent socialism from degenerating into tyranny. The great classical-liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century, by contrast, harbored no such illusions. Every single one of them discerned the incompatibility of state socialism with the maintenance of free and democratic institutions. They did so, moreover, long before the advent of the socialist tyrannies of the twentieth century.

These classical liberals, or as they would be called now, right-wing extremists (John Stuart Mill, Joseph Mazzini, Frédéric Bastiat, et al.), predicted far in advance that socialism would result in poverty and tyranny. They even seemed to foresee that socialist governments would inflict unprecedented atrocities. For example, Herbert Spencer wrote this back in 1891:

The fanatical adherents of a social theory are capable of taking any measures, no matter how extreme, for carrying out their views: holding, like the merciless priesthoods of past times, that the end justifies the means. And when a general socialistic organization has been established, the vast, ramified, and consolidated body of those who direct its activities, using without check whatever coercion seems to them needful . . . [will exercise] a tyranny more gigantic and more terrible than any which the world has seen.

Our massive nuclear weapons arsenal was developed to protect us from socialism. But it cannot protect us from ignorance or foolishness, which is why the likes of Obama and Shrillary are permitted to push us by increments toward the communist goal.

On tips from Varla and Torcer.



  • Pingback: What It Means That Democrats Can’t Explain Difference Between Themselves and Socialists « The United Voice of America()

  • IslandLifer

    I’m not affiliated with any party and will NEVER vote for a demonrat! You filthy lying crooks in DC better start growing up or suffer the consequences. These bitches both can rot in prison as far as I’m concerned. Trump to clean house!

  • IslandLifer

    I’m not affiliated with any party and will NEVER vote for a demonrat! You filthy lying crooks in DC better start growing up or suffer the consequences. These bitches both can rot in prison as far as I’m concerned. Trump to clean house!

  • Lentenlands

    Socialism always ends in death and destruction but let’s try it again, eh? It’s a wrecking ball and devastates every Nation to the degree it is embraced – Amerikaners of today are dumbed down and ignorant of the history of socialism; this is what socialists are exploiting in their rise.

    Don’t forget it was Wall Street’s mega-elites and the international banking oligarchs that funded practically every socialist regime since the Bolshevik Revolution. See Antony C. Sutton’s excellent and thorough historical analysis. This is the next step in understanding what has happened and is happening; the elites are working every minute, every day creating a one world global socialist dictatorship that they will rule the planet by. They’ve been at this dream over 100 years.

  • Lentenlands

    Socialism always ends in death and destruction but let’s try it again, eh? It’s a wrecking ball and devastates every Nation to the degree it is embraced – Amerikaners of today are dumbed down and ignorant of the history of socialism; this is what socialists are exploiting in their rise.

    Don’t forget it was Wall Street’s mega-elites and the international banking oligarchs that funded practically every socialist regime since the Bolshevik Revolution. See Antony C. Sutton’s excellent and thorough historical analysis. This is the next step in understanding what has happened and is happening; the elites are working every minute, every day creating a one world global socialist dictatorship that they will rule the planet by. They’ve been at this dream over 100 years.

  • bitterlyclinging

    So many votes to buy, so little time and money”

  • bitterlyclinging

    So many votes to buy, so little time and money”

  • Torcer

    *sigh* Usually the ‘best’ new show at one point in the evening is Bill O’Reilly (BOR)…

    But last night was especially egregious in that BOR somehow managed to mislabel #Comrade Clinton simply because she had too much money or something.

    I could label Bill O’Reilly with various pejoratives but I’ll refrain from doing so..but the fact is that is not the criteria for whether someone is a Socialist.

    For reference this is the definition of the words:

    Definition of socialist
    noun
    A person who advocates or practises socialism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/socialist

    Definition of socialism
    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

  • Torcer

    *sigh* Usually the ‘best’ new show at one point in the evening is Bill O’Reilly (BOR)…

    But last night was especially egregious in that BOR somehow managed to mislabel #Comrade Clinton simply because she had too much money or something.

    I could label Bill O’Reilly with various pejoratives but I’ll refrain from doing so..but the fact is that is not the criteria for whether someone is a Socialist.

    For reference this is the definition of the words:

    Definition of socialist
    noun
    A person who advocates or practises socialism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/socialist

    Definition of socialism
    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

    That definition doesn’t make ANY reference to one wealth, in fact the definition of word Leftist makes it clear:

    Definitions of left
    2 Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    Left politics
    left periodicals such as Marxism Today
    2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    the Left is preparing to fight presidential elections
    he is on the left of the party
    Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/left

    BTW, the definition of the word ‘progressive’ is about a vague as you ever can get:

    Definition of progressive
    2(Of a person or idea) favouring social reform
    noun
    1An advocate of social reform:
    people tend to present themselves either as progressives or traditionalists on this issue
    Origin
    Early 17th century: from French progressif, -ive or medieval Latin progressivus, from progress- ‘gone forward’, from the verb progredi
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/progressive

  • Rotohammer

    Socialists, being the liberals they are, get to own the banning of DDT as well, so add on 50 million malaria deaths.

  • Rotohammer

    Socialists, being the liberals they are, get to own the banning of DDT as well, so add on 50 million malaria deaths.

  • J K Brown

    First off don’t fall for the Communist propaganda. It was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. The small “c” communism, that none should have more than another, lasted about a week before the Communists used communism to cover for their socialist agenda.

    Let someone speaking before the Bolshevik dissembling explain socialism:

    “Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson

    First, what is the best the socialists, in their writings, can offer us? What do the most optimistic of them say? That our subsistence will be guaranteed, while we work; that some of us, the best of us, may earn a surplus above what is actually necessary for our subsistence; and that surplus, like a good child, we may “keep to spend.” We may not use it to better our condition, we may not, if a fisherman, buy another boat with it, if a farmer, another field ; we may not invest it, or use it productively ; but we can spend it like the good child, on candy — on something we consume, or waste it, or throw it away.

    Could not the African slave do as much? In fact, is not this whole position exactly that of the negro slave? He, too, was guaranteed his sustenance; he, too, was allowed to keep and spend the extra money he made by working overtime; but he was not allowed to better his condition, to engage in trade, to invest it, to change his lot in life. Precisely what makes a slave is that he is allowed no use of productive capital to make wealth on his own account. The only difference is that under socialism, I may not be compelled to labor (I don’t even know as to that — socialists differ on the point), actually compelled, by the lash, or any other force than hunger. And the only other difference is that the negro slave was under the orders of one man, while the subject of socialism will be under the orders of a committee of ward heelers. You will say, the slave could not choose his master, but we shall elect the ward politician. So we do now. Will that help much? Suppose the man with a grievance didn’t vote for him?

  • Rotohammer

    believing that democratic institutions can be relied on to prevent socialism from degenerating into tyranny

    In fact, socialism is attracted to democratic societies because that’s where the capital is. Just like weeds are attracted to a well watered lawn. Liberals need to be continually hosed down with a strong concentration of Weed-Be-Getting-The-Hell-Out-Of-My-Yard.

  • J K Brown

    First off don’t fall for the Communist propaganda. It was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. The small “c” communism, that none should have more than another, lasted about a week before the Communists used communism to cover for their socialist agenda.

    Let someone speaking before the Bolshevik dissembling explain socialism:

    “Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson

    First, what is the best the socialists, in their writings, can offer us? What do the most optimistic of them say? That our subsistence will be guaranteed, while we work; that some of us, the best of us, may earn a surplus above what is actually necessary for our subsistence; and that surplus, like a good child, we may “keep to spend.” We may not use it to better our condition, we may not, if a fisherman, buy another boat with it, if a farmer, another field ; we may not invest it, or use it productively ; but we can spend it like the good child, on candy — on something we consume, or waste it, or throw it away.

    Could not the African slave do as much? In fact, is not this whole position exactly that of the negro slave? He, too, was guaranteed his sustenance; he, too, was allowed to keep and spend the extra money he made by working overtime; but he was not allowed to better his condition, to engage in trade, to invest it, to change his lot in life. Precisely what makes a slave is that he is allowed no use of productive capital to make wealth on his own account. The only difference is that under socialism, I may not be compelled to labor (I don’t even know as to that — socialists differ on the point), actually compelled, by the lash, or any other force than hunger. And the only other difference is that the negro slave was under the orders of one man, while the subject of socialism will be under the orders of a committee of ward heelers. You will say, the slave could not choose his master, but we shall elect the ward politician. So we do now. Will that help much? Suppose the man with a grievance didn’t vote for him?

  • Rotohammer

    believing that democratic institutions can be relied on to prevent socialism from degenerating into tyranny

    In fact, socialism is attracted to democratic societies because that’s where the capital is. Just like weeds are attracted to a well watered lawn. Liberals need to be continually hosed down with a strong concentration of Weed-Be-Getting-The-Hell-Out-Of-My-Yard.

  • Rotohammer

    When musing over whom one would kill from the past, Hitler often comes up as an obvious choice. I would kill Marx and Engels.

  • Rotohammer

    When musing over whom one would kill from the past, Hitler often comes up as an obvious choice. I would kill Marx and Engels.

  • JeffersonSpinningInGrave

    A reason why pure democracies are doomed to fail, especially if everyone gets to vote. As has been said many times, once people can vote themselves goodies from the public treasury, it’s all over. Just a matter of time. It sounds elitist, but I think it’s an absolute requirement for any kind of stable democratic republic: If you take more than you contribute to the public treasury, you don’t get to vote until you do. Period. You get all the other rights of citizenship (that none of us currently enjoy to the extent we are entitled under the Constitution, unless we are wealthy or connected). But you don’t get to vote.

  • JeffersonSpinningInGrave

    A reason why pure democracies are doomed to fail, especially if everyone gets to vote. As has been said many times, once people can vote themselves goodies from the public treasury, it’s all over. Just a matter of time. It sounds elitist, but I think it’s an absolute requirement for any kind of stable democratic republic: If you take more than you contribute to the public treasury, you don’t get to vote until you do. Period. You get all the other rights of citizenship (that none of us currently enjoy to the extent we are entitled under the Constitution, unless we are wealthy or connected). But you don’t get to vote.

  • J K Brown

    We will therefore conclude with the perhaps unforeseen result, that democracy, when crowned with power, seeks rather what it considers the well-being of the community than the liberty of the individual.

  • J K Brown

    We will therefore conclude with the perhaps unforeseen result, that democracy, when crowned with power, seeks rather what it considers the well-being of the community than the liberty of the individual.

  • Leonard Jones

    Old George Putnam was fond of saying the difference between a
    socialist and a communist is that a socialist is a communist in a
    suit, and a communist is a socialist with a gun. What slays me is
    that the communist lesbian in the Mao Jacket is claiming to be
    a “Progressive Democrat,” which in this day and age means
    a “Communist Communist.”

    There is not a dimes worth of difference!

  • Leonard Jones

    Old George Putnam was fond of saying the difference between a
    socialist and a communist is that a socialist is a communist in a
    suit, and a communist is a socialist with a gun. What slays me is
    that the communist lesbian in the Mao Jacket is claiming to be
    a “Progressive Democrat,” which in this day and age means
    a “Communist Communist.”

    There is not a dimes worth of difference!

  • JeffersonSpinningInGrave

    Even that is a somewhat charitable view of things. Many will vote for their own narrow self interests, even if they know it is harmful for the community (or, I suppose, it wouldn’t even occur to many to wonder what is best for the community).

  • JeffersonSpinningInGrave

    Even that is a somewhat charitable view of things. Many will vote for their own narrow self interests, even if they know it is harmful for the community (or, I suppose, it wouldn’t even occur to many to wonder what is best for the community).

  • TED

    Bernie Sanders, the man that preaches Socialism, tells everyone he’s a Socialist, IS the same man the LEFT can’t figure out if he’s a Socialist…

  • TED

    Bernie Sanders, the man that preaches Socialism, tells everyone he’s a Socialist, IS the same man the LEFT can’t figure out if he’s a Socialist…

  • TED

    MUCH better choices!

  • TED

    MUCH better choices!

  • TED
  • TED
  • TED

    A little HISTORY the LEFT would LOVE to rewrite! http://i.imgur.com/darYg6J.jpg

  • TED

    A little HISTORY the LEFT would LOVE to rewrite! http://i.imgur.com/darYg6J.jpg

  • TED
  • TED
  • Giorgio Palmas

    Socialist or Democrat…syphilis or gonorrhea..

  • Giorgio Palmas

    Socialist or Democrat…syphilis or gonorrhea..

  • curley727

    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
    Winston Churchill

  • curley727

    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
    Winston Churchill

  • TED

    Being dumber than a fresh turd helps…

  • TED

    Being dumber than a fresh turd helps…

  • TED

    AMEN!!

  • TED

    AMEN!!

  • theBuckWheat

    Socialism is far more than just the ideology that society will be more equitable when we all live at the expense of everyone else. It is the smothering ideology that the only opinions that a person should have are those who are the opinions that society as a whole approves of. This is the hive-mind in action. Any thought that didn’t come from the hive-mind diminishes the power of the hive-mind. The socialist world view is that society will be more equitable when we each only think based on what everyone else is thinking. Socialists not only work at stealing all your material assets, they must also try to steal all your spiritual assets as well.

    Bonus quote:

    “The permanent lie becomes the only safe form of existence, in the same way as betrayal. Every wag of the tongue can be overheard by someone, every facial expression observed by someone. Therefore every word, if it does not have to be a direct lie, is nonetheless obliged not to contradict the general, common lie. There exists a collection of ready-made phrases, of labels, a selection of ready-made lies.”

    – Alexander Solzhenitsyn on the pervasiveness of lies in the socialist society

  • theBuckWheat

    Socialism is far more than just the ideology that society will be more equitable when we all live at the expense of everyone else. It is the smothering ideology that the only opinions that a person should have are those who are the opinions that society as a whole approves of. This is the hive-mind in action. Any thought that didn’t come from the hive-mind diminishes the power of the hive-mind. The socialist world view is that society will be more equitable when we each only think based on what everyone else is thinking. Socialists not only work at stealing all your material assets, they must also try to steal all your spiritual assets as well.

    Bonus quote:

    “The permanent lie becomes the only safe form of existence, in the same way as betrayal. Every wag of the tongue can be overheard by someone, every facial expression observed by someone. Therefore every word, if it does not have to be a direct lie, is nonetheless obliged not to contradict the general, common lie. There exists a collection of ready-made phrases, of labels, a selection of ready-made lies.”

    – Alexander Solzhenitsyn on the pervasiveness of lies in the socialist society

  • seaoh

    making of a socialist

  • seaoh

    making of a socialist

  • Torcer

    Hillary Has A Debbie Wasserman-Shultz Moment: She Can’t Explain The Difference Between Democrats, Socialists… http://www.weaselzippers.us/249201-hillary-has-a-debbie-wasserman-shultz-moment-she-cant-explain-the-difference-between-democrats-socialists/ via @WeaselZippers

    DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Tongue-Tied Again: Still Can’t ID Difference Between Dem And Socialist http://www.weaselzippers.us/230724-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-tongue-tied-again-still-cant-id-difference-between-dem-and-socialist/ via @WeaselZippers

  • Torcer

    ‘What’s the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?’: MSNBC Host Relentl… http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/12/whats-the-difference-between-a-socialist-and-a-democrat-msnbc-host-relentlessly-grills-schumer/?

    ‘What’s the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?’: MSNBC Host Grills Chuck Schumer
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebdB_eGN_IE

    ‘What’s the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?’: MSNBC Host … https://youtu.be/ebdB_eGN_IE via @YouTube

    …………………….
    Hillary Has A Debbie Wasserman-Shultz Moment: She Can’t Explain The Difference Between Democrats, Socialists… http://www.weaselzippers.us/249201-hillary-has-a-debbie-wasserman-shultz-moment-she-cant-explain-the-difference-between-democrats-socialists/ via @WeaselZippers

    Clinton Awkwardly Dodges Question On Difference Between A Socialist And A Democrat
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Hk_CzrnF8

    Clinton Awkwardly Dodges Question On Difference Between A Socialist And … https://youtu.be/w7Hk_CzrnF8 via @YouTube
    ……………………………………..
    DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Tongue-Tied Again: Still Can’t ID Difference Between Dem And Socialist http://www.weaselzippers.us/230724-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-tongue-tied-again-still-cant-id-difference-between-dem-and-socialist/ via @WeaselZippers

    DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz Can’t Explain The Difference Between The Democrats And Socialists
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsQddTHf130

    DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz Can’t Explain The Difference Between The Dem… https://youtu.be/lsQddTHf130 via @YouTube
    ……………………..
    DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Can’t Tell The Difference Between A Democrat And A Socialist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBYUINS7Vi4

  • Pingback: Moonbattery » Chuck Schumer Can’t Come Up With a Difference Between Democrats and Socialists()

  • Pingback: Chuck Schumer Can’t Come Up With a Difference Between Democrats and Socialists()

  • Pingback: Moonbattery » Daniel Hannan on Socialism Versus Liberty()

  • Pingback: Daniel Hannan on Socialism Versus Liberty()

  • Pingback: Moonbattery » Bernie Sanders Is a Communist()

  • Pingback: Bernie Sanders Is a Communist()

  • Pingback: Bernie Sanders Is a Communist - Uncle Sam's Blog()

  • Torcer

    “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.”

  • Torcer

    “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Lenin

  • Torcer

    “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.”

  • Torcer

    “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Lenin

  • Torcer

    Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

    This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on … (100 of 8,350 words)
    http://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

    so·cial·ism
    n.
    1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
    https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=socialism


    ……………………………………………………….

    socialism
    noun
    1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?

    ………………………………………………….

    socialism
    Definitions
    noun
    an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels . Compare capitalism
    any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
    (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
    Quotations including ‘socialism’

    “”If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years”” [Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    “”The worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents”” [George Orwell]
    “”The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism”” [Aneurin Bevan]
    “”Idleness, selfishness, fecklessness, envy and irresponsibility are the vices upon which socialism in any form flourishes and which it in turn encourages. But socialism’s devilishly clever tactic is to play up to all those human failings, while making those who practise them feel good about it”” [Margaret Thatcher
    “”Socialism can only arrive by bicycle”” [José Antonio Viera Gallo]
    British English: socialism Socialism is a political system with the aim of creating a society in which everyone has an equal opportunity to benefit from a country’s wealth. Under socialism, the country’s main industries are usually owned by the state….capitalism and socialism. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/socialism

    …………………………………………….

    socialism
    noun
    Socialism is defined as an economic theory, system or movement where the production and distribution of goods is done, owned and shared by the citizens of a society.
    Facts About Socialism
    In theory, citizens have equal access to the products and resources and are compensated based on the amount of work performed.
    Under the ideals of socialism, there is no motivation for workers to excel at their jobs because there is no benefit to the worker.
    Friedrich Engels, a French social theorist, developed modern socialistic theory in the late 18th century when he advocated the elimination of production methods based on capitalism.
    Karl Marx described socialism as a lower form of communism and held the opinion that socialism was an intermediary step in moving from capitalism to communism.
    Many movements across Europe embraced the Marxist view of socialism and this led to the protests and uprisings of the working class, including the labor unions.
    The two largest “socialistic” systems are the former Soviet Union and Mainland China. Each of these began with the ideals of socialism, but ended in becoming totalitarian in nature.
    An example of socialism is the Mainland Chinese economic system.
    socialism

    any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products
    a political movement for establishing such a system
    the doctrines, methods, etc. of the Socialist parties
    in Marxist doctrine, the stage of society coming between the capitalist and the communist stages

    socialism

    noun

    Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

    socialism
    Noun

    (usually uncountable, plural socialisms)

    (Marxism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism in Marxist theory in which the state has control of the means of production.
    Any of several later political philosophies such as libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy which do not envisage the need for full state ownership of the means of production nor transition to full communism, and which are typically are based on principles of community decision making, social equality and the avoidance of economic and social exclusion, with economic policy should giving first preference to community goals over individual ones.

    Related terms

    social

    Origin

    Attested since 1832; either from French socialisme or from social +”Ž -ism
    socialism – Investment & Finance Definition

    A political system that believes in society as a whole sharing ownership of property and the means of production, rather than allowing private individuals to acquire them. The government is heavily involved in providing for citizens’ needs, such as medical care. Socialism contrasts with capitalism, which is based on competition and little government involvement. In capitalism, individuals must provide for their own needs.
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism

    ……………………………………..

    socialism
    WordReference Random House Learner’s Dictionary of American English © 2016
    Governmenta theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled by groups or by the government.
    WordReference Random House Unabridged Dictionary of American English © 2016

    n.
    Governmenta theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    Government procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    Government(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Cf.utopian socialism.
    Etymology:
    social + -ism 1830–40
    http://www.wordreference.com/definition/socialism

    …………………………………………………………

    socialism
    so·cial·ism (sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
    n.
    1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
    socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)
    n
    1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels. Compare capitalism
    2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
    3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
    so•cial•ism (ˈsoʊ ʃəˌlɪz əm)

    n.
    1. a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.
    2. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
    [1830–40]
    socialism
    1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
    2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
    3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. — socialist, n., adj. — socialistic, adj.
    See also: Politics
    a theory of government based upon the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production by the community as a whole.
    See also: Government
    socialism
    A political theory advocating public ownership of the means of production and the sharing of political power by the whole community.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

  • Torcer

    Definition of socialism
    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

    Synonyms of socialism
    noun
    leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism;
    communism, Bolshevism; radicalism, militancy; progressivism, social democracy;labourism; Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism

    [Antonyms] conservatism
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english-thesaurus/socialism

  • Torcer

    Definition of socialism
    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

    ……………………..

    Definition of socialist
    noun
    A person who advocates or practises socialism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/socialist

  • Torcer

    Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

    This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on … (100 of 8,350 words)
    http://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

    so·cial·ism
    n.
    1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
    https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=socialism


    ……………………………………………………….

    socialism
    noun
    1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?

    ………………………………………………….

    socialism
    Definitions
    noun
    an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels . Compare capitalism
    any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
    (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
    Quotations including ‘socialism’

    “”If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years”” [Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    “”The worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents”” [George Orwell]
    “”The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism”” [Aneurin Bevan]
    “”Idleness, selfishness, fecklessness, envy and irresponsibility are the vices upon which socialism in any form flourishes and which it in turn encourages. But socialism’s devilishly clever tactic is to play up to all those human failings, while making those who practise them feel good about it”” [Margaret Thatcher
    “”Socialism can only arrive by bicycle”” [José Antonio Viera Gallo]
    British English: socialism Socialism is a political system with the aim of creating a society in which everyone has an equal opportunity to benefit from a country’s wealth. Under socialism, the country’s main industries are usually owned by the state….capitalism and socialism. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/socialism

    …………………………………………….

    socialism
    noun
    Socialism is defined as an economic theory, system or movement where the production and distribution of goods is done, owned and shared by the citizens of a society.
    Facts About Socialism
    In theory, citizens have equal access to the products and resources and are compensated based on the amount of work performed.
    Under the ideals of socialism, there is no motivation for workers to excel at their jobs because there is no benefit to the worker.
    Friedrich Engels, a French social theorist, developed modern socialistic theory in the late 18th century when he advocated the elimination of production methods based on capitalism.
    Karl Marx described socialism as a lower form of communism and held the opinion that socialism was an intermediary step in moving from capitalism to communism.
    Many movements across Europe embraced the Marxist view of socialism and this led to the protests and uprisings of the working class, including the labor unions.
    The two largest “socialistic” systems are the former Soviet Union and Mainland China. Each of these began with the ideals of socialism, but ended in becoming totalitarian in nature.
    An example of socialism is the Mainland Chinese economic system.
    socialism

    any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products
    a political movement for establishing such a system
    the doctrines, methods, etc. of the Socialist parties
    in Marxist doctrine, the stage of society coming between the capitalist and the communist stages

    socialism

    noun

    Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

    socialism
    Noun

    (usually uncountable, plural socialisms)

    (Marxism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism in Marxist theory in which the state has control of the means of production.
    Any of several later political philosophies such as libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy which do not envisage the need for full state ownership of the means of production nor transition to full communism, and which are typically are based on principles of community decision making, social equality and the avoidance of economic and social exclusion, with economic policy should giving first preference to community goals over individual ones.

    Related terms

    social

    Origin

    Attested since 1832; either from French socialisme or from social +”Ž -ism
    socialism – Investment & Finance Definition

    A political system that believes in society as a whole sharing ownership of property and the means of production, rather than allowing private individuals to acquire them. The government is heavily involved in providing for citizens’ needs, such as medical care. Socialism contrasts with capitalism, which is based on competition and little government involvement. In capitalism, individuals must provide for their own needs.
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism

    ……………………………………..

    socialism
    WordReference Random House Learner’s Dictionary of American English © 2016
    Governmenta theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled by groups or by the government.
    WordReference Random House Unabridged Dictionary of American English © 2016

    n.
    Governmenta theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    Government procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    Government(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Cf.utopian socialism.
    Etymology:
    social + -ism 1830–40
    http://www.wordreference.com/definition/socialism

    …………………………………………………………

    socialism
    so·cial·ism (sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
    n.
    1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
    socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)
    n
    1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels. Compare capitalism
    2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
    3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
    so•cial•ism (ˈsoʊ ʃəˌlɪz əm)

    n.
    1. a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.
    2. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
    [1830–40]
    socialism
    1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
    2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
    3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. — socialist, n., adj. — socialistic, adj.
    See also: Politics
    a theory of government based upon the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production by the community as a whole.
    See also: Government
    socialism
    A political theory advocating public ownership of the means of production and the sharing of political power by the whole community.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

  • Torcer

    Definition of socialism
    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

    Synonyms of socialism
    noun
    leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism;
    communism, Bolshevism; radicalism, militancy; progressivism, social democracy;labourism; Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism

    [Antonyms] conservatism
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english-thesaurus/socialism

  • Torcer

    About the People’s World
    Peoplesworld.org is a daily news website of, for and by the 99% and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker. Published by Long View Publishing Co., People’s World reports on the movements for jobs, peace, equality, democracy, civil rights and liberties, labor, immigrant, LGBT and women’s rights, protection of the environment, and more. Mundopopular.org provides the same coverage in Spanish.

    People’s World and Mundo Popular are known for partisan coverage. We take sides. Yours. The editorial mission is partisan to the working class, people of color, women, young people, seniors, LGBT community, to international solidarity; to popularize the ideas of Marxism and Bill of Rights socialism. The websites enjoy a special relationship with the Communist Party USA, founded in 1919, and publish its news and views. People’s World and Mundo Popular are part of the People Before Profit Network. Content on the website is licensed under Creative Commons.

    Since the first issue of the Daily Worker came off the press in 1924, this press has been in the battles of the U.S. working class and people’s movements. From the battles of the unemployed and the campaigns to organize the CIO in the 1930s-40s, through the civil rights and peace movements of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s to the struggles that have given us the “new” labor movement, to the people’s upsurge that elected our first African American president, and now the growing movements for a progressive, people’s agenda – the 99% – People’s World and Mundo Popular have been there.

    People’s World is part of the American independent and free press tradition, and now the growing netroots movement, in the U.S. Funded exclusively by readers – no corporate money, People’s World employs a small staff, but has a mighty network of volunteers, and together proudly produce what many call “the best working-class coverage in the country.”

    Memberships: People’s World is a member of the International Labor Communications Association and is indexed in the Alternative Press Index. Staff members belong to The Newspaper Guild/CWA, AFL-CIO.
    http://www.peoplesworld.org/about-the-peoples-world/

  • Torcer

    Definition of liberal
    adjective
    1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:
    1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
    1.2(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform: ‘a liberal democratic state’
    1.3 (Liberal) Relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party
    1.4 Theology Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
    2 [attributive] (Of education) concerned with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training: ‘the provision of liberal adult education’
    3(Especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal
    4Given, used, or occurring in generous amounts
    4.1(Of a person) giving generously
    noun
    1A person of liberal views:
    ‘a concern among liberals about the relation of the citizen to the state’
    1.1 (Liberal) A supporter or member of a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
    Origin
    Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’. The original sense was ‘suitable for a free man’, hence ‘suitable for a gentleman’ (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense ‘generous’ (compare with sense 4 of the adjective) gave rise to an obsolete meaning ‘free from restraint’, leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/liberal?

    Full Definition of LIBERAL
    1a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts ‘liberal education’
    b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
    2a : marked by generosity : openhanded ‘a liberal giver’
    b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way ‘a liberal meal’
    c : ample, full
    3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
    4: not literal or strict : loose a liberal translation
    5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
    6a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
    b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

    Origin of LIBERAL
    Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
    First Known Use: 14th century
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

  • Torcer

    Definitions of left
    2 Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    Left politics
    left periodicals such as Marxism Today
    2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    the Left is preparing to fight presidential elections
    he is on the left of the party
    Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/left

    Full Definition of LEFT
    1a : of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body in which the heart is mostly located
    b : done with the left hand a left hook to the jaw
    c : located nearer to the left hand than to the right
    d (1) : located on the left of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified (2) : located on the left when facing downstream the left bank of a river
    2 often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the left especially in politics
    Origin of LEFT
    Middle English, from Old English, weak; akin to Middle Low German lucht left; from the left hand’s being the weaker in most individuals
    First Known Use: 13th century
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left

  • Torcer

    Definition of liberal
    adjective
    1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:
    1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
    1.2(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform: ‘a liberal democratic state’
    1.3 (Liberal) Relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party
    1.4 Theology Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
    2 [attributive] (Of education) concerned with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training: ‘the provision of liberal adult education’
    3(Especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal
    4Given, used, or occurring in generous amounts
    4.1(Of a person) giving generously
    noun
    1A person of liberal views:
    ‘a concern among liberals about the relation of the citizen to the state’
    1.1 (Liberal) A supporter or member of a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
    Origin
    Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’. The original sense was ‘suitable for a free man’, hence ‘suitable for a gentleman’ (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense ‘generous’ (compare with sense 4 of the adjective) gave rise to an obsolete meaning ‘free from restraint’, leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/liberal?

    Full Definition of LIBERAL
    1a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts ‘liberal education’
    b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
    2a : marked by generosity : openhanded ‘a liberal giver’
    b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way ‘a liberal meal’
    c : ample, full
    3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
    4: not literal or strict : loose a liberal translation
    5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
    6a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
    b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

    Origin of LIBERAL
    Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
    First Known Use: 14th century
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

  • Torcer

    Thursday, 3 March 2011
    “We are socialists ….” Debunked

    “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler, Quoted in John Toland, “Adolf Hitler”, p224.

    Put into Google Hitler and socialist, and you’re bound to come up with various websites with the above quote. Because of the way in which it get’s used, i regard it as hitler’s “There is no such thing as society” moment. What i mean is, A quote which is Always taken out of context to further a false point.

    So what is the context you may ask? I provide the answer below.

    It was to only try and wean some of the working class support over to him that he made references like he did to socialism. And that never really worked, the Nazis always had the least support from the working class. In that particular section of the book Toland is discussing Hitler’s use of propaganda and his oratory style. He starts out by stating that the Berlin Nazi party (or Gau) was in disarray at this time and Goebbels was sent to straighten out the situation. He found that “The thousand party members under his jurisdiction were opposed on the streets by overwhelming numbers of Communists and Social Democrats.” The course of action they decided on was to do everything they could to pick fights and to basically ‘Red Bait’ the Leftists in order to enflame violence, and to use propaganda to confuse the masses to try and weaken the real Left. “Goebbles decided it was now time to broaden the base of membership and to do that he had to attract the attention of the jaded public, “Berlin needs its sensations as a fish needs water”, he (Goebbels) wrote” (ibid p223) So the best way they decided to inflame the situation was for violent action “SA troops deliberately sought out physical combat with the Reds,” (Ibid p224) and for Hitler to give a speech on May Day. And not only that, but to give speeches in meeting halls that were taken over from the Communists. “”Making noise” he (Hitler) once said, “is an effective means of opposition”” (Ibid p224) And that is the true light that the quote must be taken as, making noise to provoke. False propaganda meant to inflame. Fights were started and the Newspapers proclaimed that there was this little known party, as it was not very large in Berlin at the time, fighting the Communists and Socialists. “The publicity was meant to be derogatory but in the next few days 2600 applications for membership were received,” (Ibid p224) So this all served their purpose. And Toland, immediately after using the quote, and in the very next sentence of the same paragraph states, “This was followed by a long dissertation on Lebensraum, in Hitler’s continuing effort to pound this concept into the membership. Sixty-two million Germans he said, were crowded into an area only 450,000 kilometers square. “This is a ridiculous figure when one considers the size of other nations in the world today.” There were two solutions: either decrease he population by “chasing our best human material out of Germany” or “bring the soil into consonance with the population, even if it must be done by war. This is the natural way which Providence has prescribed.” (Ibid p225)

    Notice a couple of things here, first that he only uses one line calling himself a socialist and this is meant to inflame the Socialists and the rest of the Left, just get publicity and to confuse those that may not know the reality behind their party. The latter of which Hitler makes clear in his detailed policy of Lebensraum which has nothing to do with socialism. So not only does he merely state without any justification that he is a socialist, he makes it clear that his policy is not a socialist one but a racial and colonial one. So Hitler does not at all expound on the socialist statement, but he goes into detail on Lebensraum, which makes it clear that there is no real socialism behind his ‘socialist’ statement but there is to his expansionary and racist policies. “Again and again he hammered at race and the fact that Germany’s future lay in the conquest of eastern territories. Over and over he preached his pseudo-Darwinist sermon of nature’s way: conquest of the weak by the strong.” (Ibid p226) As an honest reading of Toland would indicate; something that those that use this quote like Ray has obviously not done, but had probably only acquired it from a cheap Web search, probably from a Heritage institute or Glen Beck site; The mentioning of ‘Socialist’ was only propaganda. It is part of a larger section by Toland treating that subject and the attempt by the Nazi to develop support while weakening the other parties. Except for the racial policy and expansion, Hitler, when the party was first building its support, would say anything, no matter how disingenuous, to try and be attractive to every segment of the political society.

    “The Nazis continued to be a catch-all party of social protest, with particularly strong support from the middle classes, and the relatively weak support from in the traditional industrial working class” Richard J Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich” p295
    http://historyandpolitics77.blogspot.com/2011/03/we-are-socialists-debunked.html

  • Torcer

    Definition of psychosis
    A severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality:
    they were suffering from a psychosis
    [mass noun]: the symptoms of psychosis
    Origin
    Mid 19th century: from Greek psukhōsis ‘animation’, from psukhoō ‘I give life to’, from psukhē ‘soul, mind’.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/psychosis

  • Torcer

    Debunking GOP lies
    October 25, 2009
    The GOP uses deception and fears to try to break the president and his agenda for change. Ultra-right broadcasters even lie about our World War II enemy. Their claims about health care, big business and “socialism” in Nazi Germany are not only untrue, but vicious and ignorant.

    Right-wing radio and television propagate the lie that the Nazis supported national health care. Germany’s national health care system was created under Otto von Bismarck in 1883, nearly 40 years before fascism in Italy and nearly 50 years before Nazism. Nazi Germany, like the present Republican Party, opposed the policy but failed to defeat mass sentiment. The right-wing claim is not only a lie, but an insult to our World War II troops. Those troops did not fight against an enemy that supported health care rights; they fought against and saved the world from fascist dictatorship. The Republican Party leadership utters not one word of protest for this monstrous lie. But there are more GOP lies.

    When they claim that Hitler and the Nazis hated big business, the right wingers once again ignore and desecrate history. Hitler did nothing to reduce the profits of and exploitation by German and even U.S. corporations. Large firms, including U.S. employers, cut labor costs drastically. According to Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels in “Profits Above All: American Corporations and Hitler,” Ford-Werke reduced labor costs by 25% under the Nazis. Coca-Cola bragged that workers at the Coke plant in Essen were “little more than serfs forbidden not only to strike, but to change jobs.” Workers were driven to work harder and faster while their wages “were deliberately set quite low.” The Nazis murdered workers in the service of corporations like Krupp and I.G. Farben. The Nazis dissolved labor unions and threw anti-fascists into jail and concentration camps. The profits and power of big business increased in Nazi Germany to unprecedented heights.

    The claim that the Nazis were socialists is another lie. Socialism was on the agenda for nearly five decades in Germany. German fascists used the term “national socialist” to attract voters, but they were most certainly not socialists. Nazis were and remain violently opposed to socialism. A socialist government sides with trade unions. A socialist government by definition demands health care, public education and all other democratic rights. A socialist government does not wage aggressive wars. A socialist government does not use war economy to avoid crises. A socialist government does not deny workers’ democratic rights. A socialist government certainly does not imprison, torture, and murder anti-fascists. Big business did not support the Nazis in words and deeds to bring about socialism; they turned to fascism to protect wealth and privilege.

    The Nazi opposition to health care, the Nazi support for big business, and the Nazi opposition to socialism, trade union and other democratic rights are eerily similar to the GOP compliance of the ultra right in Congress and on the air-waves.
    http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/debunking-gop-lies/

  • Torcer

    USSR
    Pronunciation: /juːɛsɛsˈɑː(r)
    Definition of USSR in English:
    abbreviation
    historical
    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/USSR

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    (abbreviation: USSR)
    Definition of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in English:
    Full name of Soviet Union.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics

  • Torcer

    Why is there no left (Socialist, Communist or Labor) party in the United States?
    Dec 05, 2009

    That’s the question.

    There is no Socialist, Communist or Labor Party in the United States. Those parties are what pass for left in other countries, and every country that allows them has them. Except the United States. In the US, liberal Democrats are the left. In the UK, or Germany, they are the center. In Japan they are the right, although their policies are little different from those of American liberal Democrats. Even Canada has Liberals in the center, Conservatives on the right, and the Socialist International member New Democratic Party on the left. That’s what is meant when it is said that the United States is a Center-Right country. Not that the American left can’t take power, but that the American left is anyone else’s center.

    “Here’s the latest book about it.

    Join as below the fold as we consider the many different possible explanations.

    I. DEFINITION

    The first thing we need to do is define “Socialist” in this context. Just to be fair, even to the crazy wingnuts who insist that liberalism = Socialism = Communism = Naziism, we will take a very broad, multi-definition approach.

    Any member party of the Socialist International qualifies as Socialist. Any member of such a Party would qualify as a Socialist. That makes everyone from Nelson Mandela to Tony Blair a Socialist. Of course, in the context of the British Labor Party a “Socialist” is something more, but I don’t speak British, and you probably don’t either. D-Kos certainly isn’t written in British.

    If that’s not broad enough for you, let’s include anyone who self-identifies as Socialist. That includes Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Socialism, even though he and his party aren’t in the Socialist International. Just to make the wingnuts happy we can even include Hitler here, despite the fact that the German Social Democrats, the real German Socialist Party, was the one and only political party that actually voted against Hitler taking power in Germany. That even includes the Communists, who commonly denounced the Socialists as “Social Fascists” or worse. It’s only in the United States that “Socialist” is an epithet instead of a description, and where “Red States” are on the right, not the left.

    II. THE REAL AMERICAN SOCIALISTS

    Once upon a time, there was a real Socialist Party in the United States. In 1912 they got 6% of the vote for President, elected two Congressional Representatives, and had dozens of mayors from Reading, Pennsylvania to Berkeley, California. This story has to be about what happened to them. They began declining, either in 1912 (when they purged their left wing), or in 1917 (when two Communist Parties split off) or in the 1930s (they had a brief resurgence in the Depression and got 2.2% of the presidential vote in 1932), but by the 1950s, instead of fusing with the Democrats as the Populists had, the Socialists had dwindled into insignificance, and no longer bothered with their presidential campaign. The Party suffered a three way split over the Vietnam War, but remained insignificant and relatively unknown to today. The graveyard of third parties in Jon Stewart’s America: A Guide to Democracy Inaction ignores them, though it includes the Anti-Masons, and even the Communists, who never reached anywhere near the size of the Socialists.

    III. WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THE SOCIALISTS (a brief aside):

    It should be obvious that the Democrats are not the Socialists by now, if you hadn’t figured that out from being a Democrat yourself. However, here’s further proof if your wingnut friends and relatives don’t get it.

    When the Socialists split three ways over the Vietnam War, two of the successor groups, the Social Democrats U.S.A. (SDUSA) and the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC, which later merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America, DSA) thought the Democratic Party should become the Socialist Party in the United States. They were both attracting some support back in the ’80s. Congressman Ron Dellums (“Berkeley’s Red Congressman” to the Republicans) joined DSA, while Senator Moynihan of New York would address SDUSA meetings and talk about how we had to take back the word “Socialism” from the Communists. But he never actually joined SDUSA.

    Moderate Democrats, led by the then unknown governor of the obscure state of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, were alarmed. They formed an organization you’re all familiar with, the Democratic Leadership Council, (DLC) to counter the Socialist argument that the Democrats should move left and declare themselves the Socialist Party in the United States. Clinton rode his DLC and its opposition to Socialism all the way to the White House. The Democratic Socialists are today totally marginalized, and there’s a good possibility that the Social Democrats don’t even exist. Of course it didn’t stop a certain Lush Windbag from calling Clinton a Socialist, but that just shows how marginal the real Socialists are from the American political conversation. I think everyone here knows the DLC, but their former nemeses are largely forgotten. Dems are blue, not red. (Thanks to John Yossarian for reminding us that the DSA still exists. I think most people even here were unaware of them.)

    Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont did say, in response to Amy Goodman’s direct question on DemocracyNow, that he considered himself a Democratic Socialist, but he runs as an independent, just like Joe Lieberman. The Dems don’t run anyone against him because otherwise the Republicans might take his seat. He caucuses with the Democrats, again like Joe Lieberman does, because, hey, who’s he gonna caucus with? Himself? But he’s not really a Democrat. Just ask him. Or ask the Democrats. Especially the DLC.

    V. SO WHAT WAS THIS SOCIALIST PARTY, ANYWAY?

    Populists who wouldn’t “fuse”?

    A. Yes and no. Some Populists who wouldn’t fuse with the Democrats did wind up in the Socialist Party, but others left politics altogether. If it had been the anti-fusion wing of the Populists it would have been stronger in North Carolina, where the Populists were cooperating with the Republicans rather than the Democrats. Although the Socialist Party did have strength among tenant farmers it was more of a working people’s party than the Populists, who were basically an agrarian movement.

    “Debs for president” movement?

    A. Again, yes and no. Debs was a charismatic speaker who attracted strong personal support. Many people say he created and dominated the party the way George Wallace did the American Independent Party or H. Ross Perot the Reform Party. Then without Debs the Socialists collapsed. But there was always more to the Socialist Party than Debs. They didn’t even nominate him in 1916 (and went down in the presidential polls). He had to fight with the other tendencies in the party for his own ideas. And Norman Thomas was a famous national figure running as the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate for many decades afterwards.

    A branch of the German Social Democratic Party?

    A. Again, yes and no. The Wisconsin Party, centered in Milwaukee, could well be characterized that way, and the Party had so many German immigrant members that they were vilified as agents of the Kaiser for refusing to support American entry into World War I. But there were many such immigrant language federations in the Socialist Party, not just Germans, and there were significant groups of native-born Americans in it. The Party got its highest percentage of votes for president in 1912 in Oklahoma and Nevada, neither then known for its German immigrant population.

    Extreme of Progressive movement?

    A. Again, yes and no. The moderate wing of the SP, the so-called “slowcialists”, rubbed up against the left wing of the progressive movement. But there were real philosophical differences between them. Walter Lippmann worked on a Socialist campaign in 1912, and wrote a famous letter asking what was the difference between Socialists and Democrats if the party abandoned its ultimate goal of transforming the economy. He never got an answer and switched to the Democrats.

    “Wild west” near anarchist miners?

    A. Again, yes and no. The left wing of the Socialist Party was the IWW, centered in the west and with a core of hard-rock miners. The IWW itself was split between Socialists and Anarchists so badly they passed a resolution telling political and anti-political activists to shut up during union meetings. The right wing of the Socialist Party decided this was an anarchist takeover of the IWW and used it as an excuse to purge the “Wobblies” from the Party. But the western, nearly anarchist wing of Socialism was still very strong.

    different parties in every state?

    A. Yeah, I have to go along with that one. It’s often said that the United States doesn’t have two national parties, only two coalitions of fifty different state parties that get together once every four years to fight. The Socialists were no different. The Oklahoma sodbuster tenant farmers were very different from the brewery workers in Milwaukee. The New York Jewish Socialists were very different from miners in Goldfield Nevada. Once every four years they got together to nominate someone for president, who was usually Gene Debs. But not always.

    They were all of the above – and probably more!

    V. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS SOCIALIST PARTY, ANYWAY?

    1. America’s two party system?

    Maybe the fact that the presidential system and one seat constituencies forces the American political landscape into two parties caused the Socialists to go the way of every other third party since the Civil War? Canada has a Socialist Party (the New Democrats) but they have a three party system. So do most European countries, with a liberal party, a conservative party and a socialist or labor party.

    But why not a two party system with Socialists and Liberals, like Japan had with its 1955 system? Some people argue that the real question is not the weakness of the American left, but the strength of the right. Without an established church or feudal privilege to defend the US right is unburdened by any of the baggage that helped the left grow in other countries.

    The relatively high US standard of living?

    Yeah, right, like that’s still true. Sure, it was once, but that was then. This is now. Besides, the relative gap between classes is greater in the US than in any other developed country. So I can’t believe this explanation. I really wonder if I can take it seriously.

    Social divisions within the working class?

    Americans are divided by religion, race, ethnicity, region, etc. etc. etc. The working class could never unite on a socialist platform because they were more interested in ethnic and other forms of identification, and the ethnic vote is still more important than any class consciousness.

    Sure, in relation to European countries and Japan, but what about Australia (where the division between Irish and English settlers over the Republic question is still important) or Brazil, which is even more ethnically diverse than the US is? I don’t think this explanation holds water either.

    A narrow and weak base in the labor unions?

    In most countries with Socialist parties there is a strong relationship between the Socialist party and the labor unions. In Britain the unions set up the Labor Party. In Germany the Social Democratic Party set up the labor unions. In the US there have been many Socialists in the labor movement, but other labor leaders have been downright hostile to Socialism. The first union boss who ever became president of the United States was Ronald Reagan, who got his political start in the Screen Actors’ Guild, a union with strong right and left wings.

    But what’s cause here and what’s effect? Is Socialism so weak in the US because unions don’t support it, or are so many unions hostile to Socialism because Socialism is so weak in the US, and they don’t want to be associated with it?

    Foreigners are stupid!

    Don’t laugh! This is actually proposed as a serious explanation. European workers were illiterate, and had to ask leftist intellectuals to write down their demands for them. The intellectuals added something at the end about socialization of the means of production, and Socialism was born out of this marriage of convenience between illiterate workers and leftist intellectuals. In the US universal primary education was traditional, workers could write their own demands, and demands for socialization of the means of production never occurred to anyone and never entered the workers’ demands.

    This explanation is so stupid I’m not even going to bother to refute it. But believe it or not, there is another equally stupid explanation that gets around.

    Americans are stupid!

    I’m not even going to mess with this one. Help yourself in the comments.

    VI. CONCLUSION

    The brief answer is I don’t know either. I do feel strongly that the explanation should not be sought in something about American national character. After all, there was a Socialist Party in the US. It was very American (pragmatic, organized as a coalition of State Parties, and not really some foreign excrescence on the body politic). Maybe they shot themselves in the foot with the purge of the left in 1912, maybe they couldn’t overcome corporate power and funding, maybe it’s just a coincidence, and why do humans have to find deep meaning in everything?

    You tell me. Then we’ll write it up and make a fortune.
    https://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/5/799918/-

  • Torcer

    “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey, he is obligated to do so.” – Thomas Jefferson

  • Torcer

    All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party. Mao Zedung

  • Torcer

    A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
    – Benjamin Franklin

  • Torcer

    Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for never
    intending to go beyond promises, it costs nothing. – Edmund Burke

  • Torcer

    Official name
    The Principality of Andorra
    Australia
    The Commonwealth of the Bahamas
    Barbados
    Belize
    Burkina Faso
    Canada
    The Cook Islands
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    The Commonwealth of Dominica
    The State of Eritrea
    Faroe Islands
    Georgia
    Hungary
    Ireland
    The State of Israel
    Jamaica
    Japan
    The State of Kuwait
    The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
    Malaysia
    The United Mexican States
    The Principality of Monaco
    Mongolia
    Montenegro
    The Kingdom of the Netherlands
    New Zealand
    The Kingdom of Norway
    Independent State of Papua New Guinea
    The State of Qatar
    Romania
    Saint Kitts and Nevis
    Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    The Independent State of Samoa
    Solomon Islands
    The Kingdom of Sweden
    The Swiss Confederation
    Tokelau
    Tuvalu
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    The United States of America
    http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/iso3list/en/

    …………………………………….

    Short name Official name
    Andorra the Principality of Andorra
    Australia Australia
    Bahamas the Commonwealth of the Bahamas
    Barbados Barbados
    Belize Belize
    Burkina Faso Burkina Faso
    Canada Canada
    Cook Islands the Cook Islands
    Denmark the Kingdom of Denmark
    Dominica the Commonwealth of Dominica
    Eritrea the State of Eritrea
    Faroe Islands (Associate Member) Faroe Islands
    Georgia Georgia

    Germany the Federal Republic of Germany

    Hungary Hungary
    Ireland Ireland
    Israel the State of Israel
    Jamaica Jamaica
    Japan Japan
    Kuwait the State of Kuwait
    Luxembourg the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
    Malaysia Malaysia
    Mexico the United Mexican States
    Monaco the Principality of Monaco
    Mongolia Mongolia
    Montenegro Montenegro
    Netherlands the Kingdom of the Netherlands
    New Zealand New Zealand
    Norway the Kingdom of Norway
    Papua New Guinea Independent State of Papua New Guinea
    Qatar the State of Qatar
    Romania Romania
    Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Kitts and Nevis
    Saint Lucia Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    Samoa the Independent State of Samoa
    Solomon Islands Solomon Islands
    Spain the Kingdom of Spain
    Sweden the Kingdom of Sweden
    Switzerland the Swiss Confederation
    Tokelau (Associate Member) Tokelau
    Tuvalu Tuvalu
    Ukraine Ukraine
    United Kingdom the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    United States of America the United States of America
    http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/iso3list/en/

  • Torcer

    The Communist Manifesto after 100 years

    It is now 150 years since the Communist Manifesto was first published. Much has happened in the almost 150 years since this article* was written but its analysis remains valid today. Capitalism remains capitalism and Marxism and socialism are as valid as ever.

    The Communist Manifesto, the most famous document in the history of the socialist movement, was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the latter part of 1847 and the first month of 1848. It was published in February 1848. This appreciation of the Manifesto at the end of its first century is thus more than a year late. This is a case, however, in which we hope our readers will agree with us: better late than never.
    Historical importance of the Manifesto

    What gives the Manifesto its unique importance? In order to answer this question it is necessary to see clearly its place in the history of socialism.

    Despite a frequently encountered opinion to the contrary, there was no socialism in ancient or medieval times. There were movements and doctrines of social reform which were radical in the sense that they sought greater equality or even complete community of consumer goods, but none even approached the modern socialist conception of a society in which the means of production are publicly owned and managed. This is, of course, not surprising. Production actually took place on a primitive level in scattered workshops and agricultural strips — conditions under which public ownership and management were not only impossible but even unthinkable.

    The first theoretical expression of a genuinely socialist position came in Thomas More’s Utopia, written in the early years of the 16th Century — in other words, at the very threshold of what we call the modern period. But Utopia was the work of an individual genius and not the reflection of a social movement. It was not until the English Civil War, in the middle of the 17th Century, that socialism first began to assume the shape of a social movement.

    Gerrard Winstanley (born 1609, died sometime after 1660) was probably the greatest socialist thinker that the English-speaking countries have yet produced, and the Digger movement which he led was certainly the first practical expression of socialism. But it lasted only a very short time, and the same was true of the movement led by Babeuf during the French Revolution a century and a half later. Meanwhile, quite a number of writers had formulated views of a more or less definitely socialist character.

    But it was not until the 19th Century that socialism became an important public issue and socialists began to play a significant role in the political life of the most advanced European countries. The Utopian socialists (Owen, Fourier, St. Simon) were key figures in this period of emergence; and the Chartist movement in Britain, which flourished during the late 1880s and early 1840s, showed that the new factory working class formed a potentially powerful base for a socialist political party.

    Thus we see that socialism is strictly a modern phenomenon, a child of the industrial revolution which got under way in England in the 17th Century and decisively altered the economic and social structure of all of western Europe during the 18th and early 19th Centuries. By 1840 or so, socialism had arrived in the sense that it was already widely discussed and politically promising.

    But socialism was still shapeless and inchoate — a collection of brilliant insights and perceptions, of more or less fanciful projects, of passionate beliefs and hopes. There was an urgent need for systematisation; for a careful review picking out what was sound, dropping what was unsound, integrating into the socialist outlook the most progressive elements of bourgeois philosophy and social science.

    It was the historical mission of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to perform this task. They appeared on the scene at just the right time; they were admirably prepared by background and training; they seized upon their opportunity with a remarkably clear estimate of its crucial importance to the future of mankind.

    Marx and Engels began their work of transforming socialism “from Utopia to science” in the early 1840s. In the next few years of profound study and intense discussion they worked out their own new socialist synthesis. The Manifesto for the first time broadcast this new synthesis to the world — in briefest compass and in arrestingly brilliant prose.

    The Manifesto thus marks a decisive watershed in the history of socialism. Previous thought and experience lead up to it; subsequent developments start from it. It is this fact which stamps the Manifesto as the most important document in the history of socialism. And the steady growth of socialism as a world force since 1848 has raised the Manifesto to the status of one of the most important documents in the entire history of the human race.
    How should we evaluate the Manifesto today?

    How has the Manifesto stood up during its first 100 years? The answer we give to this question will depend largely on the criteria by which — consciously or unconsciously — we form our judgments.

    Some who consider themselves Marxists approach the Manifesto in the spirit of a religious fundamentalist approaching the Bible — every word and every proposition were literally true when written and remain sacrosanct and untouchable after the most eventful century in world history. It is, of course, not difficult to demonstrate to the satisfaction of any reasonable person that this is an untenable position. For this very reason, no doubt, a favorite procedure of enemies of Marxism is to assume that all Marxists take this view of the Manifesto. If the Manifesto is judged by the criterion of 100 per cent infallibility it can be readily disposed of by any second-rate hack who thus convinces himself that he is a greater man than the founders of scientific socialism. The American academic community, it may be noted in passing, is full of such great men today. But theirs is a hollow victory which, though repeated thousands of times every year, leaves the Manifesto untouched and the stature of its authors undiminished.

    Much more relevant and significant are the criteria which Marx and Engels themselves, in later years, used in judging the Manifesto. For this reason the prefaces which they wrote to various reprints and translations are both revealing and important (especially the prefaces to the German edition of 1872, the Russian edition of 1882, the German edition of 1883, and the English edition of 1888). Let us sum up what seem to us to be the main points which emerge from a study of these prefaces:

    In certain respects, Marx and Engels regarded the Manifesto as clearly dated. This is particularly the case as regards the programmatic section and the section dealing with socialist literature (end of Part II and all of Part III).
    The general principles set forth in the Manifesto were, in their view, “on the whole as correct today as ever” (first written in 1872, repeated in 1888).
    The experience of the Paris Commune caused them to add a principle of great importance which was absent from the original, namely, that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes.” In other words, the “ready-made state machinery” had been created by and for the existing ruling classes and would have to be replaced by new state machinery after the conquest of power by the working class.
    Finally — and this is perhaps the most important point of all — in their last joint preface (to the Russian edition of 1882), Marx and Engels brought out clearly the fact that the Manifesto was based on the historical experience of western and central Europe. But by 1882 Russia, in their opinion, formed “the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe,” and this development inevitably gave rise to new questions and problems which did not and could not arise within the framework of the original Manifesto.

    It is thus quite obvious from these later prefaces that Marx and Engels never for a moment entertained the notion that they were blueprinting the future course of history or laying down a set of dogmas which would be binding on future generations of socialists. In particular, they implicitly recognised that as capitalism spread and drew new countries and regions into the mainstream of modern history, problems and forms of development not considered in the Manifesto must necessarily be encountered.

    On the other hand, Marx and Engels never wavered in their conviction that the general principles set forth in the Manifesto were sound and valid. Neither the events of the succeeding decades nor their own subsequent studies, profound and wide-ranging as they were, caused them to alter or question its central theoretical framework.

    It seems clear to us that in judging the Manifesto today, a century after its publication, we should be guided by the same criteria that the authors themselves used 25, 30, and 40 years after its publication. We should not concern ourselves with details but should go straight to the general principles and examine them in the light of the changed conditions of the mid-20th Century.
    The general principles of the Manifesto

    The general principles of the Manifesto can be grouped under the following headings: (a) historical materialism, (b) class struggle, (c) the nature of capitalism, (d) the inevitability of socialism, and (e) the road to socialism. Let us review these principles as briefly and concisely as we can.

    HISTORICAL MATERIALISM: This is the theory of history which runs through the Manifesto as it does through all the mature writings of Marx and Engels. It holds that the way people act and think is determined in the final analysis by the way they get their living; hence the foundation of any society is its economic system; and therefore economic change is the driving force history. Part I of the Manifesto is essentially a brilliant and amazingly compact application of this theory to the rise and development of capitalism from its earliest beginnings in the Middle Ages to its full-fledged mid-19th Century form. Part II contains a passage which puts the case for historical materialism as against historical idealism with unexampled clarity:

    Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

    What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

    When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

    CLASS STRUGGLE: The Manifesto opens with the famous sentence: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” This is in no sense a contradiction of the theory of historical materialism hut rather an essential part of it. “Hitherto existing society” (Engels explained in a footnote to the 1888 edition that this term should not be interpreted to include preliterate societies) had always been based on an economic system in which some people did the work and others appropriated the social surplus. Fundamental differences in the method of securing a livelihood — some by working, some by owning — must, according to historical materialism, create groups with fundamentally different and in many respects antagonistic interests, attitudes, aspirations. These groups are the classes of Marxian theory. They, and not individuals, are the chief actors on the stage of history. Their activities and strivings — above all, their conflicts — underlie the social movements, the wars and revolutions, which trace out the pattern of human progress.

    THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM: The Manifesto contains the bold outlines of the theory of capitalism which Marx was to spend most of the remainder of his life perfecting and elaborating. (It is interesting to note that the term “capitalism” does not occur in the Manifesto; instead, Marx and Engels use a variety of expressions, such as “existing society,”, “bourgeois society,”, “the rule of the bourgeoisie”, and so forth.) Capitalism is pre-eminently a market, or commodity-producing, economy, which “has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’.” Even the laborer is a commodity and must sell himself piecemeal to the capitalist. The capitalist purchases labor (later Marx would have substituted “labor power” for “labor” in this context) in order to make profits, and he makes profits in order to expand his capital. Thus the laborers form a class “who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital.”

    It follows that capitalism, in contrast to all earlier forms of society, is a restlessly expanding system which “cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.” Moreover, “the need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” Thanks to these qualities, “the bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.” But, by a peculiar irony, its enormous productivity turns out to be the nemesis of capitalism. In one of the great passages of the Manifesto, which is worth quoting in full, Marx and Engels lay bare the inner contradictions which are driving capitalism to certain shipwreck:

    Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

    THE INEVITABILITY OF SOCIALISM: The mere fact that capitalism is doomed is not enough to ensure the triumph of socialism. History is full of examples which show that the dissolution of a society can lead to chaos and retrogression as well as to a new and more progressive system. Hence it is of greatest importance that capitalism by its very nature creates and trains the force which at a certain stage of development must overthrow it and replace it by socialism. The reasoning is concisely summed up in the last paragraph of Part I:

    The essential condition for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

    THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM: There are two aspects to this question as it appears in the Manifesto: first, the general character of the socialist revolution; and, second, the course of the revolution on an international scale.

    The socialist revolution must be essentially a working-class revolution, though Marx and Engels were far from denying a role to elements of other classes. As pointed out above, the development of capitalism itself requires more and more wage workers; moreover, as industry grows and the transport network is extended and improved, the workers are increasingly unified and trained for collective action. At a certain stage this results in the “organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party.” The contradictions of capitalism will sooner or later give rise to a situation from which there is no escape except through revolution. What Marx and Engels call the “first step” in this revolution is the conquest of power, “to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” It is important to note — because it has been so often overlooked — that basic social changes come only after the working class has acquired power:

    The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive powers as rapidly as possible.

    This will be a transition period during which the working class “sweeps away by force the old conditions of production.” (In view of present-day misrepresentations of Marxism, it may be as well to point out that “sweeping away by force” in this connection implies the orderly use of state power and not the indiscriminate use of violence.) Finally, along with these conditions, the working class will have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

    In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

    So much for the general character of the socialist revolution. There remains the question of the international course of the revolution. Here it was clear to Marx and Engels that though the modern working-class movement is essentially an international movement directed against a system which knows no national boundaries, “yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle.” And from this it follows that “the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” At the same time, Marx and Engels were well aware of the international character of the counter-revolutionary forces which would certainly attempt to crush an isolated workers’ revolution. Hence, “united action of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.” Thus the various national revolutions must reinforce and protect one another and eventually merge into a new society from which international exploitation and hostility will have vanished. For, as Marx and Engels point out:

    In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

    As to the actual geography of the revolution, Marx and Engels took it for granted that it would start and spread from the most advanced capitalist countries of western and central Europe. At the time of writing the Manifesto, they correctly judged that Europe was on the verge of a new revolutionary upheaval, and they expected that Germany would be the cockpit:

    The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

    This prediction, of course, turned out to be over-optimistic. Not the revolution but the counter-revolution won the day in Germany, and indeed in all of Europe. But at no time in their later lives did Marx and Engels revise the view of the Manifesto that the proletarian, or socialist, revolution would come first in one or more of the most advanced capitalist countries of western and central Europe. In the 1870s and 1880s they became increasingly interested in Russia, convinced that that country must soon be the scene of a revolution similar in scope and character to the great French Revolution of 100 years earlier. No small part of their interest in Russia derived from a conviction that the Russian revolution, though it would be essentially a bourgeois revolution, would flash the signal for the final showdown in the West. As Gustav Mayer says in his biography of Engels, speaking of the later years, “his speculations about the future always centered on the approaching Russian revolution, the revolution which was to clear the way for the proletarian revolution in the West.” (English translation, p. 278) But “he never imagined that his ideas might triumph, in that Empire lying on the very edge of European civilisation, before capitalism was overthrown in western Europe.” (p. 286)
    The general principles of the Manifesto a hundred years later

    What are we to say of the theoretical framework of the Manifesto after 100 years? Can we say, as Marx and Engels said, that the general principles are “on the whole as correct today as ever”? Or have the events of the last five or six decades been such as to force us to abandon or revise these principles? Let us review our list item by item.

    HISTORICAL MATERIALISM: The last half century has certainly provided no grounds whatever to question the validity of historical materialism. Rather the contrary. There has probably never been a period in which it was more obvious that the prime mover of history is economic change; and certainly the thesis has never been so widely recognised as at present. This recognition is by no means confined to Marxists or socialists; one can even say that it provides the starting point for an increasingly large proportion of all serious historical scholarship. Moreover, the point of view of historical materialism — that “man’s ideas, views, and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life” — has been taken over (ordinarily without acknowledgment, and perhaps frequently without even knowledge, of its source) by nearly all social scientists worthy of the name. It is, of course, true that the world-wide crisis of the capitalist system, along with the wars and depressions and catastrophes to which it has given rise, has produced a vast outpouring of mystical, irrational theories in recent years, and that such theories are increasingly characteristic of bourgeois thought as a whole. But wherever sanity and reason prevail, both inside and outside the socialist movement, there the truth of historical materialism is ever more clearly perceived as a beacon lighting up the path to an understanding of human society and its history.

    CLASS STRUGGLE: The theory of class struggle, like the theory of historical materialism, has been strengthened rather than weakened by the events of the last half century. Not only is it increasingly clear that internal events in the leading nations of the world are dominated by class conflicts, but also the crucial role of class conflict in international affairs is much nearer the surface and hence more easily visible today than ever before. Above all, the rise and spread of fascism in the inter-war period did more than anything else possibly could have done to educate millions of people all over the world to the class character of capitalism and the lengths to which the ruling class will go to preserve its privileges against any threat from below. Moreover, here, as in the case of historical materialism, serious social scientists have been forced to pay Marx and Engels the compliment of imitation. The study of such diverse phenomena as social psychology, the development of Chinese society, the caste system in India, and racial discrimination in the United States South, is being transformed by a recognition of the central role of class and class struggle. Honest enemies of Marxism are no longer able to pooh-pooh the theory of class struggle as they once did; they now leave the pooh-poohing to the dupes and paid propagandists of the ruling class. They must admit, with H. G. Wells, that “Marx, who did not so much advocate the class war, the war of the expropriated mass against the appropriating few, as foretell it, is being more and more justified by events” (The Outline of History, Vol. II, p. 399); or, with Professor Talcott Parsons, Chairman of the Social Relations Department at Harvard, that “the Marxian view of the importance of class structure has in a broad way been vindicated.” (Papers and Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May 1949, p. 26)

    THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM: In political economy, bourgeois social science has borrowed less from, and made fewer concessions to, the Marxian position than in historiography and sociology. The reason is not far to seek. Historical materialism and class struggle are general theories which apply to many different societies and epochs. It is not difficult, with the help of circumlocutions and evasions, to make use of them in relatively “safe” ways and at the same time to obtain results incomparably more valuable than anything yielded by the traditional bourgeois idealist and individualist approaches. When it comes to political economy, however, the case is very different. Marxian political economy applies specifically to capitalism, to the system under which the bourgeois social scientist lives (and makes his living) here and now; its conclusions are clear-cut, difficult to evade, and absolutely unacceptable to the ruling class. The result is that for bourgeois economists Marxian political economy scarcely exists, and it is rare to find in their writings an admission of Marx’s greatness as an economist stated so specifically as in the following: “He was the first economist of top rank to see and to teach systematically how economic theory may be turned into historical analysis and how the historical narrative may be turned into histoire raisonnee.” (J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 1st edition, p. 44)

    Does the neglect of Marx as an economist indicate the failure of the ideas of the Manifesto? On the contrary; the correlation is an inverse one. What idea has been more completely confirmed by the last century than the conception of capitalism’s restless need to expand, of the capitalist’s irresistible urge to “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere”? Who can deny today that the periodical return of crises is a fact which puts the “existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly”? Who can fail to see that “the conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them”? In short, who can any longer be blind to the fact that capitalism is riddled with contradictions which make its continued existence — at least in anything like its traditional form — impossible and unthinkable?

    THE INEVITABILITY OF SOCIALISM: There are, of course, many who, recognising the dire straits to which the capitalist world has come, believe that it is possible to patch up and reform the system in such a way as to make it serve the real interests of society. But their number is diminishing every day, and conversely the great international army of socialism is growing in strength and confidence. Its members have every reason for confidence.

    When the Manifesto was written, socialism was composed of “little sects,” as Engels told the Zurich Congress of the Second International in 1893; by that time, two years before his death, it “had developed into a powerful party before which the world of officialdom trembles.”

    Twenty-five years later, after World War I, one sixth of the land surface of the globe had passed through a proletarian revolution and was, as subsequent events showed, securely on the path to socialism.

    Three decades later, after World War II, more than a quarter of the human race, in eastern Europe and China, had followed suit.

    If capitalism could not prevent the growth of socialism when it was healthy and in sole possession of the field, what reason is there to suppose that it can now perform the feat when it is sick to death and challenged by an actually functioning socialist system which grows in strength and vigor with every year that passes? The central message of the Manifesto was the impending doom of capitalism and its replacement by a new, socialist order. Has anything else in the whole document been more brilliantly verified by the intervening 100 years? (This statement calls for revision following following the defeat of socialism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. However, in the present period, working-class struggles, the socialist movement and particularly struggles in the under-developed countries are on the increase again)

    THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM: Much of what Marx and Engels said in the Manifesto about the general character of the socialist revolution has been amply confirmed by the experience of Russia. The working class did lead the way and play the decisive role. The first step was “to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class.” The proletariat did “use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, … and to increase the total of productive powers as rapidly as possible.” The conditions for the existence of class antagonisms have been “swept away.” On the other hand, the relative backwardness of Russia and the aggravation of class and international conflicts on a world scale have combined to bring about the intensification rather than the dismantling of state power in the USSR. The achievement of “an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” remains what it was a century ago, a goal for the future. It is also true that an important part of what is said in the Manifesto about the international course of the revolution has been corroborated by subsequent experience. The socialist revolution has not taken the form of a simultaneous international uprising; rather it has taken, and gives every prospect of continuing to take, the form of a series of national revolutions which differ from one another in many respects. Such differences, however, do not alter the fact that in content all these socialist revolutions, like the bourgeois revolutions of an earlier period, are international in character and are contributing to the building of a new world order. We cannot yet state as a fact that this new world order will be one from which international enmity will have vanished, and the quarrel between Yugoslavia and the other socialist countries of eastern Europe may seem to point to an opposite conclusion. The present status of international relations, however, is so dominated by the division of the world into two systems and the preparation of both sides for a possible “final” conflict, and the existence of more than one socialist country is such a recent phenomenon, that we shall do well to reserve judgment on the import of the Yugoslav case. In the meantime, the reasons for expecting the gradual disappearance of international exploitation and hostility from a predominantly socialist world are just as strong as they were 100 years ago.

    We now come to our last topic, the geography of the socialist revolution. Here there can be no question that Marx and Engels were mistaken, not only when they wrote the Manifesto but in their later writings as well. The socialist revolution did not come first in the most advanced capitalist countries of Europe; nor did it come first in America after the United States had displaced Great Britain as the world’s leading capitalist country. Further, the socialist revolution is not spreading first to these regions from its country of origin; on the contrary, it is spreading first to comparatively backward countries which are relatively inaccessible to the economic and military power of the most advanced capitalist countries. The first country to pass through a successful socialist revolution was Russia, and this was not only not anticipated by Marx and Engels but would have been impossible under conditions which existed during the lifetime of their generation.

    Why were Marx and Engels mistaken on this issue? We must examine this question carefully, both because it is an important issue in its own right and because it is the source of many misconceptions.

    At first sight, it might appear that the mistake of Marx and Engels consisted in not providing explanatory principles adequate to account for the Russian Revolution. But we do not believe that this reaches the heart of the problem. It is, of course, true, as we pointed out above, that during the 1870s and 1880s Marx and Engels denied the possibility of a socialist revolution in Russia. But at that time they were perfectly right, and it is not inconsistent to record this fact and at the same time to assert that the pattern and timing of the Russian Revolution were in accord with the principles of the Manifesto. What is too often forgotten is that between 1880 and World War I, capitalism developed extremely rapidly in the empire of the tsars. In 1917 Russia was still, on the whole, a relatively backward country; but she also possessed some of the largest factories in Europe and a working class which, in terms of numbers, degree of organisation, and quality of leadership, was almost entirely a product of the preceding three decades. Capitalism was certainly more highly developed in Russia in 1917 than it had been in Germany in 1848. Bearing this in mind, let us substitute “Russia” for “Germany” in a passage from the Manifesto already quoted above:

    The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Russia, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Russia will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

    Clearly, what Marx and Engels had over-optimistically predicted for Germany in 1848 actually occurred in Russia 70 years later. What this means is that, given the fact that the socialist revolution had failed to materialise in the West, Russia was, even according to the theory of the Manifesto, a logical starting point.

    Furthermore, there is no contradiction between Marxian theory and the fact that the socialist revolution, having once taken place in Russia, spread first to relatively backward countries. For Marx and Engels fully recognised what might be called the possibility of historical borrowing. One consequence of the triumph of socialism anywhere would be the opening up of new paths to socialism elsewhere. Or, to put the matter differently, not all countries need go through the same stages of development; once one country has achieved socialism, other countries will have the possibility of abbreviating or skipping certain stages which the pioneer country had to pass through. There was obviously no occasion to discuss this question in the Manifesto, but it arose later on in connection with the debate among Russian socialists as to whether Russia would necessarily have to pass through capitalism on the way to socialism. In 1877 Marx sharply criticised a Russian writer who

    felt obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch (in Capital) of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophical theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man.
    Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 354

    And Engels, in 1893, dealt with the specific point at issue in the Russian debate in the following terms:

    … no more in Russia than anywhere elswould it have been possible to develop a higher social form out of primitive agrarian communism unless — that higher form was already in existence in another country, so as to serve as a model. That higher form being, wherever it is historically possible, the necessary consequence of the capitalistic form of production and of the social dualistic antagonism created by it, it could not be developed directly out of the agrarian commune, unless in imitation of an example already in existence somewhere else. Had the West of Europe been ripe, 1860-70, for such a transformation, had that transformation then been taken in hand in England, France, etc., then the Russians would have been called upon to show what could have been made out of their commune, which was then more or less intact.
    Selected Correspondence, p. 515

    While this argument is developed in a particular context, it is clear that the general principle involved — the possibility of historical borrowing — applies to, say, China today. Unless both the theory and the actual practice of socialism had been developed elsewhere it is hardly likely that China would now be actually tackling the problem of transforming itself into a socialist society. But given the experience of western Europe (in theory) and of Russia (in both theory and practice), this is a logical and feasible course for the Chinese Revolution to take.

    Thus we must conclude that while of course Marx and Engels did not expect Russia to be the scene of the first socialist revolution, and still less could they look beyond and foretell that the next countries would be relatively backward ones, nevertheless both of these developments, coming as and when they did, are consistent with Marxian theory as worked out by the founders themselves. What, then, was the nature of their mistake?

    The answer, clearly, is that Marx and Engels were wrong in expecting an early socialist revolution in western Europe. What needs explaining is why the advanced capitalist countries did not go ahead, so to speak, “on schedule” but stubbornly remained capitalist until, and indeed long after, Russia, a latecomer to the family of capitalist nations, had passed through its own socialist revolution. In other words, how are we to explain the apparent paradox that, though in a broad historical sense socialism is undeniably the product o{ capitalism, nevertheless the most fully developed capitalist countries not only were not the first to go socialist but, as it now seems, may turn out to be the last? The Manifesto does not help us to answer this question; never in their own lifetime did Marx and Engels imagine that such a question might arise.
    The problem of the advanced capitalist countries

    To explain why the advanced capitalist countries have failed to go socialist in the 100 years since the publication of the Manifesto is certainly not easy, and we know of no satisfactory analysis which is specifically concerned with this problem. But it would be a poor compliment to the authors of the Manifesto, who have given us all the basic tools for an understanding of the nature of capitalism and hence for an understanding of our own epoch, to evade a problem because they themselves did not pose and solve it. Let us therefore indicate — as a stimulus to study and discussion rather than as an attempt at a definitive answer — what seem to us to be the main factors which have to be taken into account.

    If we consider the chief countries of Europe, certain things seem clear. First, even under conditions prevailing in the middle of the 19th Century, Marx and Engels underestimated the extent to which capitalism could still continue to expand in these countries.

    Second, and much more important, this “margin of expansibility” was vastly extended in the three or four decades preceding World War I by the development of a new pattern of imperialism which enabled the advanced countries to exploit the resources and manpower of the backward regions of the world to a previously unheard-of degree. As Lenin concisely put it in 1920: “Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries.” (Collected Works, Vol. XIX, p. 87) (This development only began to take place toward the end of Marx’s and Engels’ lives, and it would have been little short of a miracle if they had been able to foresee all its momentous consequences.)

    Third, it was this new system of imperialism which brought western Europe out of the long depression of the 1870s and 1880s, gave capitalism a new lease on life, and enabled the ruling class to secure — by means of an astute policy of social reforms and concessions to the working class — widespread support from all sections of society.

    The other side of the imperialist coin was the awakening of the backward peoples, the putting into their hands of the moral, psychological, and material means by which they could begin the struggle for their political independence and their economic advancement.

    In all this development, it should be noted, Russia occupied a special place. The Russian bourgeoisie, or at least certain sections of it, participated in the expansion of imperialism, especially in the Middle and Far East. But on balance Russia was more an object than a beneficiary of imperialism. Hence few, if any, of the effects which imperialism produced in the West — amelioration of internal social conflicts, widespread class collaboration, and the like — appeared in Russia.

    To sum up: imperialism prolonged the life of capitalism in the West and turned what was a revolutionary working-class movement (as in Germany) or what might have become one (as in England) into reformist and collaborationist channels. It intensified the contradictions of capitalism in Russia. And it laid the foundations of a revolutionary movement in the exploited colonial and semi-colonial countries. Here, it seems to us, is the basic reason why the advanced capitalist countries of western Europe failed to fulfill the revolutionary expectations of the Manifesto. Here also is to be found an important part of the explanation of the role which Russia and the backward regions of the world have played and are playing in the world transition from capitalism to socialism.

    But, it may be objected, by the beginning of the 20th Century the United States was already the most advanced capitalist country, and the United States did not really become enmeshed in the imperialist system until World War I. Why did the United States not lead the way to socialism?

    Generally speaking, the answer to this question is well known. North America offered unique opportunities for the development of capitalism; the “margin of expansibility” in the late 19th Century was much greater than that enjoyed by the European countries even when account is taken of the new system of imperialism which was only then beginning to be put into operation. There is no space to enumerate and analyse the advantages enjoyed by this continent; the following list, compiled and commented upon by William Z. Foster in a recent article (“Marxism and American Exceptionalism”, Political Affairs, September 1947), certainly includes the most important: (1) absence of a feudal political national past, (2) tremendous natural resources, (3) a vast unified land area, (4) insatiable demand for labour power, (5) highly strategic location, and (6) freedom from the ravages of war.

    American capitalism, making the most of these advantages, developed a degree of productivity and wealth far surpassing that of any other capitalist country or region; and it offered opportunities for advancement to members of the working class which — at least up until the Great Depression of the 1930s — were without parallel in the history of capitalism or, for that matter, of any class society that ever existed. (On this point, see the article on “Socialism and American Labor”, by Leo Huberman, in the May 1949 issue of Monthly Review.) This does not mean, of course, that the United States economy was at any time free from the contradictions of capitalism; it merely means that American capitalism, in spite of these contradictions, has been able to reach a much higher level than the capitalist system of other countries. It also means that capitalism in this country could go — and actually has gone — further than in the European imperialist countries toward winning support for the system from all sections of the population, including the working class. It is thus not surprising that the United States, far from taking the place of western Europe as the leader of the world socialist revolution, has actually had a weaker socialist movement than any other developed capitalist country.

    We see that, for reasons which could hardly have been uncovered 100 years ago, capitalism has been able to dig in deep in the advanced countries of western Europe and America and to resist the rising tide of socialism much longer than Marx and Engels ever thought possible.

    Before we leave the problem of the advanced countries, however, a word of caution seems necessary. It ought to be obvious, though it often seems to be anything but, that to say that capitalism has enjoyed an unexpectedly long life in the most advanced countries is very different from saying that it will live forever. Similarly, to say that the western European and American working classes have so far failed to fulfill the role of “grave-diggers” of capitalism is not equivalent to asserting that they never will do so. Marx and Engels were certainly wrong in their timing, but we believe that their basic theory of capitalism and of the manner of its transformation into socialism remains valid and is no less applicable to western Europe and America than to other parts of the world.

    Present-day indications all point to this conclusion. Two world wars and the growth of the revolutionary movement in the backward areas have irrevocably undermined the system of imperialism which formerly pumped lifeblood into western European capitalism. The ruling class of the United States, threatened as never before by the peculiar capitalist disease of overproduction, is struggling, Atlas-like, to carry the whole capitalist world on its shoulders — and is showing more clearly every day that it has no idea how the miracle is to be accomplished.

    Are we to assume that the western European and American working classes are so thoroughly bemused by the past that they will never learn the lessons of the present and turn their eyes to the future? Are we to assume that, because capitalism was able to offer them concessions in its period of good fortune, they will be content to sink (or be blown up) with a doomed system?

    We refuse to make any such assumptions. We believe that the time is not distant when the working man of the most advanced, as well as of the most backward, countries will be compelled, in the words of the Manifesto, “to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind.” And when he does, we have no doubt that he will choose to live under socialism rather than die under capitalism.
    Conclusion

    On the whole, the Manifesto has stood up amazingly well during its first 100 years. The theory of history, the analysis of capitalism, the prognosis of socialism, have all been brilliantly confirmed. Only in one respect — the view that socialism would come first in the most advanced capitalist countries — has the Manifesto been proved mistaken by experience. This mistake, moreover, is one which could hardly have been avoided in the conditions of 100 years ago. It is in no sense a reflection on the authors; it only shows that Engels was right when he insisted in his celebrated critique of Duhring that “each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker.”

    How fortunate it would have been for mankind if the world socialist revolution had proceeded in accordance with the expectations of the authors of the Manifesto! How much more rapid and less painful the crossing would be if Britain or Germany or — best of all — the United States had been the first to set foot on the road! Only imagine what we in this country could do to lead the world into the promised land of peace and abundance if we could but control, instead of being dominated by, our vast powers of production!

    But, as Engels once remarked, “history is about the most cruel of all goddesses.” She has decreed that the world transition from capitalism to socialism, instead of being relatively quick and smooth, as it might have been if the most productive and civilised nations had led the way, is to be a long drawn-out period of intense suffering and bitter conflict.

    There is even a danger that in the heat of the struggle some of the finest fruits of the bourgeois epoch will be temporarily lost to mankind, instead of being extended and universalised by the spread of the socialist revolution. Intellectual freedom and personal security guaranteed by law — to name only the most precious — have been virtually unknown to the peoples who are now blazing the trail to socialism; in the advanced countries, they are seriously jeopardised by the fierce onslaughts of reaction and counter-revolution.

    No one can say whether they will survive the period of tension and strife through which we are now passing, or whether they will have to be rediscovered and recaptured in a more rational world of the future.

    The passage is dangerous and difficult, the worst may be yet to come. But there is no escape for the disillusioned, the timid, or the weary.

    Those who have mastered the message of the Manifesto and caught the spirit of its authors will understand that the clock cannot be turned back, that capitalism is surely doomed, and that the only hope of mankind lies in completing the journey to socialism with maximum speed and minimum violence.

    * This essay was written by Paul Sweezy in collaboration with his fellow editor of Monthly Review, Leo Huberman, and was first published as an editorial in the issue of August 1949.

    http://www.cpa.org.au/amr/38/amr38-06-communist-manifesto.html

  • Torcer

    Hitler Was Not a Leftist
    Posted By: Good German Aug 21, 2012
    Most people will respond to the title of this post with “No duh!” But there’s been a lot of effort by conservatives on the Internet to portray Hitler as a leftist. After all, economic laissez-faire is the sole definition of the right, and anything else is therefore left, right?

    Wrong. No true, intelligent libertarian accepts the one-dimensional left/right political spectrum as accurate, which is why they’ve proposed a two-dimensional political compass. And as I posted a while back, Noah Millman has proposed an even more descriptive three-dimensional political taxonomy.

    While I don’t agree with all the points presented in the following article, enough of them are true to prove that while the Nazis may or may not have been true right-wingers, they certainly weren’t leftists. (For the record, they viewed themselves as syncretists, not that you have to take their word for it.)

    Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

    Fact: Nearly all of Hitler’s beliefs placed him on the far right.

    Summary

    Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic. Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

    ———————–

    Argument

    To most people, Hitler’s beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler’s warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

    The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word “National” evokes the state, and the word “Socialist” openly identifies itself as such.

    However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s “Liberal Democrat” party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party “socialist,” but whether or not it actually was.

    In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people — after all, wasn’t the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves “socialist,” but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

    Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

    Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

    The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers — that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn’t matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a “socialist” or a “democrat.” If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

    And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi “Charter of Labor” gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the “leader of the enterprise,” and read: “The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise.”

    http://disinfo.com/2012/08/hitler-was-not-a-leftist/

  • Torcer

    Hitler Wasn’t A Socialist. Stop Saying He Was (The Telegraph)
    By Tim Stanley
    March 15th, 2014
    The Telegraph, February 26, 2014
    Dr Tim Stanley is a historian of the United States. His new book about Hollywood politics is out in May. His personal website is http://www.timothystanley.co.uk and you can follow him on Twitter

    The comparison between Hitlerism and Marxism doesn’t bear scrutiny. My colleague Dan Hannan argues that Hitler was a socialist. It’s a popular idea among libertarians, often used to shame the opposition – after all the Nazis did call themselves National Socialists. But, then again, Tony Blair once said he was a socialist, too. So labels can be misleading.
    That Hitler wasn’t a socialist became apparent within weeks of becoming Chancellor of Germany when he started arresting socialists and communists. He did this, claim some, because they were competing brands of socialism. But that doesn’t explain why Hitler defined his politics so absolutely as a war on Bolshevism – a pledge that won him the support of the middle-classes, industrialists and many foreign conservatives.

    Dan asserts that Hitler was a socialist with reservations, that:

    Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order.

    Yet, by this very definition, Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Marxism is defined by class war, and socialism is accomplished with the total victory of the Proletariat over the ruling classes. By contrast, Hitler offered an alliance between labour and capital in the form of corporatism – with the express purpose of preventing class war. Marxists regarded this as one of the stages of capitalist development and few at the time legitimately interpreted the Third Reich to be a socialist society. The radical George Bernard Shaw, for example, certainly expressed sympathy for Hitler when he came to power but later described the dictator’s socialism as fraudulent – as a way of buying off the inevitable revolution. He wore, in Shaw’s opinion, “the latest mask of capitalism.”

    Indeed, while the Nazis continued the Weimar Republic’s policy of nationalisation, they also privatised quite a few things, too: some steelworks, four major banks and the railways. The profit generated almost 1.4 per cent of the state’s income from 1934-38. Industrialists did well in the Nazi years, helped by a state policy of crushing the unions and emphasising full employment over raising pay. It is true that the economy was socialised in the latter part of the 1930s, but not for the sake of building socialism. It was to prepare for war. Politics came before economics in the fascist state to the degree that it’s hard to conceive of Hitler as a coherent economic thinker at all. He would’ve done anything to aid his conquest of Eastern Europe, and a command economy proved to be better at building tanks than the free market. Given that the dictator enjoyed the support of a bourgeoisie that accepted that sacrifices had to be made to defend their profits against socialism, we might define the Third Reich as capitalism embracing aspects of socialist economics in order to defend the interests of capitalists. Shaw was right.

    Another key regard in which Hitler was no socialist was his racism. Again, Marxism defines history as a class struggle. Hitler saw it as a racial conflict – and Bolshevism as a Jewish construct. As he put it himself:

    In Russian Bolshevism we must see the attempt undertaken by the Jews in the twentieth century to achieve world domination. Just as in other epochs they strove to reach the same goal by other, though inwardly related processes. Their endeavor lies profoundly rooted in their essential nature. Germany is today the next great war aim of Bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent, and to stop the inner contamination of our blood, in order that the forces of the nation thus set free can be thrown in to safeguard our nationality, and thus can prevent a repetition of the recent catastrophes down to the most distant future.

    I shouldn’t have to spell out that this has nothing to do with socialism, Marxism, Trotskyism, dialectical materialism, or the Green Party. Hitler’s goals were, in fact, totally antithetical to the egalitarianism of socialism. The irony is that he was sometimes prepared to use socialist economics to pursue his agenda. But, to repeat, this was because politics held priority over consistent economic theory. For instance, German farms were not collectivized as Marxism demanded. They were certainly protected from competition and the farmer held up as the Aryan ideal. But even this was all for show: agriculture fell in importance as the war loomed and industrialization took priority. Economic policy ebbed and flowed from what might crudely be termed “left to right”. But defeating the “Jewish” communist movement was the only thing that ever really mattered.

    So how do we explain why Hitler often called himself a socialist? It’s a matter of fashion: in the 1920s and 1930s, socialism was the wave of the future and had a massive effect upon the political discourse. Lots of people used the terminology of Marxism without necessarily signing up to it or even understanding it. And plenty of governments spoke of the need to raise living standards, help the poor or even manage the economy – but we wouldn’t call them Marxist. America had its New Deal; Sweden its Social Democracy. The Japanese militarised their entire country, but did so to expand the domain of an emperor that they thought was a living god, which is hardly classic commie behaviour. In Britain, Stanley Baldwin’s government spent millions on a house building programme and set up the state-owned BBC. But Stanley was no Stalin.

    Now, libertarians say that they call Hitler a socialist in part to counter Left-wingers calling everyone they don’t like “fascists”. They have a good point and it’s very irritating when the Left does this. But not just because its offensive to equate Iain Duncan Smith with Goebbels: because it’s an abuse of the facts of history. It’s almost impossible for the informed reader to find any equivalence between Hitler and modern politics, but too many people try too often to do so. For instance, whenever atheists insist that he was an example of Catholic/Christian chauvinism they forget his intense hatred of Christianity. And whenever religious conservatives try to make out that he was an atheist, they forget how happy he was to borrow Christian language or to work with clerical collaborators. A classic example of the misuse of Hitler’s record is the gun debate. He did not, as some libertarians say, take away Germany’s guns. That policy started under Weimar and, if anything, it was Hitler who rearmed the populace by arming his henchmen, expanding the army and invading Poland. Hitler liked guns. Really, really liked guns.

    Yet the accusation that X or Y is “just like Hitler” remains common. And there are some libertarians who assert that something is only Right-wing if it embraces classical liberalism; while everything that imagines a role for the state in the economy has been historically Left-wing. But Right-wing authoritarianism most certainly exists. Fascism is the violent use of the state to achieve Right-wing objectives: social order, religious chauvinism, the protection of private profit etc.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100261121/hitler-wasnt-a-socialist-stop-saying-he-was/
    http://constantinereport.com/hitler-wasnt-socialist-stop-saying-telegraph/

  • Torcer

    When a great truth once gets abroad in the world, no power on earth can
    imprison it, or prescribe its limits, or suppress it. – F. Douglass

  • Torcer

    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. – Thomas Sowell

  • Torcer

    “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property
    of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they
    put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon
    absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge
    which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.” -John
    Locke

  • Torcer

    Debunking The “Nazis Were Leftists” Lie
    Posted on 17 January 2011 by Shoq

    Nonsense is nonsense
    …and it should be exposed as such; often and always. There are few right wing lies quite so annoying as “the Nazis were Leftists/Socialists/Communists” lie. The revisionist hooey whores like Jonah Goldberg have made it easier for this orchestrated stupidity to gain new traction with his “Liberal Fascism” screed. The left, as it is quite good at doing lately, has utterly failed to push back against this absurdity in any focused manner, so this too gains acceptance among those who think Obama was born in Kenya, the media is liberal, Canadians are overwhelming the U.S. health care system, and government can’t create jobs.

    Below I’ve put down a few good articles you can use to defuse this idiotic argument. It’s not hard. I will update it as I have time. If you know of some brief or extended articles I should add here, please pass them along to me via Twitter or in comments below.

    Please use the Tweet button below and help pass this along to friends, neighbors, and sane countrymen. Thanks!
    Brief Debunkers

    Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda
    http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html
    The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term “National Socialism,” a self description of the Nazis. “National Socialism” includes the word “socialism”, but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for “illegal socialist activity” in 1936.

    Debunking GOP lies
    http://peoplesworld.org/debunking-gop-lies/
    The GOP uses deception and fears to try to break the president and his agenda for change. Ultra-right broadcasters even lie about our World War II enemy. Their claims about health care, big business and “socialism” in Nazi Germany are not only untrue, but vicious and ignorant

    The ‘Socialists Are Communists’ Myth
    http://1millionunited.org/blogs/blog/2010/01/01/the-socialists-are-communists-myth/
    The Myth 1 — The Nazis were National Socialists and therefore Nazism is a form of socialism. The left-wing parties like Labour and the Greens are therefore similar to the Nazis politically.

    The Truth 1 — Nope: a common mistake propagated by people who think that a name means what it says. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo, the German Democratic Republic or the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea). Any takers for claiming them as being democracies?

    Extended Debunkers

    Myth: Hitler was a Leftist—by Steve Kangas
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
    To most people, Hitler’s beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler’s warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

    The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word “National” evokes the state, and the word “Socialist” openly identifies itself as such.

    However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels

    Readings on American Nazism from Southern Poverty Law Center
    http://www.splcenter.org/search/apachesolr_search/nazis%20were%20socialists%20myth%20germany
    SPLC has some great articles in their archive that reveal just how many of the more vicious and ignorant Nazi myths have been morphed and migrated into American extremist’s culture. Often with the tacit approval of many mainstream conservatives and Republicans.

    The money shot

    If you just don’t have a lot of time, you can use Hitler’s own words from Mein Kampf,
    http://genius.com/Adolf-hitler-chapter-7-the-conflict-with-the-red-forces-annotated
    where the Furhrer clearly illustrates his contempt for the “leftists,” and had used their colors (not to mention their name) to annoying them:

    Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything once and for all and put an end to these meetings. More often than not everything hung on a mere thread, and only the chairman’s ruthless determination and the rough handling by our ushers baffled our adversaries’ intentions. And indeed they had every reason for being irritated.

    The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant.

    The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words ‘Fellow-countrymen and Women’ for ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ and addressed each other as ‘Party Comrade’. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.

    We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.

    Why Did Fascists Like Hitler Encourage Conflating Ideologies?

    This from David McGowan puts it fairly succinctly:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=UjrOjRznzQMC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Related

    Bibliography – Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany
    http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler/Bibliography
    The Third Reich—by Christian Leitz (google excerpts)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=vhKOdDi5DXEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Third+Reich:+the+essential+readings++By+Christian+Leitz&source=bl&ots=N_H14AHIpS&sig=VWwcggjD4qhMVW5QHpbD6OSa-jk&hl=en&ei=dfI0TYLFIIH78Aau4qW9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Liberal Fascism: A Critique-From The Left
    http://secularhumanism.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberal-fascism-critique-from-left.html
    Shoq Value: When Historical Lies Are Allowed To Flourish
    http://shoqvalue.com/when-historical-lies-are-allowed-to-flourish
    http://shoqvalue.com/the-nazis-were-leftists-lie

  • Torcer

    March 8, 2014
    Tim Stanley and National Socialism
    By Paul Austin Murphy

    On the 26th of February the Telegraph (Britain’s oldest and most renowned national newspaper) published an article by the columnist Tim Stanley. The piece is called ‘Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Stop saying he was’.

    Tim Stanley certainly isn’t one of the better Telegraph journalists; though he may be one of the youngest. Quite simply, Stanley appears to have only consulted analyses of both socialism and Hitler which were written by Marxists. Whether or not all these historians and theorists are self-described “Marxists” is more or less irrelevant; as is the question as to whether or not Stanley knew that they were Marxist analyses.

    Many British people have been bred on various Marxist historical and theoretical analyses of “Adolf Hitler and the rise of the Nazis”. Indeed some of the UK’s best-known historians and theorists were Marxists (e.g., Eric Hobsbawm , E. P. Thompson, Christopher Hill, Perry Anderson, Edward Arthur Thompson, and Ralph Miliband). No doubt these Marxists, and other writers who aren’t Marxists across the board, have provided Tim Stanley with some of the source material for his article.

    Is Tim Stanley a Marxist? No.

    Some of Tim Stanley’s arguments — if that’s the right word — are no less than childish. Take this one:

    “Tony Blair once said he was a socialist [like Hitler], too. So labels can be misleading.”

    Tim Stanley, some claim, “once said” he was a conservative. (Stanley’s beliefs have fluctuated wildly over the last ten years or so.) Despite that, he offers us a Marxist analysis — quite literally! — of Hitler and the Nazis. However, when I say that Tim Stanley — or anyone else for that matter — offers us a Marxist analysis of X or Y, I’m not thereby saying that he’s an outright Marxist — full stop. Marxists analyses of all sorts of things are in the air and have been for a long time. This simply means that many people aren’t even aware that they are offering us a Marxist analysis of X or Y.

    Take the very popular Marxist analyses of Islam which are prevalent at the moment. All of which seem to completely disregard Islam’s religious nature and the autonomy or free will of Muslims. Islam, according to such analyses, is simply — or basically — the “super-structural” expression of “poverty”, “alienation”, “foreign interventions” or even of the high price of bread. That is, according to Marx and contemporary Marxists, Islam is simply “the sigh of the oppressed creature.” Marxists are, therefore, denying Islam — and the minds of millions of Muslims — the right or ability to run free of “socioeconomic material conditions”. In other words, this is classic Marxist materialism as applied to Islam and one billion Muslims.

    Tim Stanley, as well as Marxists, also assume this very same lack of independence from socioeconomic material conditions — or from capitalism — in the cases of Hitler and National Socialism.

    Hitler and the Capitalists

    Many Marxists are one-tune merchants when it comes to Hitler and the Nazis. That single tune is that Nazism was all about capitalism. And, of course, blaming the entire ideology of Nazism on capitalism (as well as all the actions and beliefs of Hitler) is a bit like blaming everything on the Jews.

    The Marxist Nazism-capitalism angle is two-fold:

    1) Nazism arose because of capitalism and its failures.

    2) Hitler gained power because of capitalism (or at least because of capitalists).

    Marxists like simple explanations because they are politically simpleminded. However, that simplemindedness doesn’t arise because Marxists are thick or stupid. The simplicity of Marxist theories or explanations are necessary for the revolutionary project.

    In the case of Tim Stanley himself, what’s his basic point? It really is very simple: some of the people who supported the Nazis were capitalists. I agree. Nonetheless, most of his supporters weren’t. It is of course then added, by Marxists and Tim Stanley, that this capitalist support was what “really mattered” to Hitler because capitalists supplied money, power, and influence. Nonetheless, capitalists, of various kinds, have also supported various communist/Trotskyist parties, George Monbiot (the Green-socialist toff and snob), environmentalist parties and groups, the American Democratic Party, and the British Labour Party.

    It’s also the case that some capitalists – and who can blame them — support the political party (as with the Nazis) which they think will gain power. Or, alternatively, they support the winners after they have gained power.

    In addition, it could equally be said that Hitler required working class and (national) socialist support just as much as he required capitalist support.

    Tim Stanley makes more of his capitalist-Hitler scenario when he tells us that “Hitler defined his politics so absolutely as a war on Bolshevism.” And because of that war, Hitler “won the support of the middle-classes, industrialists and many foreign conservatives.”

    For a start, Hitler didn’t win the support of all the middle-classes because many of them were communists, socialists, liberals, old-style conservatives, etc. He wouldn’t have won the support of all the “industrialists” either because many of them would also have been old-style conservatives or liberals. And the idea that all “foreign conservatives” supported Hitler is outrageous and obviously false. (Tim Stanley doesn’t use the word “all”; though that is what he implies.)

    In addition, if Hitler had won the support of naturists or green environmentalists (which, in the latter case, he did); that wouldn’t have shown us that Hitler’s Nazism was all about naturism or all about green environmentalism. Neither would such support show that Hitler wasn’t a socialist or that he was a friend of capitalism; as numerous of his own quotes show!

    Which Socialism?

    Surely only a Marxist would totally disregard Hitler’s thirteen or so years of explicit socialism (from 1919 to 1933) followed by the following years of slightly less explicit socialism.

    For a start, no one has ever claimed that Hitler’s socialism was identical to Marx’s (revolutionary) socialism. Then again, Lenin’s or Trotsky’s socialism wasn’t identical to Marx’s socialism either; just as, today, the socialism of the UK’s Socialist Workers Party is not identical to that of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB).

    Tim Stanley himself says:

    “Yet, by this very definition, Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Marxism is defined by class war, and socialism is accomplished with the total victory of the Proletariat over the ruling classes.”

    Here Stanley succinctly and mindlessly fuses Marxism with socialism. This is a thoroughly Marxist analysis because it ignores all the other alternative non-revolutionary — and even alternative revolutionary — socialisms which existed both before and after Marx.

    Tim Stanley also simply assumes, as do all contemporary Leftists, that socialists cannot “by this very definition” also be nationalists and racists.

    This Telegraph columnist also displays his political inanity and naivety when he attempts to prove Hitler’s anti-socialism by telling us that “within weeks of becoming Chancellor of Germany when he started arresting socialists and communists.” Stanley concludes from this that “Hitler wasn’t a socialist”.

    The fact that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, etc. also arrested, killed, and committed acts of violence against the wrong kinds of socialist seems to have escaped Tim Stanley’s confident mind. In fact, in the struggle for power that is politics, even if Hitler had an exact replica or counterpart he would have still fought against him. (Think here about the bitter and often violent battles between rival Trotskyist groups.)

    Conclusion

    Finally, the Bolsheviks mentioned by Tim Stanley offered a rival brand of socialism — international socialism. It was a bad kind of socialism to Hitler because it wasn’t national (or racial) socialism.

    Marxists, and by osmosis many non-Marxists (such as Tim Stanley himself), have — for the last 70 years or so — effectively erased the socialism from National Socialism. (Evidently they have kept the nationalism and the racism.) And it has all been an utter con. Nonetheless, it is a fully understandable con — from a Leftist perspective — in that Hitler’s socialism ties him to all our contemporary communist/Trotskyist/ “progressive” socialists. In other words, it’s crystal clear that Hitler’s fellow totalitarian socialists don’t like this dirty family secret being made known to the wider public. This is strange, really, because literally every day International Socialists in the U.S. and UK betray their totalitarian instincts (e.g., in the UK they are keen on ending free speech) and thus their many family resemblances to both Adolf Hitler and to National Socialism.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/tim_stanley_and_national_socialism.html

  • Torcer

    A few brief thoughts on this rather feeble debate – Mail Online – Peter …

    hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/12/a-few-brief-thoughts-on-this-rather-feeble-debate.html Proxy Highlight

    Dec 2, 2015 … Imagine someone doing that because he decided the USSR wasn’t ‘socialist.’ Such a person would be mocked across the kingdom as a fool.
    ———————————————————————————–
    The Pathetic Lives of Putin’s American Dupes – Democratic …
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024667231
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024667231
    The USSR wasn’t Socialist! africanadian, Mar 2014, #13. Line Reply Kick & highly recommended! William769, Mar 2014, #15. Line Reply …
    ——————————————————————
    Marxism 2011 Part I | swp radiocast

    https://swpradiocast.bandcamp.com/album/marxism-2011-part-i Proxy Highlight

    Maxine Bowler – State Capitalism: Why the USSR wasn’t Socialist – Marxism 2011 25. Richard Boyd Barret, Alex Callinicos, Maria Styllou and Jesus Castillo ..
    —————————————————-
    Communism: The Promise and the Reality – Top Documentary Films
    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/communism/
    http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com/communism/

    The USSR wasn’t communist, China isn’t, North Korea isn’t. For most people this will be a shock – but it is entirely true. In reality, what most people think of as …
    ================================================================
    Cowboys And Indians In The Soviet Union – KnowledgeNuts
    http://www.knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/13/cowboys-and-indians-in-the-soviet-union/
    Nov 13, 2013 … You know, a simple Wikipedia search would probably tell you that the USSR wasn’t communist. Starr Brite. Wikipedia isn’t exactly known for its …
    ————————————————————-
    Anti-Communism: Index – blogger

    anti-communist-net.blogspot.com/2012/05/
    The USSR wasn’t communist, China isn’t, North Korea isn’t. For most people this will be a shock – but it is entirely true. In reality, what most people think of as …
    —————————————————————
    If Socialism works so well… by kasaundra1 on DeviantArt

    kasaundra1.deviantart.com/art/If-Socialism-works-so-well-607780680

    May 8, 2016 … The fear of socialism is actually the extrapolated fear of Soviet-style Bolshevik fascism. I’d argue that the USSR wasn’t communist for the same …

  • Torcer

    “Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.”
    -Alexander Hope, from the novel “Hope” by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman

  • Torcer

    “You cannot have a proud and chivalrous spirit if your conduct is mean and paltry; for whatever a man’s actions are, such must be his spirit.” Demosthenes, Third Olynthiac

  • Torcer

    “America is the most exceptional nation in the history of the world because our Constitution is the best political document that’s ever been written. It said something different than almost any other government had said before: Most governments before said that might makes right, that government decides what our rights are and that the people are just dependent subjects. Our Founders said that God gives us rights by nature, and that government is not the author or source of our rights. Government is just our shared project to secure those rights.”
    Ben Sasse

  • Torcer

    Home » Socialist Standard » 2000s » 2009 » No. 1263 November 2009 » The Myth of Soviet “Socialism”
    The Myth of Soviet “Socialism”

    An analysis from Russia makes many of the points we do. On all sides we hear it said that “after 1917 a Marxist utopia was realised in our country,” that we had a “communist regime” or “socialist state,” that “we were building socialism and communism,” and so on. This makes it essential for us to grasp the true essence of Marxism, to understand what socialism and communism are. From a scientific – in particular, Marxist – point of view, communism (or socialism, as Marx and Engels rarely distinguished between these two concepts) means an absolutely free society of universal equality and abundance, in which all people work – more precisely, seek self-realisation – voluntarily, in accordance with their abilities and inclinations, and receives goods in accordance with their needs. This is the second stage, the phase of socialism or communism (or communism, strictly speaking). The first stage (or, more rarely, socialism in the narrow sense) means almost the same, with the sole difference that there is still some connection between how much labour an able-bodied person has given society and the quantity of goods that he or she receives. But for Marx and Engels, as a rule, the words “socialism” and “communism” were synonyms. And so, socialism or communism is the complete liberation of each person and all humanity from any form of exploitation and oppression! The government of people is replaced by the administration of things. The absence of any state power over people! Socialism in a single country?

    Marx and Engels categorically denied the possibility of establishing socialism or communism in a single country or in a few countries. They even denied the possibility of the sustained victory or success of a workers’ revolution in a single country – let alone in a backward or not very developed country. For a whole number of serious reasons. Let us start with the fact that such concepts as “socialism” or “communism” are absolutely incompatible with the concept of “the state.” For a real Marxist, the very idea of a “socialist” or “communist” state is empty nonsense, the height of absurdity. Of course, so long as another, hostile system exists, especially if it dominates the greater part of the planet, there can be no question of the state dying out. Let us imagine a state in which a workers’ revolution takes place but is not soon followed by a world revolution. That state is forced to compete with other states in the surrounding world in the accumulation of armaments, heavy industry, and so on. But competitive accumulation – of capital, in the final analysis – runs counter to the popular need to give priority to consumption. It prevents expansion of the conquests of the revolution and makes it necessary to preserve the state. Giving priority to consumption would require abolishing a fundamental feature of capitalist society – accumulation for the sake of accumulation. For this two conditions are needed: workers’ self-management (working people themselves taking control of production) and the elimination of national borders (that is, of competition on a world scale). The latter also requires abolition of the state. From the elementary foundations of Marxism it follows that such phenomena as commodity-money relations and the law of value are absolutely incompatible with socialism. For capitalism, according to Marx and Engels, has two chief defining defects. First, goods have to be produced as commodities (for sale), in the form of commodities, thereby giving social relations a fetishized, mercantile character. Second, the basic purpose of production is the extraction of surplus value, which is the source of the exploitation of man by man. It is self-evident that money and the state can only die out together. Commodity-money relations cannot exist in the absence of state structures. For money is backed up by the assets of the state bank. Given commodity production, competition, the necessity for each state to compete economically with other states, a common measure of some sort is needed to calibrate inputs and outputs in comparison with other countries. Therefore, prices inevitably exist so that records can be kept of value. Finally, some way is needed to monitor the effectiveness of economic activity. In order to realise the specifically capitalist tendency of accumulation for the sake of accumulation, two things are necessary. First, workers must be alienated from the means of production and from the results of their labour. Second, there must be competition between capitalists. In the absence of workers’ revolution on a global scale, the pursuit of surplus labour in the world as a whole inevitably thwarts any attempt to establish socialism, even if it is undertaken in a highly developed and wealthy region. Socialism – a world system

    Thus, socialism or communism can only be a world system. In this respect it resembles capitalism, which also arises at the international level, becoming a world system as it expands to absorb the pre-capitalist periphery. According to Marx, capitalism is characterised by the concentration of the means of production in the hands of a few, the organization of labour as social labour, and the creation of a world market. In principle, two world systems cannot exist simultaneously. “Dictatorship of the proletariat”

    For a long time the Bolsheviks justified their dictatorship by calling it “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Marx used this term to mean not dictatorship as a repressive political regime but social dominance of the working people as a counterweight to the exploiters (while they still exist) – a workers’ semi-state. He put forward this idea in opposition to the idea, popular in his day, of the dictatorship of revolutionary leaders. The democratic power of the working class, the conquest of true, broad democracy, and not the power of any leaders – that was and is the meaning of “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Undoubtedly, such a regime is not socialism. It is still capitalism, although of a milder and more democratic variety. The Bolshevik party dictatorship

    The Bolshevik party dictatorship has its origins in the upheaval of 1917. After the fall of the autocracy, Russia won great democratic freedoms and became (for a short time) the most democratic state in the world. However, the provisional government failed to act. It did not begin peace negotiations and made no attempt to get out of the war. It did not embark on agrarian reform. It took no measures against the forces of reaction. The people got neither peace nor bread nor land. What is more, despite all the rights and freedoms, strong democratic institutions (apart, perhaps, from the Soviets) were not created in the country. Thus, there was nothing surprising about the Bolshevik takeover. A reactionary military dictatorship was also a real possibility at the time. The Bolshevik regime claimed the mantle of a workers’ state. However, in a workers’ state (more precisely, semi-state) there would have been the broadest freedom and human rights, with political power exercised democratically through Soviets, trade unions and competing political parties. The actual situation, alas, was nothing like this. Political power was exercised mainly through a dictatorship of the Bolshevik party and vanguard, with all forms of democracy restricted from the very first months. Yes, in the early years there were progressive, humane laws in various spheres. (To what extent they were observed is another question.) But the main trends were negative: further curtailment of democratic rights and freedoms, consolidation of the one-party system, secret police repression even within the ruling party, formation of a hierarchy of officials appointed from above. Stalin’s industrial revolution

    The Stalinist faction, which in 1925 had introduced the anti-Marxist conception of “building socialism in a single country,” gained full control by the end of the 1920s. The chief concern of the ruling group was now the forging of a “great power”; this required expansion of the industrial base through unrestrained exploitation of the working people – for the sake, above all, of successful competition with the outside world, with foreign states. In practice, this meant the rapid accumulation of capital. By the 1930s the authoritarian state had evolved into a totalitarian state. It was precisely at this period that the gap between the higher-ups and the masses deepened into an abyss. By means of so-called “collectivisation” the peasants were either, in essence, enserfed or driven from the soil and turned into a reserve labour force for industry. (Those who managed to get to the cities became, as a rule, hired workers.) Repression intensified, filling the rapidly expanding Gulag with prisoners. During the first five-year plan, real wages declined by at least half, while the working day lengthened. Thus, the living standard of the absolute majority of the population fell substantially and exploitation sharply increased. The Stalin regime was totalitarian state capitalism with significant elements of serfdom and slavery (which weakened but did not disappear even after the tyrant’s death). In practice, it accomplished an industrial revolution – that is, the accelerated accumulation of capital. To a large extent, this was primitive accumulation. We find pertinent parallels between industrialisation under Stalin and the path followed by Japan from the bourgeois “Meiji revolution” to World War Two. There too, capital grew rapidly. There too, despotic methods were used to modernise the economy, create an industrial base and strengthen military might, with the state playing a major role. Thus, both under Stalin and later we had in Russia a right-wing dictatorship with a state monopoly over the economy. Stalinism is a broader concept than the Stalin regime. In the USSR, the Stalinist era lasted from the late 1920s until the collapse of the “Soviet” “socialist” system in 1991 (with various changes and modifications, of course). Bureaucratic state capitalism

    Stalinism is bureaucratic state capitalism. The bulk of direct producers did not own means of production and so were forced to sell their labour power to the real owner of those means of production – a special group called the nomenklatura. The members of this group belonged to a hierarchically organized system for the appropriation and distribution of surplus value. The ruling class of the Soviet Union was therefore a state bourgeoisie. It was an exploiting class that through the possession of state power owned the means of production, the whole of the so-called “national economy.” I n this way the traditional ultra-conservative status quo was re-established and the Russian Empire restored. For several decades, both under Stalin and after his death, the ruling class or state bourgeoisie governed the country through a powerful and ramified bureaucratic apparatus. They relied on the age-old traditions of the Russian Empire and out of inertia continued to make formal and hypocritical use of pseudo-socialist, pseudo-communist, pseudo-left and pseudo-Marxist slogans. Such slogans were a convenient means of masking their real aims and playing on the sincere faith of many people, both inside the country and abroad. (Translated by Stefan) Vladimir Sirotin, Moscow
    http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1263-november-2009/myth-soviet-%E2%80%9Csocialism%E2%80%9D

  • Torcer

    “We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.”
    Abraham Lincoln
    Source:April 18, 1864 – Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland

  • Torcer

    “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Lenin

  • Torcer

    Your Socialist Zombie Survival Kit | FEE https://fee.org/articles/your-socialist-zombie-survival-kit/ via @feeonline

  • Torcer

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 18.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  • Torcer

    Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

    Senator Hubert H. Humphrey,
    Comm.: Foreign Relations Minnesota
    http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1960issues/G0260.pdf

  • Torcer

    “One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting.” – C.S. Lewis

  • Torcer

    “If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” — Winston Churchill

  • Torcer

    ………………………………………………….

    #Socialism=FAILURE
    #Reference
    The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono http://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/ via @feeonline

    The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
    The Nordic model is far from socialist
    Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.

    In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.

    While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

    In response to Americans frequently referring to his country as socialist, the prime minister of Denmark recently remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,

    I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

    The Scandinavians embrace a brand of free-market capitalism that exists in conjunction with a large welfare state, known as the “Nordic Model,” which includes many policies that democratic socialists would likely abhor.
    http://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

  • Torcer

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 18.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 22.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  • Torcer

    ………………………………………………….

    #Socialism=FAILURE
    #Reference
    The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono http://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/ via @feeonline

    The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
    The Nordic model is far from socialist
    Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.

    In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.

    While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

    In response to Americans frequently referring to his country as socialist, the prime minister of Denmark recently remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,

    I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

    The Scandinavians embrace a brand of free-market capitalism that exists in conjunction with a large welfare state, known as the “Nordic Model,” which includes many policies that democratic socialists would likely abhor.
    http://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

  • Torcer

    ……………………………..

    Socialism….Origins
    The origins of socialism as a political movement lie in the Industrial Revolution. Its intellectual roots, however, reach back almost as far as recorded thought—even as far as Moses, according to one history of the subject. Socialist or communist ideas certainly play an important part in the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, whose Republic depicts an austere society in which men and women of the “guardian” class share with each other not only their few material goods but also their spouses and children.

    Christianity and Platonism were combined in More’s Utopia, which apparently recommends communal ownership as a way of controlling the sins of pride, envy, and greed. Land and houses are common property on More’s imaginary island of Utopia, where everyone works for at least two years on the communal farms and people change houses every 10 years so that no one develops pride of possession. Money has been abolished, and people are free to take what they need from common storehouses. All the Utopians live simply, moreover, so that they are able to meet their needs with only a few hours of work a day, leaving the rest for leisure.

    More’s Utopia is not so much a blueprint for a socialist society as it is a commentary on the failings he perceived in the supposedly Christian societies of his day. Religious and political turmoil, however, soon inspired others to try to put utopian ideas into practice. Common ownership was one of the aims of the brief Anabaptist regime in the Westphalian city of Münster during the Protestant Reformation, and several communist or socialist sects sprang up in England in the wake of the Civil Wars (1642–51). Chief among them was the Diggers, whose members claimed that God had created the world for people to share, not to divide and exploit for private profit. When they acted on this belief by digging and planting on land that was not legally theirs, they ran afoul of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, which forcibly disbanded them.
    The term socialist came into use about 1830 to describe these radicals, some of the most important of whom subsequently acquired the title of “utopian” socialists.

    One of the first utopian socialists was the French aristocrat Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon. Saint-Simon did not call for public ownership of productive property, but he did advocate public control of property through central planning, in which scientists, industrialists, and engineers would anticipate social needs and direct the energies of society to meet them.

    Another early socialist, Robert Owen, was himself an industrialist.
    Owen set out in 1825 to establish a model of social organization, New Harmony, on land he had purchased in the U.S. state of Indiana. This was to be a self-sufficient, cooperative community in which property was commonly owned. New Harmony failed within a few years, taking most of Owen’s fortune with it.

    Similar themes mark the writings of François-Marie-Charles Fourier, a French clerk whose imagination, if not his fortune, was as extravagant as Owen’s. Fourier envisioned a form of society that would be more in keeping with human needs and desires. Such a “phalanstery,” as he called it, would be a largely self-sufficient community of about 1,600 people organized according to the principle of “attractive labour,” which holds that people will work voluntarily and happily if their work engages their talents and interests. Fourier left room for private investment in his utopian community, but every member was to share in ownership, and inequality of wealth, though permitted, was to be limited.
    Other early socialists

    Other socialists in France began to agitate and organize in the 1830s and ’40s; they included Louis Blanc, Louis-Auguste Blanqui, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Blanc, the author of L’Organisation du travail (1839; The Organization of Labour), promoted a scheme of state-financed but worker-controlled “social workshops” that would guarantee work for everyone and lead gradually to a socialist society. Blanqui, by contrast, was a revolutionary who spent more than 33 years in prison for his insurrectionary activities. Socialism cannot be achieved without the conquest of state power, he argued, and this conquest must be the work of a small group of conspirators. Once in power, the revolutionaries would form a temporary dictatorship that would confiscate the property of the wealthy and establish state control of major industries.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

  • Torcer

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 18.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 22.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  • Torcer

    Stop Calling Bernie Sanders a Socialist
    The Vermont senator is a “democratic socialist”—and yes, there’s a difference
    By Thor Benson
    April 30, 2015

    Since the news broke that Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, would announce his bid for president on Thursday, many headlines have used one particular word to describe him. To cite just three of many examples:

    “Bernie Sanders: Socialist from Vermont set to announce campaign to be US President and challenge Hillary Clinton” — The Independent

    “A Socialist is Challenging Hillary” — The Daily Caller

    “Why Bernie Sanders, socialist senator from Vermont, will run for president as a Democrat” — Vox

    Guess which piece, in the article body, comes closest to accurately identifying Sanders’s political philosophy? Believe it or not, it’s the Daily Caller, which describes him as “a self-proclaimed social democrat.” (In its explainer, Vox didn’t even bother explaining Sanders’ socialism.) In reality, Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist,” which is not quite the same as being a social democrat.

    As Sanders explained in a 2006 interview with Democracy Now!:

    I think [democratic socialism] means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means.

    But the Vermont senator himself is loose with his terminology, as he has praised the “long social-democratic tradition” of Nordic countries as examples of how the United States should operate as a nation. For instance, points to Finland’s universal healthcare, free childcare, parental leave benefits, free higher education, low income inequality, and overwhelming unionization of workers. And sometimes he does indeed refer to himself, simply, as “a socialist.”

    So perhaps it’s better to consider his policies themselves. Sanders wants a level playing field, where everyone born in America actually has the same opportunity for success, instead of “a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires,” as he puts it. He rails against the influence of the Koch brothers and other wealthy political donors and corporations on both Republicans on Democrats, ensuring that the rich stay rich and making sure the working class remain exactly that. While many Democrats claim to be in favor of leveling the playing field, few use the rhetoric Sanders does. He has suggested things like breaking up the largest banks and frequently refers to the United States as an oligarchy.

    Writing earlier this year on the “fear-mongering” over Sanders’ politics, Penn Spectrum columnist Larry Liu noted the “confusion in America what socialism really is”:

    For starters, socialists don’t always agree among each other what the content of socialism is, but at the very least it contains the state control of the means of production, such as factories, offices, resources and firms. In the more advanced form of socialism, ownership is transferred to the workers. Bernie Sanders has sympathies for it as part of his 12-point proposal for the country, where he pushed for the opportunity for workers to set up worker-owned cooperatives (Sanders 2014). But it is questionable how far he will push it. When push comes to shove, he is a supporter of a social democratic Scandinavian-style welfare state in the form of better education, healthcare and social service provisions for the general population (Leibovich 2007) rather than the confiscation of companies from the private sector.

    America is partly a social democracy already, of course, thanks to programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and food stamps. Sanders doesn’t want the government to run the entire economy, but he does want the government to ensure that the economy doesn’t regularly ruin millions of people’s lives.
    https://newrepublic.com/article/121680/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-not-just-socialist

  • Torcer

    Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative)
    [First published August 22, 2005] What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on a “scientific theory” of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (“of the proletariat”) to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.

    Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.

    Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.

    To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

    I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:

    Chapter VII:

    In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.

    Chapter 4:

    The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 


    If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

    Chapter XII:

    The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.

    Some other quotes:

    Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:

    I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

    On this, see Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7; and Graham L. Strachan “MANUFACTURED REALITY: THE ‘THIRD WAY’”

    Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:

    We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

    F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said:

    The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

    See also his chapter 12: “The Socialist Roots of Naziism.”

    Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) said:

    There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government.

    This is precisely how Hitler governed when he achieved dictatorial power.

    In a previous blog, i referred to John J. Ray’s piece (“Hitler Was A Socialist”, and I was asked who he is. He has a Ph.D. in psychology, but taught sociology for many years. His fulsome bio is here. His article on Hitler is excellent and well researched. He has a blog on “dissecting leftism.”

    Link of Note
    “Myth: Hitler was a leftist By Steve Kanga

    (note: A liberal activist, Kanga apparently shot himself to death outside of the office of anti-Clinton billionaire philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaif, February 8, 1999. It was ruled a suicide.)

    Kanga says:

    Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic. Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

    Here you have a taste for how the left maintains its myth, as in conflating democracy and socialism. That is, true socialism “can only be democratic.” Right, like the Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea, or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

    https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

  • Torcer

    USSR
    Pronunciation: /juːɛsɛsˈɑː(r)
    Definition of USSR in English:
    abbreviation
    historical
    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/USSR

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    (abbreviation: USSR)
    Definition of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in English:
    Full name of Soviet Union.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics

  • Torcer
  • Torcer

    Nazis: STILL Socialists
    February 28, 2014
    Tim Stanley’s definition excludes basically all real socialists, past and present.
    I almost missed this, from a few days ago. NRO‘s Jonah Goldberg is uniquely qualified to contribute to this debate, if you’ve not read Jonah’s book “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”, I’ve plugged it here before — accessible as an ebook download through Amazon — and recommend it again, any chance I get. To get a fuller picture, flip back to Daniel Hannan‘s provocative essay Leftists Become Incandescent when Reminded of the Socialist Roots of Nazism, and Tim Stanley‘s opposing essay, Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Stop saying he was.

    Jonah Goldberg weighs in:

    This feels like old times. Across the pond at the Telegraph, Tim Stanley and Daniel Hannan are having a friendly disagreement on the question of whether the Nazis were in fact socialists. I don’t usually wade into these arguments anymore, but I’ve been writing a lot on related themes over the last nazis_posterfew weeks and I couldn’t resist.

    Not surprisingly, I come down on Hannan’s side. I could write a whole book about why I agree with Dan, except I already did. So I’ll be more succinct.

    Fair warning, though, I wrote this on a plane trip back from Colorado and it’s way too long. So if you’re not interested in this stuff, you might as well wander down the boardwalk and check out some of the other stalls now.

    Stanley makes some fine points here and there, but I don’t think they add up to anything like corroboration of his thesis. The chief problem with his argument is that he’s taking doctrinaire or otherwise convenient definitions of socialism and applying them selectively to Nazism.

    Stanley’s chief tactic is to simply say Nazis shouldn’t be believed when they called themselves socialists. It was all marketing and spin, even putting the word in their name. Socialism was popular, so they called themselves socialists. End of story.

    So when Nazi ideologist Gregor Strasser proclaimed:

    We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!

    . . . he was just saying that because, in Stanley’s mind, socialism was “fashionable.”

    Obviously there’s some truth to that. Socialism was popular. So was nationalism. That’s why nationalists embraced socialism and why socialists quickly embraced nationalism. It wasn’t a big leap for either because they’re basically the same thing! In purely economic terms, nationalization and socialization are nothing more than synonyms (socialized medicine = nationalized health care).

    Nazis Hated Bolsheviks, Who Knew?

    Stanley writes:

    That Hitler wasn’t a socialist became apparent within weeks of becoming Chancellor of Germany when he started arresting socialists and communists. He did this, claim some, because they were competing brands of socialism. But that doesn’t explain why Hitler defined his politics so absolutely as a war on Bolshevism — a pledge that won him the support of the middle-classes, industrialists and many foreign conservatives.

    Nazi Propaganda Poster – Women Want National Socialism 1944There’s a stolen base here. Sure, Hitler’s effort to destroy competing socialists and Communists “doesn’t explain” all those other things. But it doesn’t have to. Nor does Stalin’s wholesale slaughter (or Lenin’s retail slaughter) of competing Communists and socialists explain the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact or the infield-fly rule. Other considerations — economic, cultural, diplomatic — come into play. But when people say Hitler can’t be a socialist because he crushed independent labor unions and killed socialists, they need to explain why Stalin gets to be a socialist even though he did likewise.

    The fact that many “foreign conservatives” supported Hitler’s hostility to Bolsheviks is a bit of a red herring. Many conservatives today support the military in Egypt as a bulwark against the Muslim Brotherhood. That tells you next to nothing about the content of the junta’s domestic policies. But, it’s worth noting that some foreign Communists and liberals, such as W.E.B. Du Bois, actually supported Hitler’s domestic economic policies (though not the anti-Semitism) in the mid-1930s.

    For what it’s worth, the reason that Hitler declared war on Bolsheviks is a richtopic. The short answer is that he was a socialist but he was also a nationalist…Read the rest>>>

    National Review Online

    — Jonah Goldberg is the author of The Tyranny of Clichés, now on sale in paperback. And “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”. You can write to him by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO.
    https://punditfromanotherplanet.com/2014/02/28/nazis-still-socialists/

  • Torcer

    Hitler Was a Socialist Myth
    Last Updated February 15, 2017
    http://media.factmyth.com/2016/12/hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal.jpg
    Myth Hitler was a socialist.
    Was Hitler a Socialist? Was Hitler a Left-Winger?

    The idea that “Hitler was a socialist” is a myth. Hitler was a Fascist. Fascism has some socialist roots, but it is a unique authoritarian and nationalist ideology separate from socialism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
    Understanding Why it is Incorrect to Call Hitler a Socialist, Even Though His Party Was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party)

    Despite being a far-right nationalist fascist, Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party), just like his inspiration Mussolini and his National Fascist Party and later Republican Fascist Party, had socialist roots and embraced a few socialist policies for nationals (especially in the early days, decades before the war).

    We call this authoritarian militaristic far-right nationalism with hints of socialism, “fascism“.

    We should not be sidetracked by other terms like Republican and Socialist in the fascist parties names, especially given the history of these parties. They are important, but they don’t speak to the core of the party.

    In fact, since fascism as a term denotes its own socialist roots, it would be tautological and confusing to call Hitler “a socialist” without first denoting his fascist ideology.

    Likewise, since fascism comes in both left and right forms, and since both Hitler’s and Mussolini’s forms were right-wing (by Mussolini’s own admission in his Doctrine of Fascism; although, to be fair he later added complexity to this view), it is confusing to give Hitler or Mussolini (or Franco, or any other militant nationalist fascist or quasi-fascist with an authoritarian and/or exclusive ideology) the general label “left-wing”.

    Furthermore, given the very authoritative nature of the dictators, and their rabid opposition to liberalism, it is just flat out wrong to call either a liberal (that point really shouldn’t even be up for debate).

    This is to say, no, historically speaking, “Hitler was not a left-wing, socialist, liberal”.

    Fascism is unique and should not be mistaken as being “progressive”, “left-wing”, or what today we think of as “socialist” just because it has a few parallels (like the seeking of conformity) and shares roots with these ideologies.

    Most of what people cite to attempt to show Hitler was “left-wing” or “a socialist” comes from the NAZI’s early 1920’s platform, which was written before Hitler rose to power in the party’s Nationalist wing! Simply, the nationalists were in a party with some socialists (Strasserists) at one point, but that doesn’t make the nationalist fascism left, liberal, or socialist. Fascism is a right-wing (authoritative and small group focused) ideology.

    Consider some main aspects of fascism are:
    Consider some main aspects of fascism are:

    Anti-specific religions (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
    Pro-racial separation (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
    Anti-civil rights for minorities (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
    Anti-establishment (left-wing, against the elite; but right-wing, against the protections of the state; and right-wing, in practice the NAZIs became despotic tyrants who used the full power of the state)
    Anti-homosexual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
    Anti-abortion (right-wing, authoritative)
    Anti-intellectual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
    Anti-immigration (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
    Pro-social programs for their “nationals” AKA their in-group (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).
    Pro-nativist worker (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).
    Anti-Capitalism on paper (left-wing, against capitalism and toward socialism for the in-group on paper; right-wing, were capitalists with a strict hierarchy in practice.)

    In short, just based on general reason, not much about the NAZI’s fascism is left-wing (not much liberty and/or equality going on here). Sure, on paper in the 1920’s they were to the left of a Monarchy with the help of the Strasserists). But the militant WWII era (Sep 1, 1939 – Sep 2, 1945) NAZI fascism is mostly right-wing, despite its quasi-socialist roots.

    This exclusive in-group nativist, nationalist, xenophobic, and at times militant ideology is what we call in modern language “right-wing”, and it is not an ideology of liberty and equality, it is an ideology of authority and inequality, it is not liberalism.

    TIP: The KKK is one of the first modern fascist groups, they were a progressively conservative faction within the old Democratic party. Like the NAZIs who came after them, they were right-wing on just about every issue… except their ideology toward the central government and economic elites. Like the NAZIs, the KKK are not well described (especially in modern terms) as left-wing liberals. It isn’t that there are no parallels, it is that their ideology is fascism and not social liberalism. The Radical Republicans of the Civil War era were arguably the real progressives of the era, and they were the polar opposite of the KKK Confederates. See a heady discussion here: No, the Ku Klux Klan Has Never, Ever Been a ‘Leftist’ Organization or here: The Democrats were the Party of the Ku Klux Klan and Slavery. In short, just based on general reason, not much about the KKK’s fascism is left-wing, especially the militant Civil War era KKK fascism, despite its quasi-liberal roots.

    TIP: Hitler was inspired by Karl Lueger when he studied in Vienna Austria in the times leading up to WWI. Lueger was an early European Fascist. Lueger was not liberal-left, he was a populist and anti-Semitic leader of the Christian Social Party… again we see the left-wing roots, but we can’t let that obscure the move toward right-wing ideology, as a response to immigrants, that is part of what makes it fascist. If it wasn’t a unique thing, we wouldn’t have a unique name for it.

    TIP: Today, speaking very broadly, the debate is between nativist protectionist “tea party” alt-right-ism against immigration and for nationalism (global right-wing), and a progressive alt-left neoliberal globalization that seeks inclusion (global left-wing). If FDR, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler were alive today, we can kind of figure out which would be Tea Party and which would be Progressive, FDR and Stalin would err toward the globalist collectives, Hitler and Mussolini would be screaming about immigration and nationalism. The left and right in any era are just what they are, the core of the human condition has not changed (not its centered correctness, nor its corrupted extremes). We can compare authoritarians all day long, but we need to use consistent comparative terms. Saying “all WW2 ideologies were left” demonizes the left and socialism and normalizes alt-right neo-fascism. Which I think is the point of some propagandists on the right-wing, but let this page stand as an argument against that and the calling out of that alternative-fact.

    TIP: It make sense that people get confused. Try to compare a bunch of authoritative ideologies and polices, and the lines between left and right start to blur. Still, Communism and Fascism are different despite both having some socialist and fascist parallels. To properly explain this debate we need to consider some complex factors. We can appreciate articles like Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt by Cato’s David Boaz for deep insight without confusing liberalism, fascism, socialism, and communism, without confusing FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini, and without trying to normalize modern socialism or fascism by swapping left and right labels when it suits us politically. See our left-right model based on the Nolan chart, Hitler is not “left” generally speaking, FDR is to the left of Stalin in terms of authority, and both FDR and Stalin were to the left of Hitler. Comparative terms are important in complex conversations.

    TIP: In general, terms like nationalism, socialism, and even fascism aren’t “inherently bad”, they are bad in extremes when liberty and democracy are cast aside and the ideologies break the non-aggression compact and become aggressive. Most ideologies comes in many forms, the NAZI’s ideologies were typically right-wing and extreme broadly speaking, but when we go plank-by-plank, year-by-year, the conversation gets a bit more complex than can be said in a blanket statement.

    FACT: The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated as a working-class political party, it became fascist over the course of 20 years under Hitler’s influence. That isn’t the same as “being socialist”.[10]

    A List of Reasons that we Should Consider Hitler a Fascist, and not a Socialist
    The essay below makes all these points in detail, but to start:

    Hitler was in the nationalist wing of his party. Hitler often spoke out against socialists and communists, especially as the 1920’s rolled on.
    That the NAZIs murdered the socialist wing during the Night of the Long Knives. They also murdered and jailed a number of other socialist and communist parties and generally anyone not loyal to the NAZI’s Nationalist wing. That is one of the ways that Hitler rose to power.
    Mussolini’s National Fascist Party, and later Republican Fascist Party, more accurately described the right-wing National Fascist ideology of WWII that Hitler and Mussolini mostly shared. Remember, Hitler came later and was influenced by Mussolini. On that note, Mussolini was a socialist in the 1910’s, before Hitler’s rise and a wing of the NAZI party was previously socialist too. So there are real socialist roots in the fascist ideology, it is just that, despite this, neither Mussolini or Hitler were “socialists” on paper or in practice, they were fascists (a term which, again, implies its own roots; as any term does).
    Many of the parties of WWII Germany were socialist or nationalist (including the Communists and Democratic Socialists the Nationalist NAZIs hated, jailed, and killed).
    NAZIism was about excluding races rather than abolishing class inequality and classes. It didn’t want global equality (on paper) like the Communists, it wanted German world domination.
    Any militaristic despot with half a brain and resources will provide their army healthcare and education or strip their enemy of guns and gold. Even Communist regimes attempted to do this to the other nationalist and socialist parties (Mensheviks and Whites come to mind in Russia).
    Early NAZIism may have had socialist planks, but once in power in 1933, Adolf Hitler turned Germany into a fascist state. WWII started in 1939, so it is super confusing to talk about some “sort-of socialist” NAZI plank from their 1920 platform like it was representative of everything Hitler stood for. The NAZI platform was not progressive in practice in the 1930’s and 1940’s, just on paper in the early days! When most people think of Hitler and the NAZIs, they think of them in their early 1940’s form (long after TIME declared Hitler the man of the year… in 1938). The early 1920’s NAZI party platform might have been “progressive“, but that was before the socialist wing of the NAZIs was taken over by the nationalist wing! It isn’t like their progressive policies led to NAZI Germany, there is no real lesson about socialism in the story of fascism (that is in the story of communism). Fascism is more a story of right-wing nationalism, and its slippery slopes.

    On being left or right: Left and right are complex and comparative terms (see an essay on this). In comparative WWII terms, Fascism is “to the right” of Communism, but both these ideologies are arguably “to the right” of liberalism. In absolute terms, both authoritarian WWII ideologies were very “right-wing” in their use of authority and the state in practice. This doesn’t mean aspects of fascism and communism aren’t “to the left” of other ideologies, especially if we go plank-by-plank through the early fascist platforms. Even the National Review (a right-wing and nationalist conservative American publication) agrees with this logic. Americans and our western modern counterparts are generally liberal, so our love of liberty is going to put us to the left of any despot, in terms of being authoritative. In terms of embracing collectives, communism is much more inclusive than the exclusive fascist ideology which requires a certain race, creed, national allegiance, and more. This is the way in which communism is “more left” and why it is misleading to call hitler “left-wing”.[11]
    Conclusion and Complexities

    Given the above proofs, I ultimately couldn’t label the idea that “Hitler was a Socialist” as a Fact. It is too confusing for someone not ready to spend time in research mode. Too many words are required to frame this for a modern audience, as one must understand Mussolini, Hitler, Fascism, Liberalism, Communism, Marxism, the forms of socialism, and the rise of all these to even have a serious conversation here.

    History isn’t supposed to be relayed with ease, but it is supposed to be relayed with accuracy. Given this, the essay below clearly discusses the ways in which Hitler was and wasn’t a socialist, left-winger, or liberal.

    We will ultimately make the case that the best description of populist authoritarian tyrants like Hitler and Mussolini is right-wing national fascist, or just “fascist” (not left-wing socially liberal democratic socialist; that is a whole different WWII ideology despite the parallels; as we discuss below).

    This is true even though Mussolini began his political career as a socialist and Hitler’s party once had a socialist wing.

    The key here is realizing that Mussolini had pretty much given up on socialism by the time he formed his National Fascist Party in 1921. Meanwhile, Hitler joined the NAZIs in 1921, and although they initially championed socialist themes of anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, over time they began to downplay this in order to gain the support of industry. Finally, by the 1930s, the party’s focus had mostly shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes, moving further and further right, and further away from socialism.

    As Hitler fully gained control of Germany, and became Führer und Reichskanzler in 1933, the NAZIs quickly turned Germany into a far-right authoritarian fascist state. At that point, any social programs were designed to do little more than train an army and ensure a master race (which isn’t exactly what we think when we think “Bernie Sanders” democratic socialism… as Hitler also hated democracy, NAZI Germany was not democratic!).

    So, we can find socialist roots in fascism, and some socialist policy in 1930’s and 1940’s fascism, but of course, the term fascism inherently accounts for its own quasi-socialist roots and thus isn’t a useful primary descriptor.

    Ultimately, NAZIism was less about the German worker and more about a nationalist desire for world domination, as is the case with any despot.

    “Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether… What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.” – What Hitler actually thought about socialism. In practice, Hitler supported “social revolution” rather than social welfare, supported private property, and thought competition was good for weeding out the weak (a right-wing individualist stance).[12]

    What is Fascism? Fascism is an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. It often has intolerant views toward “others”, and is exclusive to a certain type of native national. It can be protectionist, but in practice it is often militaristic and imperialistic. In words, it is a mash-up of other ideologies, including in some very specific and nuanced ways, socialism (which, aside from its authoritarian aspects in-practice, is why it has similarities with Communism). Fascism is generally “to the right” of communism and liberalism, as it is for a smaller group the communism and more authoritative the liberalism.[13]

    What is Socialism? Socialism is the ideology of common ownership and equality among all (on paper, in general, speaking for all types at once). This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. Imagine there’s no classes, no possessions, a brotherhood of man, etc… And this of course sounds more like Communism, the extreme left-wing socialist ideology. Socialism is generally “left” as it favors equality and collectives, and the form “communism” is to the far-left (democratic socialism is toward liberalism and the center). That said, in terms of authority, socialism can be to the right of liberalism, and Communism to the far-right of liberalism (as liberals champion liberty and all forms of socialism are necessarily authoritative).[14]

    What is Liberalism? The ideology of liberty and equality. And this of course sounds like… what we went to war to defend in WWII. Since it is an ideology that favors liberty and equality, the authoritative and exclusive fascism (which favors neither liberty nor equality “for all”) is to the far-right of liberalism, and on paper Communism is to the far-left in terms of equality on paper, but ultimately to the far-right in-action in terms of its use of the state (still, in WWII terms, it is to the left of fascism due to its collective nature).

    “We want to be aristocrats and democrats, conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and revolutionaries, legalists and antilegalists—depending on the circumstances of the time, place and situation.” – What Benito Mussolini (the other prominent fascist of the time) thought. The implication is the fascism is pulled together from other past ideologies. Simply, neither Mussolini or Hitler was much of a socialist in practice despite their roots. Fascist is the word we use to describe this far-right (but sometimes left) ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.

    TIP: See a List of fascist movements by country. We can see that “National Socialism” (not just Socialism in any form) denotes a Fascist right-wing ideology.
    http://media.factmyth.com/2016/08/comparing-fascism-and-communism.jpg
    TIP: For another look at this, see the differences between Communism and Fascism. Both this page and that page draw the same conclusion, as the conclusion is simply an honest examination of history and political ideology, rather than the twisting of facts into a modern left or right viewpoint (as is common).
    http://media.factmyth.com/2016/12/hitler-not-a-progressive-despite-some-planks.jpg
    Firstly, nearly every fact in the above meme is a half-truth (as anyone who has researched the part-Jewish intellectual art student who got hit on the head one time many times knows; obviously any tyrant of a despotic state will have a 99% approval rating. 99% approve, and the other 1% on their way to Auschwitz). We can cherry pick and make it look like Hitler was a progressive left-wing socialist… but the same can be said for King George III and Stalin with this sort of half-baked logic. History is more complex than this. Hitler was a right-wing Nationalist Fascist Populist Nativist. All the aforementioned ideologies share planks. Who doesn’t want to make “fill in the blank great again”? No one has ever run on “make things worse”. (source)

    BOTTOM LINE: Hitler may have taken the socialism out of National Socialism on the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 when he killed the Strasserists… but Mussolini and Hitler’s opportunistic ideologies still pulled from socialism (especially in the early days of the late 1910’s and early 1920’s when the NAZI’s 25 point program contained some socialist provisions). Thus, we have to acknowledge Hitler’s socialist characteristics, even if it isn’t the characteristic that defines him. In one word, Hitler and Mussolini were Fascists. In two words, Nationalist Fascists. With a left-right qualifier, far-right National Fascists with some left-wing elements. In many words, they can be described as anti-capitalist-and-elite, anti-intellectual, far-right, authoritative, extremist, fascist, nativist, populist, nationalists who embraced elements of socialism. Still, NAZIism was about excluding races rather than abolishing classes, and other such points discussed below, leaves us with the obvious conclusion that Hitler is best described as a fascist right-winger, not a left-wing socialist.
    http://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-socialist/

  • Torcer

    “It doesn’t matter where you are coming from. All that matters is where you are going.” – Brian Tracy

  • Torcer

    “There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup
    of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself.
    There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain.”

    “But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss’s, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own.”

    “That was our real motive when we voted – that was the truth of it – but we didn’t like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.”
    Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

  • Torcer

    Remember the victims of communism: Column
    August 24, 2014
    It took Stalin AND Hitler to ignite World War II and the slaughter that came after.
    Seventy-five years ago this week, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed a pact of non-aggression and cooperation. The sinister 1939 pact (along with its secret provisions) between Hitler and Stalin and negotiated by Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Nazi German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, would conquer and divide Europe, half Nazi and half Communist. Fascism and Communism became aligned in the early stages of a conflict that would consume millions of lives in the years that followed.

    Within days of signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler’s armies invaded Poland, and over the next few months, Stalin soon invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. For nearly two years, the Nazi SS and Soviet NKVD worked together. There were instances when Soviet secret police rounded up German Jews who had escaped to the Soviet Union and handed them over to the SS. Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union committed war crimes on a massive scale and systematically murdered millions of civilians.

    In 1941, Hitler broke the pact and attacked the Soviet Union. When the war ended, the Third Reich was finished, but the Soviet Empire lived on.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/22/communism-memorial-coldwar–mass-murder-fascism-column/14447479/

  • Torcer

    ‘Radio Bemba’- word of mouth news for Cubans
    http://worldblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2007/02/15/4376286-radio-bemba-word-of-mouth-news-for-cubans?lite
    Feb 15, 2007

    John Doe, Seattle, WashFeb 16, 2007

    Daniel, NJ…Jane Doe…..and Jerry

    How would you know what goes on in Cuba outside of what the government or the corporate media (government extension) tells you? You don’t and you have proved my post exactly right. Clueless Americans mouthing words that have been brainwashed into their heads. Cuba isn’t communist, first of all. It’s a military dictatorship, that by the way, the people supported and actually took part in achieving. They overthrew a US puppet government that treated it’s citizens far worse than Castro, but was ignored cuz they were US buddies. Been to Cuba? I HAVE. What Uncle Sam tells you is pure BS. Their government has done the best it can under the circumstances. What circumstances? Oh I don’t know, the US convincing nations globally that if you help them, you are no longer our friend and we’ll punish you. Get a clue and get informed.

  • Torcer

    Is Cuba Really a Socialist Country?
    August 24, 2011
    HAVANA TIMES, August 23 — If there’s one thing I understand clearly, it’s that I wouldn’t like to live in a country that wasn’t my own, nor one under a capitalist regime. But what’s capitalism, really? And is Cuba truly a socialist country?

    These are questions I ask myself over and over again, because every year that goes by I realize that our way of life isn’t changing. We’re a people stuck in time.

    I’m 38 and I’ve never traveled abroad, and I don’t know my country very well either. Practically all I know about capitalism is what I see on TV. But then too, I remember my grandmother’s anecdotes; she used to tell me about life under the Batista dictatorship, about stores full of food and clothes…for those who could afford them.

    That was capitalism.

    But what can I say about present-day Cuba if when you go into a hard currency “dollar stores” — almost always spellbinding with their rows of glittering goods and colorful signs — and you find them packed with food and clothes…for those who can afford them.

    The problem is that many of us don’t have someone abroad who can send us money to help out with our expenses. The little that an ordinary worker can afford at a dollar store are basic toiletries, the cheapest items, which on today’s salaries are impossible if you have children depending on you. Likewise, if you have a sick relative who needs things like fruit, milk, meat and juices, which are very expensive.

    When I was working my salary was always 12 pesos a day ($0.50 USD), meaning that though I work eight hours a day, my monthly pay isn’t enough for the most basic necessities. I don’t even think about buying a sweater, a pair of shorts or some flip-flops.

    Nor does my check give me the pleasure of buying pork, because right now it costs 40 pesos a pound, enough for three sandwiches, which is way too expensive given my other expenses.

    You can still get six pounds of rice off the ration book, but that’s not enough to last a month either. Nor are the beans – they give each person around a pound a month, just enough for about one lunch and a dinner.

    To really understand, it’s necessary to be in Cuba, to experience Havana. You’d have to live with any family for it all to register.

    Today’s Cuban isn’t interested in anything else other than “struggling” for their family. The fact is that they don’t know much about politics; it’s all about struggling to bring home food for you and yours.

    What’s sad is that as time goes by, we’re growing older here without even being able to dream about the situation changing. In fact, I believe that Cubans have stopped having dreams of the future, since through day-to-day life we recognize that we have very few possibilities, few chances for the young or for those who aren’t so young. That’s where we’re at; and we’ve been there for a good while.

    Watching TV we’re able to keep up with the economic crisis hitting Europe. They report to us over and over again about other people’s deaths and miseries. But now I wonder, what about our misery? How much longer will our crisis last?
    http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=49416

  • Torcer

    Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf
    (English translation)
    TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION

    Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.

    JAMES MURPHY.
    Abbots Langley, February, 1939
    http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/politica/hitla002.htm

    Title: Mein Kampf
    Author: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
    Translated into English by James Murphy (died 1946).
    * A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook *
    eBook No.: 0200601.txt
    Language: English
    Date first posted: September 2002
    Date most recently updated: September 2002
    This eBook was produced by: Colin Choat
    Production notes:
    * This translation of the unexpurgated edition of “MEIN KAMPF”
    was first published on March 21st, 1939 by HURST AND BLACKETT LTD.

    Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be
    misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our
    sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that
    Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in
    order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.

    JAMES MURPHY.
    Abbots Langley, February, 1939

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

    Mein Kampf
    by Hitler, Adolf; Murphy, James

    Published 1939
    Topics hitler, nazism
    SHOW MORE
    This is the March 21, 1939 James Murphy Translation, complete with translators into and footnotes
    Publisher Hurst & Blackett
    Year 1939
    Language English
    Collection folkscanomy_politics; folkscanomy; additional_collections
    https://archive.org/details/MeinKampf_483

  • Torcer

    Why did my grandfather translate Mein Kampf?
    By John Murphy BBC News
    14 January 2015
    Whenever I tell anyone that my Irish grandfather translated Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the first question tends to be, “Why did he do that?” Quickly followed by, “Was he a Nazi?”

    Simply answered, No he wasn’t a Nazi (more on that later) and why not translate it? He was a journalist and translator based in Berlin in the 1930s and that’s how he earned his money. And surely it was important for people to know what Europe’s “Great Dictator” (apologies to Charlie Chaplin) was about?

    Certainly my grandfather and many other non-Nazis thought so at the time. Let’s also not forget this was before Hitler became the most notorious figure of evil in history.

    Hitler made a fortune from Mein Kampf. Not only did he excuse himself from paying tax, after he became Chancellor the German state bought millions of copies which were famously handed out to newly married couples. It’s estimated that 12 million copies were sold in Germany alone.

    The story of my grandfather’s translation – the first unabridged version in English, which was eventually published in London in 1939 – is an intriguing one. It involves worries about copyright, sneaking back into Nazi Germany to rescue manuscripts and a Soviet spy.

    My grandfather, Dr James Murphy, lived in Berlin from 1929, before the Nazis came to power. He set up a highbrow magazine called The International Forum which chiefly contained translations of interviews he’d done with eminent people, including Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann. However, as the Depression worsened, he was forced to move back to the UK.

    While there he wrote a short book, Adolf Hitler: the Drama of his Career, which sought to explain why so many Germans were attracted to the Nazi cause.

    My grandfather returned to Berlin in 1934, where he ridiculed the garbled translations of Nazi policy statements. He was especially critical of an abridged version of Mein Kampf – about a third of the length of the original two-volume work – which had been published in English in 1933. Towards the end of 1936, the Nazis asked James to start work on a full translation of Mein Kampf. It’s not clear why. Perhaps Berlin’s Propaganda Ministry wanted to have an English version which it could release when it felt the time was right.

    But at some point during 1937 the Nazis changed their minds. The Propaganda Ministry sequestered all completed copies of the Murphy manuscript. He returned to England in September 1938, where he quickly found British publishers keen to print his full translation – but they were worried that the Nazi publishing house, Eher Verlag, hadn’t given him the copyright. And anyway, he had left his completed work behind in Germany.

    Just as he was about to set off for Berlin to sort all this out, he received a message through the German embassy in London, saying he wasn’t welcome. James was distraught. A natural spendthrift, he’d run out of money, and had great hopes for the English publication. But at this point, his wife – my grandmother – said she would go.

    “They won’t notice me,” she said, according to my father, Patrick Murphy.

    “So she went back into Germany and made an appointment with a Nazi official we knew in the Propaganda Ministry, a man called Seyferth,” my father says.

    Unfortunately Mary Murphy had chosen a bad day, 10 November 1938 – the morning after Kristallnacht, when Jewish shops and businesses were attacked by Nazi thugs. Nevertheless, her meeting with Seyferth went ahead.

    “You know a group of Americans is working on a translation right now, so you can’t stop it coming out,” she told him. “You know my husband has done an accurate and fair translation – an excellent translation… so why not hand over the manuscript?”

    Seyferth refused. “I have a wife and two daughters. Do you want me put up against a brick wall and shot?” he said.

    Then Mary remembered that she had previously handed a carbon copy of a first draft of her husband’s translation to one of his secretaries, an English woman called Daphne French. She tracked her down in Berlin and, fortunately, Daphne still had the copy. Mary brought it back to London. With an American translation about to be published in the US, the race was on to get my grandfather’s translation out as quickly as possible. In March 1939, Hurst and Blackett/Hutchinson published the first British unexpurgated version of Mein Kampf.

    By August 32,000 copies had been sold and they continued to be printed until the presses were destroyed – by a German air raid – in 1942. A new American version subsequently became the standard translation. One copyright expert, who has written about Mein Kampf, estimates that between 150,000 to 200,000 copies of the Murphy edition were eventually sold.

    My grandfather, however, did not receive royalty payments. Hutchinson argued that he had already been paid by the German government and that the full copyright hadn’t been secured, so they could still be sued by Eher Verlag. An official letter from Germany, which turned out to be a diatribe against James Murphy, made clear Berlin disapproved of his translation. But the Germans didn’t take any action. Eher Verlag even requested complimentary copies and royalty payments. They didn’t receive them.

    The Murphy edition is now out of print but copies are scattered across the world and it can be found online.

    The Wiener Library in London, which has a unique collection of material on the Holocaust and genocide, has a remarkable copy of Murphy’s Mein Kampf in its vaults. Inside the flyleaf there’s a photograph of Hitler, and a group of smiling people, in Berchtesgarden, in the Bavarian Alps. A note, written in pencil, explains that Hitler came into the village and signed copies of Mein Kampf. His signature is there, in pencil.

    The book, bought in 1939 in the UK, was seemingly taken by British admirers as they visited the Fuehrer’s Alpine retreat. The photograph has somewhat comical annotations in the form of three pencilled arrows. By the top arrow is the handwritten note, “M. Bormann?” The next one down simply says, “Hitler”. And the last arrow, pointing to a young woman in a white dress in front of Hitler, says: “Karen”.

    “Karen must have been the owner of the book or related to the owner of the book,” says Ben Barkow, the Director of the Wiener Library. “But it’s always slightly chilling to hold the book in one’s hand, knowing of course that he held it in his hand when he autographed it.”

    And if that wasn’t strange enough, Barkow, then produces a Murphy edition which Hutchinson brought out in 18 weekly parts. Bright yellow and red, each part sold for sixpence. What’s extraordinary, though, is what it says down one side of the cover: “Royalties on all sales will go to the British Red Cross Society.” On the other side of the cover: “The blue-print of German imperialism. The most widely discussed book of the modern world.”
    Mein Kampf today

    As Hitler’s official home was Munich, after his suicide, all royalties from his estate went to the state of Bavaria, which owns the copyright of Mein Kampf in Germany and has refused to allow publication
    The copyright expires at the end of 2015, and Bavaria says it will allow an annotated version of the text to be published
    Publication and ownership of the book is restricted or banned in some countries including Argentina, China, the Netherlands and Russia
    In other countries, such as India and Turkey, it remains popular – it’s estimated that more than 15,000 copies are sold in the US every year

    Viewpoint: Let Germans read Mein Kampf

    There’s another intriguing twist to the story of the English translation. While my grandfather was working on it he employed the help of a German woman (recommended by a half-Jewish writer, who was also the Murphys’ landlord). James referred to Greta Lorcke, as she was then, as one of the most intelligent people he’d ever met. But he had battles with her. While he wanted to produce an intelligible translation, in good English, Greta would on occasion alter the translations, to reflect some of Hitler’s convoluted and vulgar language. “This annoyed him intensely,” my father says. “He would alter it back again.”

    But there was something else about Greta that my grandfather didn’t know at the time.

    During the War the Nazis discovered that Greta and her husband, Adam Kuckhoff, were members of a famous Soviet spy ring, known as the Red Orchestra (Rote Kapelle). Adam was executed. Greta had her sentence commuted to life imprisonment. She survived the war, and in her autobiography she describes her first meeting with James Murphy, who she refers to as Mr M.

    “I was very impressed by Mr M as he came to meet me in the main lobby. He was a handsome man – 2m tall and carried his 100kg with regal dignity – a man who inspired confidence. The way he discussed his translation work, with which I was to assist him, made me believe he was no friend of National Socialism.”

    Greta had considerable doubts about translating Mein Kampf, as she explained to my father, years later.

    “‘Why should I help this man translate this awful book into English?’ she wondered. But she consulted her Soviet contacts who explained that it was necessary to translate it into good English,” my father says.

    “They had heard from the Soviet Ambassador to London, Maisky, who knew Lloyd George quite well. Lloyd George had said to Maisky, ‘I don’t know why you tell me all these things are in Mein Kampf – I’ve read it and they aren’t.’ It turned out that what Lloyd George had read was [the] abridged version, which was only about a third of the length, and which had been controlled to a certain extent by the Nazis. Some of the worst things were taken out of it. So the Russians had said to Greta, ‘You must help this man – get this into English!'”

    Unfortunately I never met my grandfather. He died of a heart condition in 1946, just before his 66th birthday. This large Irishman from County Cork was a complicated and fascinating man. He was a true polymath, with a deep knowledge of literature, art and science; a journalist, a lecturer, a translator; an expert on Italian fascism and Nazi Germany.

    He spoke French, Italian and German fluently. He harboured dreams of a United States of Europe – at peace. Ultimately, though, even if it wasn’t his intention, he’ll be best known as the man who translated Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

    Mein Kampf: Publish or Burn? produced by John Murphy with reporter Chris Bowlby was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 11:00 GMT, 14 January – you can now listen to it on the BBC iPlayer
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30697262

  • Torcer

    Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of
    money other than money which people earn themselves.
    If the State wishes
    to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing
    you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay – that
    ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is
    only taxpayers’ money.
    MARGARET THATCHER, speech to Conservative Party Conference, Oct. 14, 1983

  • Torcer

    “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Thomas Jefferson

  • Torcer

    Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. “Racism”
    by Ayn Rand(An article published in the September, 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter
    and included as a chapter in the book, The Virtue of Selfishness )

  • Torcer

    “America is the most exceptional nation in the history of the world because our Constitution is the best political document that’s ever been written. It said something different than almost any other government had said before: Most governments before said that might makes right, that government decides what our rights are and that the people are just dependent subjects. Our Founders said that God gives us rights by nature, and that government is not the author or source of our rights. Government is just our shared project to secure those rights.”
    Ben Sasse

  • Torcer

    Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda
    David Klein January 2011
    For several years, the right wing has been equating nazism, the left, and socialism. This is standard propaganda for Fox News and the Tea Party which both denounce Obama as a socialist and at the same time portray him visually with a Hitler mustache. Conservatives have also argued that Jared Loughner — the shooter of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords — was influenced by leftwing ideology because his reading list included both Das Kapital by Karl Marx and Hitler’s Mein Kampf (without mentioning another book on his list, We the Living, by Ayn Rand).

    The conflation of nazism and socialism has gone largely unchallenged by the media, and through repetition it is becoming almost “common knowledge” in the US, so I feel compelled to speak against it. I hope that others, especially professors who have occasion to talk about it in and out of class, will also speak against this vile propaganda.

    The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term “National Socialism,” a self description of the Nazis. “National Socialism” includes the word “socialism”, but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for “illegal socialist activity” in 1936.

    In the 1930s and even beyond, nazism, in sharp contrast to socialism, was strongly supported by leading capitalists and right wingers in the US. Henry Ford, the leading industrialist and auto maker, was a great admirer of the nazis. When Henry Ford announced that he might run for president in 1923, the little-known Hitler told the Chicago Tribune that he would like to send shock troops to Chicago to assist in the campaign. Later in 1938, the year of Kristallnacht, Ford was awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest civilian award given by the nazis. Ford accepted it with pride, and Ford’s company collaborated with the nazis as late as August 1942. General Motors, Standard Oil, ITT, and Chase National Bank (later Chase Manhattan Bank) among others also had major financial investments and collaborations with Nazi Germany.

    J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the FBI (and virulently anti-communist) was a great admirer of the nazis and was a pen pal of Heinrich Himmler (Reichsfuhrer of the Nazi SS, head of the Gestapo, and second most powerful leader of the Nazi party). Hoover sent Himmler a personal invitation to attend the 1937 World Police Conference in Montreal, and in 1938 welcomed one of Himmler’s top aids to the U.S. In June 1939, when the Nazi SS was conducting savage attacks against Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals throughout Germany, Hoover personally autographed a photo of himself and sent it in response to a request, to KRIPO, the Nazi criminal police agency. He continued communication with Nazi police until December 4, 1941 (three days before Pearl Harbor).*

    Nazism is a right wing ideology. It is violently racist, anti-socialist, and it targets the political left for extermination. This is underscored by Albert Einstein’s embrace of socialism throughout his life — and in particular in his 1949 essay, Why Socialism?

    — along with the fact that Einstein’s name was included on a nazi death list with a bounty of $50,000 offered for his assassination. If nazism really is socialism, why would Einstein have identified himself as a socialist a scant four years after WWII?
    http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
    The current right wing conflation of nazism and the left is sleazy. A more informed population would view this as completely idiotic, but unfortunately this propaganda is becoming increasingly effective.

    *For elaboration and references, see Fred Jerome’s excellent books, The Einstein File and Einstein on Race and Racism.
    http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html

  • Torcer

    “If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” — Winston Churchill

  • Torcer

    Man is not free unless government is limited- Ronald Reagan

  • Torcer

    “Volumes can be and have been written about the issue of freedom versus dictatorship, but, in essence, it comes down to a single question: do you consider it moral to treat men as sacrificial animals and to rule them by physical force?” Ayn Rand

  • Torcer

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” Alexander Tytler

  • Torcer

    ”Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. “ H. L. Mencken

  • Torcer

    “Do not suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any pretences of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice.” – John Adams, 1789

  • Torcer

    Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel. – Ayn Rand

  • Torcer

    “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana

    “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana

  • Torcer

    In “The Road to Serfdom,” Friedrich Hayek noted that “the power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionnaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work.”

  • Torcer

    “Understand one thing……You can make laws against weapons but they will be observed only by those who don’t intend to use them anyway. The lawless can always smuggle or steal, or even make a gun. By refusing to wear a gun you allow the criminal to operate with impunity.” – Louis L’Amour

    “Understand one thing……You can make laws against weapons but they will be observed only by those who don’t intend to use them anyway. The lawless can always smuggle or steal, or even make a gun. By refusing to wear a gun you allow the criminal to operate with impunity.” – Louis L’Amour

  • Torcer

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
    degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
    is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
    willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal
    safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
    made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
    – John Stuart Mill 1806-1873

  • Torcer

    Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark. ~Walter Lippmann

    Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark. ~Walter Lippmann

  • Torcer

    “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Thomas Jefferson

  • Torcer

    Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

    Senator Hubert H. Humphrey,
    Comm.: Foreign Relations Minnesota
    http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1960issues/G0260.pdf

  • Torcer

    “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” Vladimir Lenin

    “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” Vladimir Lenin

  • Torcer

    “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”

    Han Solo

  • Torcer

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.” – Robert J. Hanlon

  • Torcer

    “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Thomas Jefferson

  • Torcer

    “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Lenin

  • Torcer

    A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders. – Larry Elder

    A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders. – Larry Elder

  • Torcer

    “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.” W. C. Fields

    “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.” W. C. Fields

  • Torcer

    Definition of reform
    verb
    [WITH OBJECT]
    1Make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it.
    ‘the Bill will reform the tax system’
    noun
    mass noun
    The action or process of reforming an institution or practice.
    ‘the reform of the divorce laws’
    count noun ‘economic reforms’
    Origin
    Middle English (as a verb in the senses ‘restore (peace)’ and ‘bring back to the original condition’): from Old French reformer or Latin reformare, from re- ‘back’ + formare ‘to form, shape’. The noun dates from the mid 17th century.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reform

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    Interesting that the extremely vague term ‘progressivism’ refers to ‘social reform’ and that actually refers to the verb senses ‘restore (peace)’ and ‘bring back to the original condition’

  • Torcer

    “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” Ronald Reagan

  • Torcer

    ………………………………………………………………….

    The Communist Manifesto after 100 years
    The first theoretical expression of a genuinely socialist position came in Thomas More’s Utopia, written in the early years of the 16th Century — in other words, at the very threshold of what we call the modern period. But Utopia was the work of an individual genius and not the reflection of a social movement. It was not until the English Civil War, in the middle of the 17th Century, that socialism first began to assume the shape of a social movement.

    Gerrard Winstanley (born 1609, died sometime after 1660) was probably the greatest socialist thinker that the English-speaking countries have yet produced, and the Digger movement which he led was certainly the first practical expression of socialism. But it lasted only a very short time, and the same was true of the movement led by Babeuf during the French Revolution a century and a half later. Meanwhile, quite a number of writers had formulated views of a more or less definitely socialist character.

    But it was not until the 19th Century that socialism became an important public issue and socialists began to play a significant role in the political life of the most advanced European countries. The Utopian socialists (Owen, Fourier, St. Simon) were key figures in this period of emergence; and the Chartist movement in Britain, which flourished during the late 1880s and early 1840s, showed that the new factory working class formed a potentially powerful base for a socialist political party.

  • Torcer

    ……………………………..

    Socialism….Origins
    The origins of socialism as a political movement lie in the Industrial Revolution. Its intellectual roots, however, reach back almost as far as recorded thought—even as far as Moses, according to one history of the subject. Socialist or communist ideas certainly play an important part in the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, whose Republic depicts an austere society in which men and women of the “guardian” class share with each other not only their few material goods but also their spouses and children.

    Christianity and Platonism were combined in More’s Utopia, which apparently recommends communal ownership as a way of controlling the sins of pride, envy, and greed. Land and houses are common property on More’s imaginary island of Utopia, where everyone works for at least two years on the communal farms and people change houses every 10 years so that no one develops pride of possession. Money has been abolished, and people are free to take what they need from common storehouses. All the Utopians live simply, moreover, so that they are able to meet their needs with only a few hours of work a day, leaving the rest for leisure.

    More’s Utopia is not so much a blueprint for a socialist society as it is a commentary on the failings he perceived in the supposedly Christian societies of his day. Religious and political turmoil, however, soon inspired others to try to put utopian ideas into practice. Common ownership was one of the aims of the brief Anabaptist regime in the Westphalian city of Münster during the Protestant Reformation, and several communist or socialist sects sprang up in England in the wake of the Civil Wars (1642–51). Chief among them was the Diggers, whose members claimed that God had created the world for people to share, not to divide and exploit for private profit. When they acted on this belief by digging and planting on land that was not legally theirs, they ran afoul of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, which forcibly disbanded them.
    The term socialist came into use about 1830 to describe these radicals, some of the most important of whom subsequently acquired the title of “utopian” socialists.

    One of the first utopian socialists was the French aristocrat Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon. Saint-Simon did not call for public ownership of productive property, but he did advocate public control of property through central planning, in which scientists, industrialists, and engineers would anticipate social needs and direct the energies of society to meet them.

    Another early socialist, Robert Owen, was himself an industrialist.
    Owen set out in 1825 to establish a model of social organization, New Harmony, on land he had purchased in the U.S. state of Indiana. This was to be a self-sufficient, cooperative community in which property was commonly owned. New Harmony failed within a few years, taking most of Owen’s fortune with it.

    Similar themes mark the writings of François-Marie-Charles Fourier, a French clerk whose imagination, if not his fortune, was as extravagant as Owen’s. Fourier envisioned a form of society that would be more in keeping with human needs and desires. Such a “phalanstery,” as he called it, would be a largely self-sufficient community of about 1,600 people organized according to the principle of “attractive labour,” which holds that people will work voluntarily and happily if their work engages their talents and interests. Fourier left room for private investment in his utopian community, but every member was to share in ownership, and inequality of wealth, though permitted, was to be limited.
    Other early socialists

    Other socialists in France began to agitate and organize in the 1830s and ’40s; they included Louis Blanc, Louis-Auguste Blanqui, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Blanc, the author of L’Organisation du travail (1839; The Organization of Labour), promoted a scheme of state-financed but worker-controlled “social workshops” that would guarantee work for everyone and lead gradually to a socialist society. Blanqui, by contrast, was a revolutionary who spent more than 33 years in prison for his insurrectionary activities. Socialism cannot be achieved without the conquest of state power, he argued, and this conquest must be the work of a small group of conspirators. Once in power, the revolutionaries would form a temporary dictatorship that would confiscate the property of the wealthy and establish state control of major industries.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

  • Torcer

    Fallacies of Argument
    A fallacy is a flaw in logic that occurs when making an argument. These happen frequently and can not only destroy an argument, but harm the credibility of the person making the argument.
    Ad hominem:
    Here, the writer attacks a person’s character, physical appearance, or personal habits instead of addressing the central issues of an argument. This type of attack sometimes comes in the form of character assassination (especially in politics). Before looking at a person’s character/personal traits rather than ideas and policies, one must be positive that those personal traits actually play a role in the argument. Otherwise, they are distracting and a way of evading the issue or distracting readers.
    Ex. You read in a music review that Lady Gaga can’t be taken seriously as a musical artist because of how she dresses.

    Keep in mind, however, that character/personality are sometimes relevant to an argument. For example, one could make a strong and logically sound argument against hiring a candidate who has a record of taking bribes to be in charge of the finance for a campaign.
    https://cstudies.ubc.ca/student-information/services/self-directed-writing-resources/argument/fallacies-argument

  • Torcer

    …………………………………

    MYTH BUSTED: Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/ via @scrowder

    MYTH BUSTED: Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal
    A favorite tactic employed by leftists is to describe the Nazis as “right wing,” with Adolf Hitler, their leader, as the grand leader of this “right wing” movement. Rewriting history is pretty common for leftists, as their history is littered with injustice (the KKK was founded by Democrats, did you know?). Injustices they claim to fight against today. Awkward.

    Adolf Hitler wasn’t “right wing.” If you take nothing else from this post, just remember Hitler was a socialist. With terrible facial hair. There’s an easy way to remember it, too. NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers‘ Party. Associate it with blunt mustaches.

    What does National Socialist German Worker’s Party mean? Glad you asked. Is it different from “Democratic socialism”? Only in semantics. A Democracy is mob rule, which is why America is actually a constitutional, representative republic, NOT a democracy. A representative republic protects the minority from the majority, whereas a democracy is the rule of the majority. Leftists get caught up in words, getting tripped up over “National Socialism” as opposed to “Democrat Socialism.” But it’s just that. Semantics. So when Hitler ginned up hatred for the Jews, he could get the mob to agree with him. He could get the mob to believe him. There were no representatives to stop Hitler. He was one man helming the desperation of a majority of people. Spot the difference?

    When we examine Hitler’s Nazi Germany through the lens of history, most, if not all of us, think of the Holocaust. In fact the holocaust might be the only thing we associate with Hitler’s Nazis. We’ve all been told of the Jews being marched off to death camps where they were worked, tortured, then gassed. We’ve also heard of the experiments conducted by Hitler’s Dr. Mengele. All terrible practices which we rightly find horrifying. Unless you’re one of those people who think Planned Parenthood is great.

    What we don’t often hear or learn about is how Hitler ruled the rest of Germany, what his domestic policies were for the German people he didn’t march off to death camps. Hitler’s domestic, socialist policies will be the focus of this post. Trigger warning: they’re eerily similar to what American Democrats tout today. Double trigger warning? He initially had the support of the mob of people. So replace many of Hitler’s policies with something you hear from Bernie Sanders…
    [..]
    Employment for All
    After that depression, Hitler made a huge promise to his people: employment for all. How did he do it?
    http://www.markedbyteachers.com/gcse/history/hitler-s-domestic-policies-between-1933-1939-engaged-widespread-popularity-among-german-people-how-far-would-you-agree.html
    So Hitler created jobs…through government. While at the same time, he criticized certain segments of the population, demeaning them, blaming the countries woes upon them. The rich, they just ruin everything. Sound familiar?
    Big Education
    If you haven’t seen it yet, go watch http://louderwithcrowder.com/holocaust-survivor-draws-chilling-similarities-between-nazism-and-obama/
    […]
    The Police State
    If you dared oppose the Nazis or Hitler politically, especially with your words, you better watch out.
    http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007675
    In Conclusion

    Hitler was a horrible human being. But aside from how he treated the Jews, aside from his monstrous ways, his policies were anything but “conservative.” He wanted big government, he wanted big education, he wanted thought control. He hated political dissidents. He loathed free-speech. He feared an armed citizenry.

    So stop saying “Hitler was right-wing.” No, he wasn’t. If anything, he was a full-fledged left-winger. With a horrible mustache.
    http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/

  • Torcer

    …………….

    loaded question
    You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn’t be answered without appearing guilty.

    Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature – the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

  • Torcer

    The goal of socialism is communism.
    Vladimir Lenin

    The goal of socialism is communism.
    Vladimir Lenin

  • Torcer

    How to Talk About Ourselves
    From blue states, we often hear the question, “Is it better to call yourself a liberal or a progressive?” From red states we’re asked, “Is it bad politics to call yourself a progressive when the jurisdiction seems conservative?” The answer to both is—say progressive.

    A poll by the Pew Research Center compared common ideological terms. It demonstrates that progressive is the most positive political label in America. Conservative is the second most popular political brand. Liberal is substantially less popular, probably because Americans think that a liberal favors the poor over the middle class.

    In recent years, a number of political organizations have embraced the term progressive. In addition to Progressive Majority (our sister group), there’s Progressive Democrats of America, Progressive States Network and Progressive Change Campaign Committee. The slogan of the Center for American Progress is “Progressive Ideas for a Strong, Just and Free America.” And of course, there is no Liberal Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives—it’s called the Progressive Caucus.

    A few years ago, Lake Research Partners looked more deeply into voters’ feelings about the term progressive. They found that Democrats, Republicans and persuadable voters all like a progressive candidate better than a liberal one. The big advantage in the progressive label comes not so much from the Democratic base, but from conservatives and persuadable voters. In a race where both candidates are otherwise unknown, the progressive begins with an edge over the conservative, while in a similar race the conservative begins with an advantage over the liberal.

    Even Republican pollster Frank Luntz has said to his opponents:

    Don’t call yourself a ‘liberal.’ Call yourself a ‘progressive.’ It’s a smart move. In polling we did following the 2004 election, a generic Republican beat a generic liberal by fifteen points. But a generic progressive beat a generic Republican by two points. Same ideology. Different label. Different result.

    And yet, progressive is not yet the ideal political label because most voters don’t really know what it means. Saying progressive doesn’t win the battle, but it makes voters substantially more willing to listen as you explain what you propose to do.

    All of this makes sense. Progressive sounds positive because it comes from the word progress. It gives the impression that progressives want to move forward, promote innovation and focus on the future—all popular ideas. Also, when progressive is compared side-by-side with conservative, we have an advantage because it sounds like pro versus con. On the other hand, the term liberal no longer benefits from the fact that it derives from the same Latin root as liberty and previously referred to laissez-faire policies. These days, nobody hears liberal and thinks of liberty—the word has lost its emotional center.

    Don’t say . . . Liberal

    Say . . . Progressive

    Why . . .

    Liberal is polarizing. Too many negative stereotypes are connected to the term. If we call ourselves progressive, persuadable voters are more likely to keep an open mind and listen to what we say. Besides, we should be happy to be asked the question, “What is a progressive, anyway?” That gives us the chance to talk about our progressive values: freedom, opportunity and security for all.
    http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/how_to_talk_about_ourselves

  • Torcer

    June 26, 2012
    Political “Left” and “Right” Properly Defined
    I’m often asked versions of the following: Given that the political right is so corrupted by conservatives who seek to limit liberty in countless ways, wouldn’t it be better to abandon the language of “left” vs. “right” and adopt new terminology?

    My answer is that, because the terms “left” and “right” are already widely used to denote the basic political alternative, and because that alternative is in fact binary, the best approach for advocates of freedom is not to reject the prevalent terminology but to clarify it—by defining the relevant terms.

    The problem with conventional approaches to the left-right political spectrum is that they either fail to define the alternatives in question, or proceed to define them in terms of non-essentials.

    One common approach, for instance, fails to specify the precise nature of either side, yet proceeds to place communism, socialism, and modern “liberalism” on (or toward) the left—and fascism, conservatism, and capitalism on (or toward) the right.

    This makes no sense, at least in terms of the right. Capitalism—the social system of individual rights, property rights, and personal liberty—has nothing in common with conservatism or fascism. Take them in turn.

    Conservatism is not for individual rights or personal liberty; rather, it is for religious values (euphemistically called “traditional values” or “family values”) and a government that enforces them. Although conservatism calls for some economic liberties, it simultaneously demands various violations of individual rights in order to support certain aspects of the welfare state (e.g., Social Security and government-run schools), in order to shackle or control “greedy” businessmen (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley and anti-immigration laws), and in order to forbid certain “immoral” acts or relationships (e.g., drug use and gay marriage). Thus, conservatism is utterly at odds with capitalism.

    And fascism, far from having anything in common with capitalism, is essentially the same atrocity as communism and socialism—the only difference being that whereas communism and socialism openly call for state ownership of all property, fascism holds that some property may be “private”—so long as government can dictate how such property may be used. Sure, you own the factory, but here’s what you may and may not produce in it; here’s the minimum wage you must pay employees; here’s the kind of accounting system you must use; here are the specifications your machinery must meet; and so on. (Thomas Sowell makes some good observations about the nature of fascism.)

    Another ill-conceived approach to the left-right political spectrum is the attempt by some to define the political alternatives by reference to the size or percentage of government. In this view, the far left consists of full-sized or 100 percent government; the far right consists of zero government or anarchy; and the middle area subsumes the various other possible sizes of government, from “big” to “medium” to “small” to “minimal.” But this too is hopeless.

    The size of government is not the essential issue in politics. A large military may be necessary to defend citizens from foreign aggressors, especially if there are many potential aggressors—say, multiple communist or Islamist regimes—who might combine forces against a free country. Likewise, a large court system might be necessary to deal with the countless contracts involved in a large free market and with the various disputes that can arise therein.

    A small government, by contrast, can violate rights in myriad ways—if its proper purpose is not established and maintained. Observe that governments in the antebellum South were relatively small, yet their laws permitted and enforced the enslavement of men, women, and children. Likewise, the U.S. government was quite small during the 1890s—even though the Sherman Antitrust Act had passed and was violating businessmen’s rights to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

    The essential issue in politics is not the size but the function of government; it’s not whether government is big or small but whether it protects or violates rights. (Ari Armstrong addresses this issue with excerpts from Ludwig von Mises.)

    The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. A properly conceived political spectrum must reflect this fact. Whatever terms are used to identify the positions of political ideologies or systems must be defined with regard to the fundamental political alternative: force vs. freedom—or, more specifically, rights-violating vs. rights-protecting institutions.

    Because the term “left” is already widely used to denote social systems and ideologies of force (e.g., socialism, communism, “progressivism”), and the term “right” is substantially used to denote social systems and ideologies of freedom (e.g., capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism), the best approach for advocates of freedom is not to develop new terminology for the political spectrum, but to define the existing terminology with respect to political essentials—and to claim the extreme right end of the spectrum as rightfully and exclusively ours.

    A notable advantage of embracing the political right as our own is that the term “right” happens to integrate seamlessly with the philosophical and conceptual hierarchy that supports freedom. This is a historic accident, but a welcome one. Although “left” and “right” originally referred to seating arrangements of 18th-century legislators in France—arrangements unrelated to anything in contemporary American politics—the term “right” conceptually relates to fundamental moral truths on which freedom depends.

    Capitalism—the social system of the political right—is the system of individual rights. It is the system that respects and protects individual rights—by banning physical force from social relationships—and thus enables people to live their lives, to act on their judgment, to keep and use their property, and to pursue personal happiness. This observation grounds the political right in the proper goal of politics: the protection of rights.

    Related, and still more fundamental, capitalism is morally right. By protecting individual rights, capitalism legalizes rational egoism: It enables people to act on the truth that each individual is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others, and that each individual should act to sustain and further his own life and happiness by means of his own rational judgment. This observation deepens the significance of the term “right” and anchors it in the only code of morality that is demonstrably true.

    In short, seen in this light, the right morality gives rise to the principle of individual rights, which gives rise to the need of a political system that protects rights, which system is properly placed on the political right—in opposition to all systems that in any way violate rights.

    Observe the clarity gained by this conception of the political spectrum. The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, democracy (i.e., rule by the majority), and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs). The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism—all of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights. The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights—whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or the like—or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you.

    Importantly, on this essentialized conception of the political spectrum, the right does not entail degrees; only the left does. This is because degrees of force are degrees of force; violations of rights are violations of rights. Freedom and rights are absolutes: Either people are free to act on their judgment, to keep and use their property, to pursue their happiness—or they are not free; they are to some extent coerced. Either government protects and does not violate rights—or it violates rights to some extent.

    subscribe-now-por.pngIf people are not fully free to run their businesses and voluntarily contract with others as they see fit, to engage in voluntary adult romantic relationships, to engage in their own preferred recreational activities, to purchase or forgo health insurance as they deem best, and so forth, then they are not free; they are victims of coercion.

    We who advocate freedom—whether we call ourselves Objectivists or laissez-faire capitalists or classical liberals or Tea Partiers or whatever—should claim the political right as our own. And we should let conservatives who advocate any kind or degree of rights violations know that their proper place on the political spectrum is somewhere in the mushy, unprincipled middle with their modern “liberal” brethren. Perhaps such notice and company will cause them to think about what’s right.

    The political right properly belongs to those who uphold the principle of rights—not merely in theory, but also in practice.

  • Torcer

    Ned Isakoff
    Neddy

    Ned Isakoff, played by Todd Kimsey, dated Elaine Benes in “The Race”. He is a Communist, but Elaine doesn’t notice until George finds Ned’s copy of The Daily Worker lying around her apartment. Elaine finds her new boyfriend’s political affiliation thrilling, but is unimpressed with his drab clothing choices.

    Ned has a special affinity for the Chinese restaurant Hop Sing’s as the restaurant helped his father (who was also a Communist) organize during rough times in his childhood. Ned’s relationship with Elaine ended after she got him blacklisted from Hop Sing’s after using his name in a failed ruse against the restaurant. “You got me blacklisted at Hop Sing’s?!” Hop Sing himself responded, “She named name.”

    Ned’s call for a worker’s revolution in the USA fell on deaf ears for Jerry and George. However, Cosmo Kramer, who would later claim he had no idea Communism was so controversial, was quite taken by it. Kramer would later be fired from his part-time job as a mall Santa when he began relaying the information found in Ned’s pamphlets to the children there.

  • Torcer

    Free love or genocide? The trouble with Utopias

    Ever since Thomas More wrote Utopia 500 years ago, visionaries from William Morris to Ursula K Le Guin have dreamed of ideal worlds. But beneath the fig-leaf of fiction, the results are often bland – or bloody
    A quarter of a century ago, the whole idea of utopia seemed irredeemably sullied. At the start of the 1990s, the largest social experiment in human history – the USSR – imploded, and with it went the notion that imagining a radically different society was a serious activity. It seemed that the rewards of such experiments were always so enticing that genocide inevitably ensued.

    That was the lesson drawn from any totalitarian regime informed by the highest (or lowest) idealism: the Khmer Rouge, the Videla regime in Argentina, Nazi Germany, you name it. Back then, it was thought best not to fantasise too much about a better world, but to learn to live in this one. The academic and political atmosphere in the 1990s was decidedly pragmatic, rather than optimistic. It was an era in which the liberal democracies celebrated (prematurely, of course) “the end of history”. The story of humanity was a march to freedom, we were told, and we had arrived. This was as good as it got, and the idealists and unrealists should stop fantasising, because it was a dangerous hobby.
    [..]
    Genocide has always been there in these otherworldly narratives: in Gulliver’s Travels, the Houyhnhnms wanted to wipe out the Yahoos; Gerrard Winstanley, founder of the True Levellers, recommended the execution of all lawyers. There are few utopias that don’t blithely eradicate unwanted elements, and while sometimes the author’s sympathies are clear (Winstanley was pretty black-and-white) others have satirical immunity, presenting their fiction not as a window on to a better future, but as a mirror held up to bleak humanity. It was often hard to tell whether the fiction was an aspiration or a warning.
    Utopia by Thomas More
    Utopia by Thomas More

    That, perhaps, is why the genre remains so appealing: it has always been slightly smoke-and-mirrors, a bit of a guessing game about how serious the proposition actually was. Many understandably believe that “utopian” is shorthand for dreamy impracticality. Take the notion that humans might one day be so good that lies are despised (imagined in Edward Bellamy’s 1888 science-fiction novel Looking Backward) or taxes willingly overpaid, as in Louis-Sebastien Mercier’s Memoirs of the Year 2500: “I saw several people, with easy, cheerful, contented looks, throw sealed packets into the chest, as in our day they threw letters into the post office.” Some of Mercier’s imaginings, which were published in 1770, appear all too removed from human avarice and from what policy wonks call “deliverability”.
    Utopias, past and present: why Thomas More remains astonishingly radical
    Read more

    But utopianism is an academic parlour game precisely because it can be divisive, entertaining and challenging. And with the quincentenary of Thomas More’s Utopia falling this year, the parlour game is again being dusted off. On 25 January, London’s Somerset House begins 12 months of exhibitions, installations and commissions to investigate the renewed allure of utopianism. One of the most eye-catching events is the opportunity to see the view from Anarres, the anarchic planet in one of the last century’s greatest novels, Ursula K Le Guin’s The Dispossessed. In that interplanetary book, the arch-anarchist Shevek travels to a new planet, and struggles to understand the “propertarian” anxieties: “Was it because, no matter how much money they had, they always had to worry about making more, lest they died poor?”

    It feels as if the year’s events are planned to make people ponder seriously what it means, in our confused age, to be countercultural. What would utopian dreaming, in 2016, look like? Would our concerns be the same as those of More, or very different? Presumably the impossible dream of many is now the redemption of a scarred and suffocating planet; or maybe global peace or the eradication of religion. That interface between politics and utopianism is where the game gets interesting. Utopianism is like the manifesto we would write if no one were watching, if all the rules could be rewritten by just one, benevolent dicatator.
    Banned … HG Wells’s In the Days of the Comet proposed free love.
    Banned … HG Wells’s In the Days of the Comet proposed free love. Photograph: Popperfoto/Getty Images

    And it’s surprising how, over the centuries, all those literary dictators have raised very comparable issues. One constant has been the vexed question of the family. From Plato onwards, writers have fantasised about a universal brotherhood in which blood allegiances are replaced by infinite goodwill. Sometimes the renunciation of family isn’t selfless, but simply about freedom and, specifically, free love. HG Wells’s In the Days of the Comet suggested that sex with whoever you wanted was the future of a reasoning society (and it duly got banned from public libraries).

    Since utopianism is the fantasist’s literary genre of choice, it’s not surprising that so many utopias were given over to fantasies about orgiastic rituals, like this from Charles Fourier’s Harmony: “When the Head Fairy waves her wand a semi–bacchanalia gets under way. The members of both groups rush into each other’s arms, and in the ensuing scramble caresses are liberally given and received. Everyone strokes and investigates whatever comes to hand and surrenders himself or herself to the unfettered impulses of simple nature. Each participant flits from one person to another, bestowing kisses everywhere with as much eagerness as rapidity.”

    But it’s in the eradication of money and private property that utopianism most clearly intrigues the orphans of radical politics. Those who still devoutly believe in common ownership can’t get enough of utopianism that promises equality, from Henry George’s Progress and Poverty (extolling the notion of a single land tax) to Gracchus Babeuf’s egalitarianism in all things (“education is a monstrosity when it is unequally shared”). Both were working in that fertile ground shared by utopians and politicians, where radical dreams might just germinate in the soil of the real world.
    Embroiderers in the 1930s at the workshop begun by William Morris half a century before in Merton Abbey Mills, London.
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Pinterest
    Embroiderers in the 1930s at the workshop begun by William Morris half a century before in Merton Abbey Mills, London. Photograph: Fox Photos/Getty Images

    Many writers, of course, have gone on to be – in major and minor ways – utopian pioneers. Nathaniel Hawthorne was one of the founders of a Fourier-inspired Brook Farm (and wrote The Blithedale Romance as a result); Robert Owen had published seven books by the time he set up New Harmony in Indiana. William Morris was forever dreaming up, and putting into practice, better ways of living, as well as writing News From Nowhere, another utopian fantasy.

    But when the game moves from something on paper to a reality put on land with non-fiction human beings, there are often disasters. The Brixton cult where the Maoist cult leader Aravindan Balakrishnan raped and abused followers is just the most recent and glaringly horrible example of what happens when a dictator gets going. News stories have forever reiterated the pitfalls of utopianism. Whether it was Jim Jones in Guyana or David Koresh in Waco, it has seemed pretty plain that intentional communities of idealists often go fatally berserk. Books like My Life In Orange, or Frances Fitzgerald’s magisterial dismantling of Rajneeshpuram in Cities on a Hill, have underlined the point that experimentation with the norms of society is like putting machine-guns in a nursery.
    Waco, Texas, where 76 people died following the siege of a religious cult led by David Koresh.
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Pinterest
    Waco, Texas, where 76 people died following the siege of a religious cult led by David Koresh. Photograph: Bob Daemmrich/AFP/Getty Images

    But often the results are merely chaotic or eccentric. The 20,000 acres of Owen’s Harmony lacked the leadership and direction of its Lutheran predecessors and slowly petered out. The Shakers, in contrast, didn’t lack leadership but progeny: their response to the gospel was to ban all sexual intercourse. The Fruitlands Community, where Louisa May Alcott of Little Women fame grew up, was troubled not just by sex but also, honestly, by vegetables that grew downwards.

    But for all our sniggering about communal weirdness, many of the great advances in human compassion have come about because of utopian experimentation. Whether or not you like what they stand for, monasteries have lived out the core utopian ideals for centuries: swap celibacy for free love, and you’ve got all the classic ingredients – no family, no private property, no punishment (because of forgiveness).

    Or take The Farm, the Tennessee community founded in 1971 by my hero, Stephen Gaskin. Early pioneers took vows of poverty, enjoyed sex but only within monogamous relationships, and thought cannabis a sacrament (while prohibiting hard drugs). It might sound old-school hippie, but Gaskin was a devout man who created a charitable arm called Plenty, which became a relief organisation working in Guatemala, New Orleans and so on.
    Fruitlands, Massachusetts, where Little Women author Louisa May Alcott lived in the 1840s.

    One naturally assumes that mega-riches are needed to start one of these communities, but actually the reverse is often true. There was a beautiful book published years ago called Sweet Earth. It was a series of photographs by Joel Sternfeld subtitled Utopian Experiments in America. What emerged from the stunning images of ploughs, compost loos and earth-ships was the fact that such spaces often grow not on rich soil, but on barren, impoverished places like Slab City.

    It’s an old truism that if you want generosity, go to the person who has nothing. The same message emerges clearly from the pages of Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell: the greatest, anarchic solidarity emerges in the most desperate and damaged places – earthquakes, warzones and so on. As Le Guin wrote in The Dispossessed: “I’m trying to say what I think brotherhood really is. It begins – it begins in shared pain.” Egalitarianism, that old utopian aspiration, can only happen amongst long-suffering commoners.

    In the end, one’s attitude to utopianism usually depends on one’s understanding of progress, since progress is, as Wilde wrote, just “the realisation of utopias”. Those who think human history is nihilistic chaos will be pretty snooty about utopians. But those whigs, liberals, egalitarians, eco-warriors, freedom-fighters or pacifists who are able to imagine a far better world all hear the call of utopianism. The key question, of course, is whether one’s response to that call leads to killing or to compassion.

    Utopia 2016 – A Year of Imagination and Possibility launches today at Somerset House, London. Tobias Jones’s A Place of Refuge is published by Quercus.
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/24/trouble-with-utopia-free-love-genocide-thomas-more-500-exhibition

  • Torcer

    Liberals Are Simple-Minded…and often more dogmatic than conservatives, according to a new study. http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/15/liberals-are-simple-minded

    Liberals Are Simple-Minded
    ..and often more dogmatic than conservatives, according to a new study.

    It is almost a truism among psychological researchers that conservatives are simple-minded and dogmatic. Liberals, meanwhile, are supposed to be more complex and open-minded thinkers. But a new paper is calling those conclusions into question.

    Writing in the journal Political Psychology, a team of researchers led by the University of Montana psychologist Lucian Gideon Conway III reports the results of four studies that together call “into question the typical interpretation that conservatives are less complex than liberals.” It turns out that liberals and conservatives are both simple-minded, depending on the topic under discussion.

    Using the dogmatism scale devised in 1960 by the psychologist Milton Rokeach, who defined dogmatism in terms of “closed belief systems,” researchers have generally found a positive relationship between dogmatism and political conservatism. But while the Rokeach scale is supposed to be politically neutral, Conway and his colleagues argue that it actually includes a number of topics for which conservatives generally have a greater concern, such as religion and national defense. Conservatives who fill out the scale would more tend to come off as more dogmatic largely because they are endorsing conservative views.
    http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/15/liberals-are-simple-minded

  • Torcer

    “If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    =============================================
    The fundamental ideas of #Socialism are 500 years old
    #Socialism500yrsofFAIL
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1iZ5q9WIAA96cm.jpg

  • Torcer

    Is it a tactical reload or a mag exchange?
    A tactical reload (tac reload for short) is when your slide (on a pistol) or your bolt carrier group (on an AR) is forward and in battery. You drop the mag, which could still have a few rounds left in it, or the mag could be empty, but there’s still a round in the chamber.

    A tactical reload is reloading while your slide or bolt is in battery and there’s a round in the chamber. Period. Really, you could let the mag hit the ground, but there’s no reason to, right?

    Well, there may be times when you want to let a half spent mag hit the ground. For instance, in a shooting competition. If you want to cut down on time, reload without having to manipulate the slide or catch the mag, let the mag drop and keep the slide (or bolt) in battery, and—walaa! (yeah, I spell it like it sounds)—you’ve saved some time.

    Likewise, there may be times in a tactical defensive shooting situation when it would be advantageous to do the same thing. Ideally, you should do a mag exchange only when there’s time, such as a lull in the battle or if you’re behind solid cover. But if there’s not much time, you’re shooting on the move or you know you need to reload before meeting up with a bunch more evil people who want to kill you, those are other situations where you can keep the slide (or bolt) in battery and reload while letting the mag drop to the ground.
    http://www.guns.com/2015/07/01/is-it-a-tactical-reload-or-a-mag-exchange/

  • Torcer

    5 phases of the active shooter: A tactical reload
    After the tragedy in Oregon, we must redouble our efforts to energize and educate the public on how they can prevent these shootings by watching for certain common behaviors these killers exhibit
    I developed — and have taught — the Five Phases of the Active Shooter after a great deal of research coupled with personal experiences with active shooters. After the tragedy in Oregon, I believe the conditions are right to do a tactical reload of the Five Phases concept. Take a moment to review the below, and then go out and educate your public.

    1. Fantasy Phase
    During this phase, the wannabe mass-murderer dreams of his day of achieving an historic level of carnage. Often they will write, draw, and post this fantasy in a variety of venues, from their notebook to their Facebook page.

    During this time, this potential demon bereft of empathy is surprisingly likely to share his thoughts and feelings with someone else. If this shared information makes it to the properly-motivated professional, lives can be saved by that professional alerting authorities. That professional might be a teacher, a doctor, a counselor, a therapist or a law enforcement officer.

    Too often, people dismiss these warning signs as “crazy talk” and do not take action because they are afraid of being accused of overreacting. Inaction enables carnage, whereas taking proper action can prevent it.

    2. Planning Phase
    During the planning phase, the potential killer lays out the who, what, when, where, how, and why of his plan. In other words, he will document who he will kill, what he will use to accomplish these murders, and when, where and how the slaughter will take place. In many cases the shooter will intricately explain the reasons for his intended actions.

    Finding the plan on a hard drive or in hard copy form before the event will almost certainly ensure the plan will never come to fruition. These plans — or manifestos — are often so hateful and intent filled they will impact either the length of sentencing and/or treatment, depending on which venue is appropriate.

    When these recorded plans are found in advance of the attack, lives will be saved.

    3. Preparation Phase
    After forming the plan, the mass-murderer-in-waiting must gather the items he needs to succeed. He must buy or steal the tools required to deliver death and destruction. The suspect will also visit the scene to gather intelligence as he finalizes the plan.

    The preparation phase is an opportunity for a family member, citizen, school employee, businessman, or police officer to take notice of the suspicious nature of the accumulation of information and equipment. Relaying suspicions here may also save lives.

    4. Approach Phase
    This phase affords an opportunity for an alert citizen or police officer to notice someone dressed for combat approaching a school, hospital, mall, theater, or church carrying a weapon, or weapons. If the citizen calls 911 or officers spot the suspect, the soon-to-be killer can be stopped prior to reaching his target.

    The “Terry Stop” is an invaluable tool for situations such as this.

    5. Implementation Phase
    Regardless of motivations, once they start killing these attackers are going for top score. What is needed is an immediate, effective, efficient act of courage. Seconds lost equal lives lost. An honorable gunfighter needs to intervene, take the shot and make that shot.

    Even if unarmed — when fleeing is not an option — many potential victims have chosen to fight. Many shooters have been thwarted by an immediate, aggressive unarmed response by those who refused to “go quietly into that good night.”

    It Could Happen To You
    Officers out there must be alert to the fact that you may cross paths with an active shooter during the first four phases. Your powers of observation, your determined investigation techniques, and your grasp of how to apply the rules of arrest, search, seizure, or the emergency detention of the dangerously mentally ill may result in you saving lives.

    You also have to realize it is becoming more and more likely that you may be the first honorable gunfighter to arrive at the scene of an in-progress active shooter — on duty or off. You may have to ask yourself, “Do I wait for back-up or do I advance alone?”

    Realize, however, that when you hear those shots and screams, your feet are likely to decide for you. Most of you will find yourself instinctively drawing your weapon as you “ride to the sound of the guns.” Prepare!
    About the author

    Lt. Dan Marcou retired as a highly decorated police lieutenant and SWAT Commander with 33 years of full time law enforcement experience. He is a nationally recognized police trainer in many police disciplines and is a Master Trainer in the State of Wisconsin. He has authored three novels The Calling: The Making of a Veteran Cop , S.W.A.T. Blue Knights in Black Armor, and Nobody’s Heroes are all available at Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com. Visit his website and contact Dan Marcou
    https://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/15149006-5-phases-of-the-active-shooter-A-tactical-reload/

  • Torcer

    Definition of nescient
    Pronunciation: /ˈnɛsɪənt/
    adjective
    Lacking knowledge; ignorant: ‘I ventured into the new Korean restaurant with some equally nescient companions’
    Echoing Goethe’s Romantic interpretation and adulation, Belinsky’s Bard ‘understood heaven, earth, and hell’ but was, nonetheless, an ‘ignoramus’, nescient of the meaning of his own plays.
    This means I can get whipped up into a state of ill-informed indignation, because if I’m going to get indignant it may as well be in quite a pompous and nescient fashion.
    The cluelessness in his expression’s so nescient that it’s something close to profound.

    Derivatives
    nescience
    Pronunciation: /ˈnɛsɪəns/
    noun
    ‘It reminds me somewhat of the collusion between cynicism and innocence, in which nescience is the very form that jaded dyspepsia takes.’
    ‘Past, future, and present, these three times are imperceptible, an ignorance or nescience that is not real, only false.’
    ‘This is not to deny Lutyens his aesthetic preferences, but it is to point out that preferences cannot legitimize or wipe out a record of nescience and disdain, and of taking the credit without taking any of the blame.’
    Origin
    Late Middle English: from Latin nescient- ‘not knowing’, from the verb nescire, from ne- ‘not’ + scire ‘know’.
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nescient?

  • Torcer

    Definition of unfavourable
    adjective
    1Expressing or showing a lack of approval or support: ‘single mothers are often the target of unfavourable press attention’
    ‘The media coverage of the two visits was noteworthy for its lack of any unfavourable commentary on the government’s foreign policy.’
    ‘However most of the reviews she got in the Sydney and Melbourne press were unfavourable.’
    ‘Sydenham’s basic premise is that historians have either neglected this revolutionary, or given him a rather unfavourable press.’
    Synonyms
    adverse, critical, hostile, inimical, unfriendly, antagonistic, unsympathetic, negative;
    opposing, ill-disposed, contrary, discouraging, disapproving, uncomplimentary, unflattering, damaging, injurious, poor, low, bad, antipathetic
    2Likely to lead to an adverse outcome: ‘unfavourable economic conditions’
    ‘The paper argued that a venture capitalist with highly volatile status was more likely to have an unfavorable economic outcome.’
    ‘The unfavorable economic conditions at home contributed to this year’s falling exports, Irwandy said.’
    ‘Her achievement was more impressive given the unfavourable prevailing economic conditions.’
    Synonyms
    disadvantageous, adverse, inauspicious, unpropitious, unfortunate, unlucky, unhappy, detrimental, bad, gloomy;
    unsuitable, inappropriate, inconvenient, inopportune, inapt
    Derivatives
    unfavourableness
    Pronunciation: /ʌnˈfeɪv(ə)rəblnəs/
    noun
    ‘He exemplifies the perfect man through his proper conduct regardless of the unfavorableness of circumstance.’
    ‘Also, this can restrict the unfavorableness that noise is superposed on the wiring.’
    ‘Appearances are not a valid means of assessing someone’s youth, whose favorableness or unfavorableness is a subjective, not objective, matter.’
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unfavourable

  • Torcer

    dichotomy (redirected from Dichotomic)
    Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
    di·chot·o·my (dī-kŏt′ə-mē)
    n. pl. di·chot·o·mies
    1. A division into two contrasting things or parts: “the dichotomy of the one and the many” (Louis Auchincloss).
    2. Astronomy The phase of the moon, Mercury, or Venus when half of the disk is illuminated.
    3. Botany Branching characterized by successive forking into two approximately equal divisions.
    [Greek dikhotomiā, from dikhotomos, divided in two : dikho-, dicho- + temnein, to cut; see tem- in Indo-European roots.]
    dichotomy (daɪˈkɒtəmɪ)
    n, pl -mies
    1. division into two parts or classifications, esp when they are sharply distinguished or opposed: the dichotomy between eastern and western cultures.
    2. (Logic) logic the division of a class into two mutually exclusive subclasses: the dichotomy of married and single people.
    3. (Botany) botany a simple method of branching by repeated division into two equal parts
    4. (Astronomy) the phase of the moon, Venus, or Mercury when half of the disc is visible
    [C17: from Greek dichotomia; see dicho-, -tomy]
    diˈchotomous, dichotomic adj
    diˈchotomously adv
    Usage: Dichotomy should always refer to a division of some kind into two groups. It is sometimes used to refer to a puzzling situation which seems to involve a contradiction, but this use is generally thought to be incorrect
    di•chot•o•my (daɪˈkɒt ə mi)

    n., pl. -mies.
    1. division into two parts or kinds; subdivision into halves or pairs.
    2. division into two exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action.
    3. a mode of branching by constant forking, as in some stems.
    4. the phase of the moon or of an inferior planet when half of its disk is visible.
    [1600–10; < Greek]
    dichotomy
    division of material into two parts for the purpose of classification. — dichotomist, n.
    See also: Classification

  • Torcer

    Furphy

    noun, plural furphies. Australian.
    1.
    a false report; rumor.
    Origin of furphy
    1910-1915
    1910-15; after Furphy carts water and rubbish carts manufactured by the Furphy family of Shepparton, Victoria, and used during World War I; compare parallel semantic development of scuttlebutt
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/furphy

  • Torcer

    Definition of semantics
    plural noun
    [usually treated as singular]
    1The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.
    ‘It is significant that many linguists have sought to limit the role of polysemy in linguistic semantics, if not to eliminate it altogether.’
    ‘It’s enough to make anybody believe in the feasibility of linguistic semantics, at least for a while.’
    ‘Frame semantics is a linguistic theory which is currently gaining ground.’

    1.1The meaning of a word, phrase, or text: ‘such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff’
    ‘How about this – once Tariana starts addressing the real problems within her portfolios, we can discuss the semantics.’
    ‘These well-meaning campaigners are chronically tone-deaf to pop cultural semantics and subtleties.’
    ‘The point is that the semantics we use are not tick box mechanisms.’
    Derivatives
    semantician
    Pronunciation: /-ˈtɪʃ(ə)n/
    noun
    semanticist
    Pronunciation: /sɪˈmantɪsɪst/
    noun
    ‘Because we, what with our anal-retentive, horn-rimmed parsing of phrases and slicing of sentences, are really semanticists when it boils down to it.’
    ‘The goal of articulating a logical framework tailored to a representational system that is motivated by systematic evidence about meanings in natural languages is not acknowledged by all linguistic semanticists.’
    ‘A few years ago, I asked Dave if he’d ever noticed that semanticists tend to wear leather – pants, vests and even hats as well as the more conventional coats and jackets.’
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/semantics

  • Torcer

    In my work, you get used to criticisms. Of course you do, because there are a lot of people trying to get you down, but I always cheer up immensely if one is particularly wounding because I think well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. That is why my father always taught me: never worry about anyone who attacks you personally; it means their arguments carry no weight and they know it.

    MARGARET THATCHER, interview with Enzo Biagi, Mar. 10, 1986

  • Torcer

    #national Socialist Left Talking points

    How to Talk About Economic Fairness

    Every winning campaign needs a compelling theme that acts as the central guiding principle for all communications. It’s your elevator speech. It illustrates the clear contrast between you and your opponent. It answers the question “Why are you running?” In various forms, this is the argument that should be repeated to voters in campaign literature, speeches, debates, media appearances, fundraising appeals and even signs and bumper stickers. It takes hard work to develop a great theme. It depends on the specific nuances of the candidate’s background, the opponent’s record and voters’ top concerns.

    We believe that, for the foreseeable future, most progressive general election campaigns should incorporate an economic fairness theme. This is usually the most powerful contrast between progressive and conservative opponents—essentially that we side with the middle class while they side with the rich. Such a populist message works in almost any winnable jurisdiction or election district as long as it is presented in language that voters understand and appreciate.

    If your campaign theme is based on economic fairness then your argument might be something like this:
    Say . . .

    Our economy is a wreck. To fix it, our policies must benefit all the people, not just the richest one percent. Our system works when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone gives their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. My opponent’s policies are not fair; they rig the system to benefit the rich over the rest of us. My policies would ensure that every American who works hard and plays by the rules has the opportunity to live the American Dream.

    Why . . .

    Persuadable voters believe in a series of stereotypes about progressives and conservatives. You need to focus on and reinforce assumptions that help the progressive side. In economic policy, persuadable voters like the concept of a conservative who supports low taxes and free markets. But they also believe that today’s conservative candidates favor the rich rather than the middle class. At the same time, persuadable voters like a progressive who fights for economic fairness. But they also believe that liberal candidates favor the poor rather than the middle class.

    So, pretty obviously, you need to emphasize conservatives’ support for the rich and progressives’ support for the middle class, while at the same time, de-emphasize your advocacy for the poor. That does not mean you should lessen your commitment to fight poverty or move your policies to the right, it means focus attention on the fact that your economic policies benefit the middle class while conservative policies don’t.

    The monologue above uses simple, non-ideological language to express that idea. The first sentence is a generic expression of empathy. If you know something more specific about your audience’s economic woes, use it. You should assume your voters think the economy is worse than the national economic data suggest; do not imply that the economy is okay because you’re likely to get a very angry response.

    The sentence “everyone gets a fair shot …” is an effective description of progressive economic values. It was used successfully in President Obama’s reelection campaign and it remains popular. Emphasize that what differentiates you from conservative opponents is that their policies primarily benefit the richest one percent; yours benefit the rest of Americans, the 99 percent. Polls show this populist message works. Here’s another version of the same theme:
    Or say . . .

    Our economy is upside down. The majority of America is in recession but the richest one percent is doing better than ever. We need an economy that works for Main Street, not Wall Street. I want to ensure that every hardworking American can earn a decent living, afford high-quality health care, get a great education for their children, and retire with security. My opponent’s policies support the rich, mine support the rest of us.

    Why . . .

    Why do these messages keep referring to “my opponent’s policies”? It’s not enough to say what you will do; you must also draw a contrast between yourself and your opponent. But keep the focus on his/her policies. Voters don’t like personal attacks.

    Just as you shouldn’t sound too personal, don’t sound anti-capitalistic. Most voters believe that “free enterprise has done more to lift people out of poverty, help build a strong middle class, and make our lives better than all of the government’s programs put together.” So don’t attack capitalism, indict economic unfairness.

    More specifically:
    Don’t say . . .

    Say . . .

    Corporations/businesses are bad

    Anything negative about “small business”

    Wall Street speculators

    Unfair breaks and bailouts to Wall Street, giant banks, and major corporations

    Anything positive about Main Street

    Why . . .

    Voters feel positive toward corporations and businesses—most work for one. Voters believe that businesses create jobs and right now America needs more jobs. Americans especially adore the concept of Main Street. And as pollster Celinda Lake says, “Americans are in love with ‘small business.’ It’s a concept that voters see as almost synonymous with America.” By small business, they mean family-run businesses with five or perhaps 10 employees.
    Don’t say . . .

    Say . . .

    Income inequality

    Economic disparity

    Richest one percent, the other 99 percent

    Economic injustice or unfairness

    The disappearing middle class

    Why . . .

    By all means use the populist language of the 99 percent and the top one percent, but understand that the rich or wealthy, or the major banks and corporations, are not unpopular for who they are, but for what they’ve done. To be effective, you need to connect the bad guy to the bad deed, like unfair tax breaks, moving jobs overseas, accepting bailouts, or paying outrageous CEO bonuses. Americans don’t begrudge the wealthy their money and they expect some to earn more than others. It’s not income inequality that voters oppose, it is economic injustice, economic unfairness and people who cheat or rig the system.
    Don’t say . . .

    Say . . .

    Capitalism

    Free markets, free enterprise, free trade

    The economic system isn’t working for the 99 percent

    Level playing field, fair markets, fair trade

    Rigging the rules, gaming the system

    Stacking the deck

    An economy that works for all of us

    Why . . .

    If you attack the market system, you will marginalize yourself. In addition, there are a lot of economic phrases that, in the minds of most Americans, may mean something different from what you intend. Don’t say capitalism, socialism, or fascism because the far-right has succeeded in confusing voters about their meaning. Don’t use the phrases free markets or free enterprise because they trigger in voters’ heads positive thoughts about conservative economics.

    And yet, you need to explicitly support a fair market system. You need to draw a distinction between conservative anything-goes economics and a progressive system that enforces basic rules-of-the-road to level the playing field and keep markets honest and fair for everyone.

    The argument for capitalism is that by harnessing individuals’ economic drive, all of society is enriched by their hard work and innovation. Progressives are for that. But society does not win—in fact, it loses—when people get rich by gaming the system, by exploiting tax or regulatory loopholes, by dismantling viable companies, or by creating scams that aren’t technically illegal but should be.

    Conservatives relentlessly warp markets to benefit the rich and powerful. They use subsidies, loopholes, trade policy, labor law and economic complexity to corrupt markets. It is progressives who seek to build fair markets. Help voters visualize such a system.
    Say . . .

    We need an economy that’s fair to everyone. That means structuring a system that not only rewards people for hard work and innovation, but also discourages people from gaming the system or passing costs to the community. We need rules of the road that make economic competition fair and open and honest. My opponent wants to tilt the playing field in favor of the rich. I will work to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same fair rules. If we do that, everyone who works hard and acts responsibly can live the American Dream.

    Why . . .

    The monologues above rely on the concept of the American Dream. This is an important form of shorthand in our nation’s politics. Everyone who is running for office should be able to describe the American Dream in glowing terms. It is a positive way to talk about inequality, and it allows you to pull your audience deep into progressive economic values.
    Say . . .

    I’m running because I want every American to have the opportunity to live the American Dream. That means a good job that fully supports your family. It means high quality, affordable health insurance. It means the chance to buy a home, if that’s what you want. It means your children and grandchildren are well-educated in grade school and you can afford to send them to college. It means you retire with economic security, knowing that you are passing an even better America to the next generation.

    Why . . .

    When you talk about the American Dream—fair pay, health insurance, homeownership, education, retirement security—it provides the opportunity to explain that none of this is possible without a change in direction. It lays out an overarching goal; only progressive policy will ever get us any closer to turning that Dream into reality.

    Finally, when talking about economics, don’t limit the conversation to income inequality. In our country the biggest inequalities involve assets.
    Say . . .

    Our economic system should reward hard work and innovation. That’s the American way. But right now the richest one percent in America own over one-third of all the combined wealth in our country—stocks, bonds, businesses, real estate, cars, jewelry. The richest five percent own nearly two-thirds of all the wealth. The rich don’t need more subsidies and loopholes. They need to pay their fair share.
    http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/economic_fairness

  • Torcer

    How to Talk About Ourselves

    From blue states, we often hear the question, “Is it better to call yourself a liberal or a progressive?” From red states we’re asked, “Is it bad politics to call yourself a progressive when the jurisdiction seems conservative?” The answer to both is—say progressive.

    A poll by the Pew Research Center compared common ideological terms. It demonstrates that progressive is the most positive political label in America. Conservative is the second most popular political brand. Liberal is substantially less popular, probably because Americans think that a liberal favors the poor over the middle class.

    In recent years, a number of political organizations have embraced the term progressive. In addition to Progressive Majority (our sister group), there’s Progressive Democrats of America, Progressive States Network and Progressive Change Campaign Committee. The slogan of the Center for American Progress is “Progressive Ideas for a Strong, Just and Free America.” And of course, there is no Liberal Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives—it’s called the Progressive Caucus.

    A few years ago, Lake Research Partners looked more deeply into voters’ feelings about the term progressive. They found that Democrats, Republicans and persuadable voters all like a progressive candidate better than a liberal one. The big advantage in the progressive label comes not so much from the Democratic base, but from conservatives and persuadable voters. In a race where both candidates are otherwise unknown, the progressive begins with an edge over the conservative, while in a similar race the conservative begins with an advantage over the liberal.

    Even Republican pollster Frank Luntz has said to his opponents:

    Don’t call yourself a ‘liberal.’ Call yourself a ‘progressive.’ It’s a smart move. In polling we did following the 2004 election, a generic Republican beat a generic liberal by fifteen points. But a generic progressive beat a generic Republican by two points. Same ideology. Different label. Different result.

    And yet, progressive is not yet the ideal political label because most voters don’t really know what it means. Saying progressive doesn’t win the battle, but it makes voters substantially more willing to listen as you explain what you propose to do.

    All of this makes sense. Progressive sounds positive because it comes from the word progress. It gives the impression that progressives want to move forward, promote innovation and focus on the future—all popular ideas. Also, when progressive is compared side-by-side with conservative, we have an advantage because it sounds like pro versus con. On the other hand, the term liberal no longer benefits from the fact that it derives from the same Latin root as liberty and previously referred to laissez-faire policies. These days, nobody hears liberal and thinks of liberty—the word has lost its emotional center.

    Don’t say . . . Liberal

    Say . . . Progressive

    Why . . .

    Liberal is polarizing. Too many negative stereotypes are connected to the term. If we call ourselves progressive, persuadable voters are more likely to keep an open mind and listen to what we say. Besides, we should be happy to be asked the question, “What is a progressive, anyway?” That gives us the chance to talk about our progressive values: freedom, opportunity and security for all.
    http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/how_to_talk_about_ourselves

  • Torcer

    A Confusion of Terms
    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

    We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state- enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
    http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/the-law1.shtml

  • Torcer

    Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

    Senator Hubert H. Humphrey,
    Comm.: Foreign Relations Minnesota
    http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1960issues/G0260.pdf

  • Torcer

    Debunking The “Nazis Were Leftists” Lie
    Posted on 17 January 2011 by Shoq

    Nonsense is nonsense
    …and it should be exposed as such; often and always. There are few right wing lies quite so annoying as “the Nazis were Leftists/Socialists/Communists” lie. The revisionist hooey whores like Jonah Goldberg have made it easier for this orchestrated stupidity to gain new traction with his “Liberal Fascism” screed. The left, as it is quite good at doing lately, has utterly failed to push back against this absurdity in any focused manner, so this too gains acceptance among those who think Obama was born in Kenya, the media is liberal, Canadians are overwhelming the U.S. health care system, and government can’t create jobs.

    Below I’ve put down a few good articles you can use to defuse this idiotic argument. It’s not hard. I will update it as I have time. If you know of some brief or extended articles I should add here, please pass them along to me via Twitter or in comments below.

    Please use the Tweet button below and help pass this along to friends, neighbors, and sane countrymen. Thanks!
    Brief Debunkers

    Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda
    http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html
    The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term “National Socialism,” a self description of the Nazis. “National Socialism” includes the word “socialism”, but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for “illegal socialist activity” in 1936.

    Debunking GOP lies
    http://peoplesworld.org/debunking-gop-lies/
    The GOP uses deception and fears to try to break the president and his agenda for change. Ultra-right broadcasters even lie about our World War II enemy. Their claims about health care, big business and “socialism” in Nazi Germany are not only untrue, but vicious and ignorant

    The ‘Socialists Are Communists’ Myth
    http://1millionunited.org/blogs/blog/2010/01/01/the-socialists-are-communists-myth/
    The Myth 1 — The Nazis were National Socialists and therefore Nazism is a form of socialism. The left-wing parties like Labour and the Greens are therefore similar to the Nazis politically.

    The Truth 1 — Nope: a common mistake propagated by people who think that a name means what it says. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo, the German Democratic Republic or the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea). Any takers for claiming them as being democracies?

    Extended Debunkers

    Myth: Hitler was a Leftist—by Steve Kangas
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
    To most people, Hitler’s beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler’s warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

    The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word “National” evokes the state, and the word “Socialist” openly identifies itself as such.

    However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels

    Readings on American Nazism from Southern Poverty Law Center
    http://www.splcenter.org/search/apachesolr_search/nazis%20were%20socialists%20myth%20germany
    SPLC has some great articles in their archive that reveal just how many of the more vicious and ignorant Nazi myths have been morphed and migrated into American extremist’s culture. Often with the tacit approval of many mainstream conservatives and Republicans.

    The money shot

    If you just don’t have a lot of time, you can use Hitler’s own words from Mein Kampf,
    http://genius.com/Adolf-hitler-chapter-7-the-conflict-with-the-red-forces-annotated
    where the Furhrer clearly illustrates his contempt for the “leftists,” and had used their colors (not to mention their name) to annoying them:

    Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything once and for all and put an end to these meetings. More often than not everything hung on a mere thread, and only the chairman’s ruthless determination and the rough handling by our ushers baffled our adversaries’ intentions. And indeed they had every reason for being irritated.

    The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant.

    The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words ‘Fellow-countrymen and Women’ for ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ and addressed each other as ‘Party Comrade’. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.

    We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.

    Why Did Fascists Like Hitler Encourage Conflating Ideologies?

    This from David McGowan puts it fairly succinctly:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=UjrOjRznzQMC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Related

    Bibliography – Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany
    http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler/Bibliography
    The Third Reich—by Christian Leitz (google excerpts)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=vhKOdDi5DXEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Third+Reich:+the+essential+readings++By+Christian+Leitz&source=bl&ots=N_H14AHIpS&sig=VWwcggjD4qhMVW5QHpbD6OSa-jk&hl=en&ei=dfI0TYLFIIH78Aau4qW9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Liberal Fascism: A Critique-From The Left
    http://secularhumanism.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberal-fascism-critique-from-left.html
    Shoq Value: When Historical Lies Are Allowed To Flourish
    http://shoqvalue.com/when-historical-lies-are-allowed-to-flourish
    http://shoqvalue.com/the-nazis-were-leftists-lie

  • Torcer

    Hitler Was Not a Leftist
    Posted By: Good German Aug 21, 2012
    Most people will respond to the title of this post with “No duh!” But there’s been a lot of effort by conservatives on the Internet to portray Hitler as a leftist. After all, economic laissez-faire is the sole definition of the right, and anything else is therefore left, right?

    Wrong. No true, intelligent libertarian accepts the one-dimensional left/right political spectrum as accurate, which is why they’ve proposed a two-dimensional political compass. And as I posted a while back, Noah Millman has proposed an even more descriptive three-dimensional political taxonomy.

    While I don’t agree with all the points presented in the following article, enough of them are true to prove that while the Nazis may or may not have been true right-wingers, they certainly weren’t leftists. (For the record, they viewed themselves as syncretists, not that you have to take their word for it.)

    Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

    Fact: Nearly all of Hitler’s beliefs placed him on the far right.

    Summary

    Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic. Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

    ———————–

    Argument

    To most people, Hitler’s beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler’s warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

    The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word “National” evokes the state, and the word “Socialist” openly identifies itself as such.

    However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s “Liberal Democrat” party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party “socialist,” but whether or not it actually was.

    In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people — after all, wasn’t the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves “socialist,” but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

    Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

    Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

    The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers — that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn’t matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a “socialist” or a “democrat.” If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

    And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi “Charter of Labor” gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the “leader of the enterprise,” and read: “The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise.”

    http://disinfo.com/2012/08/hitler-was-not-a-leftist/

  • Torcer

    How to Persuade
    Politics is the art of persuasion. The goal is to persuade people to act on your behalf—to vote, to volunteer, to contribute.

    Even though persuasion is central to political success, progressives rarely talk about how to do it better. That’s the point of this book. It suggests how candidates, lawmakers and allies can improve the way they talk about a wide range of issues, from the economy, healthcare and immigrants’ rights, to marriage equality, reproductive rights and gun violence. But no matter the issue, there are three basic principles that make any argument more persuasive.
    First, always begin in agreement with your audience.
    It is extremely rare, in the short term, to change anyone’s belief. Everyone has biases, stereotypes, and other preconceptions that they carry around in their heads. When a new “fact” doesn’t fit people’s preexisting beliefs, they are almost certain to reject the fact, not their preconceptions.

    So to persuade, you have to find a point of agreement and work from there. You need to provide your audience with a bridge from their preconceptions to your solutions. The goal is not to change people’s minds, it is to show them that they agree with you already. The way to begin is by expressing empathy and shared values.

    The most direct and essential method of connecting with voters is to empathize. Demonstrate that you understand their problems and concerns. Voters quite reasonably conclude that you can’t fix their problems if you can’t understand them.

    Before you make your pitch, find out what voters think. If you’re walking door-to-door or talking to individuals one-on-one, ask them what the community needs to fix. If you’re speaking at a meeting, find out the audience’s concerns ahead of time. And obviously, if you’re paying for mass media, research public opinion first.

    You never have to compromise your political principles to demonstrate empathy. Rather, you need to search for some element of the debate where you sincerely agree. For example:

    If a voter complains about taxes (even in a conservative fashion), agree that our tax system is unfair.

    If the voter worries about government budgets (even when there’s really no problem), agree that our government has an obligation to be careful with taxpayer money.

    If the voter is concerned about crime (even in a very low-crime community), agree that personal safety must be a top priority for the government.

    If the voter thinks the neighborhood is going downhill (even when that doesn’t seem to be the case), agree that we need to preserve the quality of life.

    Start any political conversation this way, and then reinforce your empathy with shared values.

    In politics, values are ideals that describe the kind of society we are trying to build. The stereotypical conservative values are small government, low taxes, free markets, strong military and traditional families. It is important to understand that these oversimplified conservative values are extremely popular, and too often progressives have no effective response.

    Here’s how progressives can answer. When you’re talking about an issue where government has no proper role—like free speech, privacy, reproductive health or religion—declare your commitment to freedom or use a similar value from the chart below. When you discuss an issue where government should act as a referee between competing interests—like court proceedings, wages, benefits, subsidies, taxes or education—explain that your position is based on opportunity or a value from that column. When you argue about an issue where government should act as a protector—like crime, retirement, health care, zoning or the environment—stand for security or a similar value.

    Say . . .
    Freedom Opportunity Security
    or similar values: or similar values: or similar values:
    Liberty Equal opportunity Safety; protection
    Privacy Justice; equal justice Quality of life
    Basic rights Fairness; fair share Employment security
    Fundamental rights Level playing field Retirement security
    Religious freedom Every American Health security

    Why . . .
    You can also put these values together and say you stand for “freedom, opportunity and security for all,” a progressive statement of values that polls very well. But more important, it’s an accurate and politically potent description of what we stand for. The right wing favors these principles for some—the affluent. Progressives insist on providing freedom, opportunity and security to each and every American. (For a more detailed discussion of freedom, opportunity and security, see How to Talk About Progressive Values.)

    Empathy and values alone can win over persuadable voters. Let’s say you are a candidate for state legislature and you are asked what you’re going to do to clean up the stream that runs through that neighborhood. Let’s also say it’s not really the state legislature’s job; it’s the county or city that has jurisdiction over the stream.

    A typical progressive candidate would launch into an explanation of the clean water legislation he or she supports. A particularly inept candidate might say the stream is the responsibility of the city or county and there’s little the state can do. A good candidate would start with empathy:
    Say . . .
    I’m running for office because I want to fight for cleaner streams and safer parklands. I’m going to work to protect the quality of life in our community.

    Why . . .

    These are values that you share with every voter: cleaner, safer, and a better quality of life. At this point you are welcome to explain your clean water legislation, but keep it simple; you have probably already won that vote. A persuadable voter is listening for one thing, really: Is this candidate on my side? You’ve already proven that you are.

    Every time you have the opportunity to speak to a persuadable audience, don’t forget to express empathy and values. This is especially true when you are asked a question because that person is focused on what you are saying. Even if the listener disagrees with your policy solution, you might very well win his or her vote if you have made clear that you share the same concerns and are trying to achieve the same goals. Again, that’s what persuadable voters want to hear—that you are on their side.

    Second, show your audience how they benefit.
    Progressives favor policies that benefit society at large. We want to help the underdog. We wish that a majority of Americans were persuaded, as we are, by appeals to the common good. But they aren’t.

    In fact, it’s quite difficult to convince persuadable voters to support a policy that appears to benefit people other than themselves, their families and their friends. Celinda Lake, one of our movement’s very best pollsters, explains that “our culture is very, very individualistic.” When faced with a proposed government policy, “people look for themselves in the proposal. People want to know what the proposal will do for me and to me.”

    That means, whenever possible, you need to show voters that they personally benefit from your progressive policies. This may sometimes be a challenge. For example, if you’re arguing for programs that benefit people in poverty, do not focus on the way your proposal directly helps the poor, instead highlight the way it indirectly benefits the middle class. Persuadable voters are rarely in poverty themselves and they will relate better to an argument framed toward them.

    For example, when arguing for Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, say something like:
    Say . . .
    It will benefit everyone. It will energize our local economy and create thousands of new jobs. It will save millions in taxpayer dollars that are currently spent treating uninsured people in emergency rooms. And it will help our own hard-working families and friends who are hurting in this economic downturn.

    Or when you argue for an increase in the minimum wage:
    Say . . .
    Raising the minimum wage puts money in the pockets of hard-working Americans who will spend it on the things they need. This, in turn, generates business for our economy and eases the burden on taxpayer-funded services. It’s a win-win. Raising the minimum wage helps build an economy that works for everyone.

    Why . . .

    Every progressive policy benefits the middle class, often directly but at least indirectly. In contrast, nearly every right wing policy hurts the middle class, even if it more directly hurts the poor. Since persuadable voters want to know how policies affect them personally, you must tell them.

    That does not mean you can explain your positions without mentioning program beneficiaries. In fact, the examples above mention them. The important thing is to connect with persuadable voters and frame the beneficiaries, in one way or another, as deserving.

    Americans are not very kind to the poor. Outside of the progressive base, a lot of voters assume that people in poverty did something wrong: they didn’t study in school, did drugs, got arrested, got pregnant, or something else. Voters who are not poor think, “I didn’t get government assistance,” (even when they did) “so why should they?” They think the poor need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

    So you need to go out of your way to describe them as deserving. It is fairly simple to defend aid to children because they cannot reasonably take care of themselves. This is also true of some elderly and disabled Americans, and voters are generally sympathetic when they are the beneficiaries. But when program recipients are able-bodied adults, suggest that they are hard-working and/or supporting families. Bill Clinton’s steady repetition of “work hard and play by the rules” was designed to communicate that a program’s beneficiaries are deserving of assistance, and that phrase still works.
    Third, speak their language, not ours.

    Persuadable voters aren’t like partisan activists. They don’t pay much attention to politics, public policy or political news. They don’t understand political ideologies. They don’t care a lot who wins elections. In general, they’re the citizens who are least interested in politics. After all, with America’s highly polarized parties, anyone who pays attention has already taken a side.

    In talking to these less-enlightened and less-interested fellow citizens, candidates and lawmakers tend to make three mistakes.

    (1) Progressives often rely on facts instead of values to persuade. Advocates will pack a speech with alarming facts and figures like: “50 million Americans are uninsured;” or “one in five children live in poverty;” or “32 million Americans have been victims of racial profiling.” When you speak this way, you are assuming that listeners would be persuaded—and policy would change—if only everybody knew what you know.

    But that’s not how it works. Facts, by themselves, don’t persuade. Statistics especially must be used sparingly or listeners will just go away confused. Your argument should be built upon ideas and values that the persuadable voters already hold dear. A few well-placed facts will help illustrate why the progressive solution is essential. Too many facts and figures mean your argument will fall on deaf ears.

    (2) Progressives often use insider language instead of plain English. Incumbents especially tend to speak the technical language of lobbying and passing legislation. Insiders carry on a never-ending conversation about bills from the past, measures under consideration and current law. You probably realize that Americans don’t know anything about CBO scoring or Third Reader or the Rules Committee. But average voters also don’t know an amendment from a filibuster. Insiders tend to use abbreviations freely, like ENDA for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or TABOR when talking about a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. They refer to SB 234, paygo requirements, the ag community and the Akaka amendment. It’s a tough habit to break.

    Insider jargon serves a useful purpose. It is shorthand—it allows those who understand the shorthand to communicate more efficiently. But it is also a way to be exclusive, to separate insiders from nonmembers of the club. That’s exactly why such language is pernicious; you can’t expect persuadable voters to understand a language that was designed, in part, to exclude them.

    (3) Progressives often use ideological language even though persuadables are the opposite of ideologues. You should not complain of corporate greed because Americans don’t have a problem with corporations. You should not say capitalism or any ism because most Americans don’t relate to ideology. And please don’t say neo- or crypto- anything. Like technical policy language, ideological language is a form of shorthand. But to persuadable voters, this just sounds like the speaker isn’t one of them.

    You need to accept persuadable voters as they are, not as you wish they were. They don’t necessarily know what you know or believe what you believe. And yet, if you empathize with persuadable voters and use language they understand, you have the upper hand in any argument. Progressive policies benefit nearly all Americans, the 99 percent. Progressive values reflect the aspirations of the vast majority of our fellow citizens. You’re absolutely on the voters’ side. You simply need to sharpen your persuasion skills a bit so they will understand and believe that.
    http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/how_to_persuade

  • Torcer

    June 26, 2012
    Political “Left” and “Right” Properly Defined
    I’m often asked versions of the following: Given that the political right is so corrupted by conservatives who seek to limit liberty in countless ways, wouldn’t it be better to abandon the language of “left” vs. “right” and adopt new terminology?

    My answer is that, because the terms “left” and “right” are already widely used to denote the basic political alternative, and because that alternative is in fact binary, the best approach for advocates of freedom is not to reject the prevalent terminology but to clarify it—by defining the relevant terms.

    The problem with conventional approaches to the left-right political spectrum is that they either fail to define the alternatives in question, or proceed to define them in terms of non-essentials.

    One common approach, for instance, fails to specify the precise nature of either side, yet proceeds to place communism, socialism, and modern “liberalism” on (or toward) the left—and fascism, conservatism, and capitalism on (or toward) the right.

    This makes no sense, at least in terms of the right. Capitalism—the social system of individual rights, property rights, and personal liberty—has nothing in common with conservatism or fascism. Take them in turn.

    Conservatism is not for individual rights or personal liberty; rather, it is for religious values (euphemistically called “traditional values” or “family values”) and a government that enforces them. Although conservatism calls for some economic liberties, it simultaneously demands various violations of individual rights in order to support certain aspects of the welfare state (e.g., Social Security and government-run schools), in order to shackle or control “greedy” businessmen (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley and anti-immigration laws), and in order to forbid certain “immoral” acts or relationships (e.g., drug use and gay marriage). Thus, conservatism is utterly at odds with capitalism.

    And fascism, far from having anything in common with capitalism, is essentially the same atrocity as communism and socialism—the only difference being that whereas communism and socialism openly call for state ownership of all property, fascism holds that some property may be “private”—so long as government can dictate how such property may be used. Sure, you own the factory, but here’s what you may and may not produce in it; here’s the minimum wage you must pay employees; here’s the kind of accounting system you must use; here are the specifications your machinery must meet; and so on. (Thomas Sowell makes some good observations about the nature of fascism.)

    Another ill-conceived approach to the left-right political spectrum is the attempt by some to define the political alternatives by reference to the size or percentage of government. In this view, the far left consists of full-sized or 100 percent government; the far right consists of zero government or anarchy; and the middle area subsumes the various other possible sizes of government, from “big” to “medium” to “small” to “minimal.” But this too is hopeless.

    The size of government is not the essential issue in politics. A large military may be necessary to defend citizens from foreign aggressors, especially if there are many potential aggressors—say, multiple communist or Islamist regimes—who might combine forces against a free country. Likewise, a large court system might be necessary to deal with the countless contracts involved in a large free market and with the various disputes that can arise therein.

    A small government, by contrast, can violate rights in myriad ways—if its proper purpose is not established and maintained. Observe that governments in the antebellum South were relatively small, yet their laws permitted and enforced the enslavement of men, women, and children. Likewise, the U.S. government was quite small during the 1890s—even though the Sherman Antitrust Act had passed and was violating businessmen’s rights to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

    The essential issue in politics is not the size but the function of government; it’s not whether government is big or small but whether it protects or violates rights. (Ari Armstrong addresses this issue with excerpts from Ludwig von Mises.)

    The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. A properly conceived political spectrum must reflect this fact. Whatever terms are used to identify the positions of political ideologies or systems must be defined with regard to the fundamental political alternative: force vs. freedom—or, more specifically, rights-violating vs. rights-protecting institutions.

    Because the term “left” is already widely used to denote social systems and ideologies of force (e.g., socialism, communism, “progressivism”), and the term “right” is substantially used to denote social systems and ideologies of freedom (e.g., capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism), the best approach for advocates of freedom is not to develop new terminology for the political spectrum, but to define the existing terminology with respect to political essentials—and to claim the extreme right end of the spectrum as rightfully and exclusively ours.

    A notable advantage of embracing the political right as our own is that the term “right” happens to integrate seamlessly with the philosophical and conceptual hierarchy that supports freedom. This is a historic accident, but a welcome one. Although “left” and “right” originally referred to seating arrangements of 18th-century legislators in France—arrangements unrelated to anything in contemporary American politics—the term “right” conceptually relates to fundamental moral truths on which freedom depends.

    Capitalism—the social system of the political right—is the system of individual rights. It is the system that respects and protects individual rights—by banning physical force from social relationships—and thus enables people to live their lives, to act on their judgment, to keep and use their property, and to pursue personal happiness. This observation grounds the political right in the proper goal of politics: the protection of rights.

    Related, and still more fundamental, capitalism is morally right. By protecting individual rights, capitalism legalizes rational egoism: It enables people to act on the truth that each individual is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others, and that each individual should act to sustain and further his own life and happiness by means of his own rational judgment. This observation deepens the significance of the term “right” and anchors it in the only code of morality that is demonstrably true.

    In short, seen in this light, the right morality gives rise to the principle of individual rights, which gives rise to the need of a political system that protects rights, which system is properly placed on the political right—in opposition to all systems that in any way violate rights.

    Observe the clarity gained by this conception of the political spectrum. The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, democracy (i.e., rule by the majority), and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs). The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism—all of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights. The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights—whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or the like—or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you.

    Importantly, on this essentialized conception of the political spectrum, the right does not entail degrees; only the left does. This is because degrees of force are degrees of force; violations of rights are violations of rights. Freedom and rights are absolutes: Either people are free to act on their judgment, to keep and use their property, to pursue their happiness—or they are not free; they are to some extent coerced. Either government protects and does not violate rights—or it violates rights to some extent.

    subscribe-now-por.pngIf people are not fully free to run their businesses and voluntarily contract with others as they see fit, to engage in voluntary adult romantic relationships, to engage in their own preferred recreational activities, to purchase or forgo health insurance as they deem best, and so forth, then they are not free; they are victims of coercion.

    We who advocate freedom—whether we call ourselves Objectivists or laissez-faire capitalists or classical liberals or Tea Partiers or whatever—should claim the political right as our own. And we should let conservatives who advocate any kind or degree of rights violations know that their proper place on the political spectrum is somewhere in the mushy, unprincipled middle with their modern “liberal” brethren. Perhaps such notice and company will cause them to think about what’s right.

    The political right properly belongs to those who uphold the principle of rights—not merely in theory, but also in practice.

  • Torcer

    “The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not censorship. The only people who don’t believe that are the ruling class who believe insulting a politician should be some sort of crime, and the chronically incoherent who can’t compete in the marketplace.” Ed Morrissey

  • Torcer

    Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda
    David Klein January 2011
    For several years, the right wing has been equating nazism, the left, and socialism. This is standard propaganda for Fox News and the Tea Party which both denounce Obama as a socialist and at the same time portray him visually with a Hitler mustache. Conservatives have also argued that Jared Loughner — the shooter of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords — was influenced by leftwing ideology because his reading list included both Das Kapital by Karl Marx and Hitler’s Mein Kampf (without mentioning another book on his list, We the Living, by Ayn Rand).

    The conflation of nazism and socialism has gone largely unchallenged by the media, and through repetition it is becoming almost “common knowledge” in the US, so I feel compelled to speak against it. I hope that others, especially professors who have occasion to talk about it in and out of class, will also speak against this vile propaganda.

    The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term “National Socialism,” a self description of the Nazis. “National Socialism” includes the word “socialism”, but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for “illegal socialist activity” in 1936.

    In the 1930s and even beyond, nazism, in sharp contrast to socialism, was strongly supported by leading capitalists and right wingers in the US. Henry Ford, the leading industrialist and auto maker, was a great admirer of the nazis. When Henry Ford announced that he might run for president in 1923, the little-known Hitler told the Chicago Tribune that he would like to send shock troops to Chicago to assist in the campaign. Later in 1938, the year of Kristallnacht, Ford was awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest civilian award given by the nazis. Ford accepted it with pride, and Ford’s company collaborated with the nazis as late as August 1942. General Motors, Standard Oil, ITT, and Chase National Bank (later Chase Manhattan Bank) among others also had major financial investments and collaborations with Nazi Germany.

    J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the FBI (and virulently anti-communist) was a great admirer of the nazis and was a pen pal of Heinrich Himmler (Reichsfuhrer of the Nazi SS, head of the Gestapo, and second most powerful leader of the Nazi party). Hoover sent Himmler a personal invitation to attend the 1937 World Police Conference in Montreal, and in 1938 welcomed one of Himmler’s top aids to the U.S. In June 1939, when the Nazi SS was conducting savage attacks against Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals throughout Germany, Hoover personally autographed a photo of himself and sent it in response to a request, to KRIPO, the Nazi criminal police agency. He continued communication with Nazi police until December 4, 1941 (three days before Pearl Harbor).*

    Nazism is a right wing ideology. It is violently racist, anti-socialist, and it targets the political left for extermination. This is underscored by Albert Einstein’s embrace of socialism throughout his life — and in particular in his 1949 essay, Why Socialism?

    — along with the fact that Einstein’s name was included on a nazi death list with a bounty of $50,000 offered for his assassination. If nazism really is socialism, why would Einstein have identified himself as a socialist a scant four years after WWII?
    http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
    The current right wing conflation of nazism and the left is sleazy. A more informed population would view this as completely idiotic, but unfortunately this propaganda is becoming increasingly effective.

    *For elaboration and references, see Fred Jerome’s excellent books, The Einstein File and Einstein on Race and Racism.
    http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html

  • Torcer

    There Are No “Reasonable Restrictions” on the Sec Amend, Hillary!
    http://canadafreepress.com/article/there-are-no-reasonable-restrictions-on-the-second-amendment-hillary-clinto #GunSense≠sense
    Boot #MomsDemand from #everytown

    There Are No “Reasonable Restrictions” on the Sec Amend, Hillary!
    http://canadafreepress.com/article/there-are-no-reasonable-restrictions-on-the-second-amendment-hillary-clinto #GunSense≠sense
    Boot #MomsDemand from #everytown

    There Are No “Reasonable Restrictions” on the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton!
    All rights come from God. We are born with them. They are unalienable, which means no power on Earth can take them away. They stay with us for life. All rights are individual, and they are absolute within the context of the right. If rights are not absolute, then they aren’t a right at all. If one aspect of a right can be shed, then so can the whole right. If a right can be “interpreted,” then it can be interpreted out of existence. One right that is universal and a natural right is the right of self-preservation. Included in that is the right of self-defense. Implicit in that is the right to possess the implements to defend oneself. It is because rights are absolute that the right to the implements of self defense can not be touched by government. Because if the implements (arms) could be touched (infringed), then the right wouldn’t be absolute, and therefore wouldn’t be a right at all. Which is why there is no such thing as a “reasonable restriction” on a right.

    The Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land.” It is a limitation on, and an operating manual for, the Federal Government. It comes from the people, and is our “consent” to be governed. The people are always supreme to the government. The Constitution, through the consent of the people, is supreme over any law, any court decision, including the Supreme Court, any executive action on any level, any action by law enforcement, and any bureaucratic action.

    The Constitution contains some enumerated rights that the Founding Fathers thought so important as to specifically include as the Bill of Rights. One of those rights is the Second Amendment. It does not give anyone the right to own and carry firearms. As explained above, we already have that right from God by birth. The Second Amendment is a specific prohibition on government, at any level, from touching the most extreme edge of the right to own and carry arms. That’s what it means to “infringe.” The “fringe” is the absolute extreme edge.

    The flawed argument on the Left is that, “common sense” or “reasonable restrictions” can be put on the Second Amendment. They can not! Because those laws and regulations are infringements, and infringements are illegal. The justification for these illegal infringements are the horrible criminal and terrorist acts committed using firearms. Let me make this as clear as I can. THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIMINAL ACTIONS, AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY THEM! This is the huge disconnect that no politician on our side is enunciating. The Second Amendment only covers and protects the law abiding citizen. It does not cover the criminal, or the terrorist. Criminals are covered by criminal law, and by separate constitutional rights of the accused. There is no legal connection between the right to own and carry guns, the actions of criminals and terrorists, and the prosecution of criminals and terrorists by law. To state that you can put reasonable restrictions or common sense laws on the Second Amendment, which is legally impossible, only makes sense if you believe that everyone who owns a gun is a criminal or a terrorist, and therefore it is “reasonable” to “restrict” them, because that is just “common sense.” That is a complete disconnect from reality, and from Constitutional Law, and it is exactly what Hillary Clinton believes.

    As stated before, the right to own and carry firearms is absolute. Any law, decision, or regulation, that touches the right to own and carry any firearm is unconstitutional. The right to “USE” firearms is not absolute. Therefore the Second Amendment protection on the right to own and carry ends the instant one uses, or commits to use a firearm. At that instant the use has one of two possibilities — legal, and illegal. It is only in the “illegal use” of a firearm where the government can act. If you are robbing a bank with a gun, or you are driving with a gun to a bank with the intent to rob it, then you have crossed into the criminal use of a firearm, and are not protected by the Second Amendment. If you want to exercise your freedom by carrying the symbol of your freedom by putting a gun in a holster and walking down the street, the Second Amendment guarantees that no government entity will touch you. The fact that this is violated by law enforcement, laws, regulations, and judicial actions, proves that we are not a government of the people, but rather, a people of the government. Hillary Clinton wants to absolutely control a people of the government with an all powerful government.
    http://canadafreepress.com/article/there-are-no-reasonable-restrictions-on-the-second-amendment-hillary-clinto

  • Torcer

    Definition of nescient
    Pronunciation: /ˈnɛsɪənt/
    adjective
    Lacking knowledge; ignorant: ‘I ventured into the new Korean restaurant with some equally nescient companions’
    Echoing Goethe’s Romantic interpretation and adulation, Belinsky’s Bard ‘understood heaven, earth, and hell’ but was, nonetheless, an ‘ignoramus’, nescient of the meaning of his own plays.
    This means I can get whipped up into a state of ill-informed indignation, because if I’m going to get indignant it may as well be in quite a pompous and nescient fashion.
    The cluelessness in his expression’s so nescient that it’s something close to profound.

    Derivatives
    nescience
    Pronunciation: /ˈnɛsɪəns/
    noun
    ‘It reminds me somewhat of the collusion between cynicism and innocence, in which nescience is the very form that jaded dyspepsia takes.’
    ‘Past, future, and present, these three times are imperceptible, an ignorance or nescience that is not real, only false.’
    ‘This is not to deny Lutyens his aesthetic preferences, but it is to point out that preferences cannot legitimize or wipe out a record of nescience and disdain, and of taking the credit without taking any of the blame.’
    Origin
    Late Middle English: from Latin nescient- ‘not knowing’, from the verb nescire, from ne- ‘not’ + scire ‘know’.
    https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nescient?

  • Torcer

    “If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    =============================================
    The fundamental ideas of #Socialism are 500 years old
    #Socialism500yrsofFAIL
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1iZ5q9WIAA96cm.jpg

  • Torcer

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 18.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

    ……………………………………………………………………………

    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 22.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  • Torcer

    Well, let’s look at the Facts of the matter – ‘right wing’ equates to Conservative:

    right wing: the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20wing

    Definition of CONSERVATISM
    1capitalized
    a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
    b : the Conservative party
    b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

    So, IF you are going to try and foist that interminable lie on the class, YOU are going to have to EXPLAIN where that particular group specifically had a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage).

    And please be sure to include plenty EXCERPTS and Links from authentic reference sites in your answer.

    Addressing the National Socialists were ‘Right wing’ Lie

  • Torcer

    Definitions of left
    2 Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views.
    2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/left

    …………….

    Definitions of left
    2 Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    Left politics
    left periodicals such as Marxism Today
    2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
    the Left is preparing to fight presidential elections
    he is on the left of the party
    Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/left

    Full Definition of LEFT
    1a : of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body in which the heart is mostly located
    b : done with the left hand a left hook to the jaw
    c : located nearer to the left hand than to the right
    d (1) : located on the left of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified (2) : located on the left when facing downstream the left bank of a river
    2 often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the left especially in politics
    Origin of LEFT
    Middle English, from Old English, weak; akin to Middle Low German lucht left; from the left hand’s being the weaker in most individuals
    First Known Use: 13th century
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left

    left 1 (lĕft)
    adj.
    2. often Left Of or belonging to the political or intellectual left.
    n.
    2. often Left
    a. The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, with the goal of achieving the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing.
    b. The opinion of those advocating such measures.
    [Middle English, from Old English lyft-, weak, useless (in lyftādl, paralysis). N., sense 2, from the fact that liberals often sit on the left side of the legislative chamber in various assemblies .]
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
    https://ahdictionary.com

  • Torcer

    1 Anarcho-syndicalism
    2 Bolshevism
    3 Castroism
    4 Centralism
    5 Communism
    6 common ownership
    7 collectivism
    8 cooperative society
    9 collective ownership
    10 communalism
    11Diggers
    12 Fabianism
    13 Fascism
    14 Guild socialism
    15 heteronomy
    16 kolkhoz
    17 Leftist
    18 Leninism
    19 Liberalism
    20 Managed economy
    23 Maoism
    24 Marxism
    25 Marxist-Leninism,
    26 National Socialism
    27 Neofascism
    28 Ochlocracy
    29 Phalansterism
    30 Progressivism
    31 Project X
    32 Public ownership
    33 Rule of the proletariat
    34 Social justice
    35 Stalinism
    36 Statism
    37 State ownership
    38 Syndicalism
    39 Totalitarianism
    40 Trotskyism
    41 Utopian Socialism

  • Torcer

    Obama, Hitler, and Trump http://theresurgent.com/obama-hitler-and-trump/ via @ewerickson

    Obama, Hitler, and Trump
    It was a historic moment. He swept into office on promises of hope and change. He intended to overcome years of conservative governance and, in its place, promised a progressive paradise.

    The platform adopted at the party convention called for universal healthcare, increased taxes on the rich to pay for social welfare programs, equal rights for all, and more government oversight of corporations he and his party thought had gained too much control.

    Once in office, an administration aide advocated “annual ethical-impact reports” from corporations. Another advocated better diets for the citizens. “Nutrition is not a private matter!” read one government publication.
    [..]
    As part of their much debated universal healthcare plan, they intended that individuals should take control of their health through better nutrition and occasional monitoring to make sure the citizens were educated on proper diets. Doing that would save money on healthcare in the long run.

    The government also wanted to make college more affordable. In the party platform adopted at their convention — the convention where they redacted God from the platform and ran promotions that the state is the only thing we all belong to — they declared that “the state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious [person] to obtain higher education.”

    Yes, once in office, Hitler’s first order of business was an economic stimulus plan to spur on the Germany economy, and he moved quickly to adopt a universal, government-funded healthcare plan. His major ministers advocated organic farming and a reduction in chemical pesticides. They blamed major corporations for a decline in quality food. They wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund greater social welfare programs for the poor and needy. They wanted to provide more affordable, if not free, access to college education.

    Just like Barack Obama.
    http://theresurgent.com/obama-hitler-and-trump/

  • Torcer

    Why the gun is civilization.
    Marko Kloos
    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
    https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

  • Torcer

    Totalitarianism
    Totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to describe the new fascist state of Italy, which he further described as: “All within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.” By the beginning of World War II, “totalitarian” had become synonymous with absolute and oppressive single-party government.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/totalitarianism

    ================================================

    totalitarian
    adjective [ not gradable ] us ​ /toʊˌtæl·əˈteər·i·ən/

    world history of or relating to a government that has almost complete control over the lives of its citizens and does not permit political opposition
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/totalitarian

  • Torcer

    7 Things You Didn’t Know about Stalin’s Cult of Personality http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-stalins-cult-of-personality/

  • Torcer

    Are you about to tell us “Socialism was tried in Russia” or “Look at Venezuela” etc? It has NEVER EXISTED! It comes AFTER global capitalism! pic.twitter.com/Rr1Ra0ugbE— The Socialist Party (@OfficialSPGB) November 16, 2016

  • Torcer
  • Torcer

    Physicist formulates how long conspiracy theories could realistically remain a secret « Hot Air Headlines http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2016/01/27/physicist-formulates-how-long-conspiracy-theories-could-realistically-remain-a-secret/
    ……………………….
    ‘If moon landings were fake, the truth would have come out in 4 years’ http://dailym.ai/1ShviOi via @MailOnline

    ‘If the moon landings were fake, the truth would have been exposed within 4 years’: Physicist formulates how long conspiracy theories could realistically remain a secret

    A physicist calculated how many people would have potentially worked on popular theories, from the moon landings to climate change
    He then formulated how likely it would be that the secrets would be kept
    Moon landings would have been exposed in three years and eight months
    For a plot to last five years, it would need to involve just 2,521 people

    From the moon landings being an elaborate hoax, to climate change deniers, there are many conspiracy theories that are believed by a large number of people worldwide.

    But the amount of people who would have been involved in keeping such large-scale secrets suggests that if they were true, they would have been exposed by someone by now.

    With this in mind, a physicist has calculated how many people would have potentially worked on some of the most popular theories, and what is the likelihood of them all keeping a secret.
    Using this model, the truth about the moon landings being a hoax would have been exposed in three years and eight months.

    A climate change fraud would have been uncovered in three years nine months, a vaccination conspiracy would take three years and two months to be revealed, and a suppressed cancer cure would come to light after three years and three months.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3417640/Oxford-University-physicist-formulates-long-conspiracy-theories-remain-secret.html

  • Torcer

    …………………………………………..

    This is because people have been brainwashed by screeds like:

    75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
    That have an absurd definition of socialism as:

    Socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability.

    Which is antithetical to the set definition of the word:

    Definition of socialism
    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

    Such screeds have things like ‘Laws’,‘Civilization’ and even ‘All Elected Government Officials’ as examples of the wonders of Socialism.

    Of Course, ‘Laws’,‘Civilization’ and even ‘All Elected Government Officials’ have been around for thousands of years and Socialism has only been around for 300 – 400 hundred years, but who wants to quibble about FACTS?

  • Torcer

    ……………………………………..
    A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.
    The Communist Manifesto
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  • Torcer

    ………………………………………

    How to Talk About the Opposition

    When you can help it, don’t say conservative. As the polls above demonstrate, conservative is no insult. The word and the concept are both quite popular. This is because, while conservative policies are awful, Americans overwhelmingly support stereotyped conservative principles—small government, low taxes, free markets, strong defense, traditional families. It is very clever framing. Who favors a bigger government than we need? Who wants to pay more taxes? Who can oppose freedom, an effective military, or families?
    Don’t say . . .Conservative plan
    Say . . . Right wing

    Don’t say . . .Conservative solution
    Say . . . Risky scheme

    Don’t say . . . Fiscal conservative
    Say . . . Extreme, outside the mainstream
    Fiscal responsibility

    Why . . .
    Why . . .

    When it fits, you can use the term right wing. Voters are somewhat unfavorable toward a right wing candidate (although they are much more unfavorable toward a left-wing candidate). You can also call conservatives extreme. The current crop of conservatives at the federal, state and local levels are far outside of the American mainstream. They are extreme compared to Ronald Reagan!

    Risky is another good word to use, because it highlights what America stands to lose by adopting any particular conservative measure. Finally, when you’re arguing against a conservative proposal, never call it a solution. It will never solve a societal problem.

    What about the Tea Party? Let’s first understand the polling. There are two kinds of questions asked about political organizations: do you favor or oppose the group, and do you consider yourself a supporter or member.

    Only 30 percent are favorable toward the Tea Party and about half are unfavorable. That has not changed much since 2011. Labeling someone as a Tea Party candidate is a negative, but not a terribly strong one. When asked “do you consider yourself a supporter of the Tea Party movement,” only about 20 percent say they are and by this measurement the Tea Party has declined by one-third over the past three years. The group does not represent a big percentage of all voters, but it remains a large and influential part of the Republican Party.

    Don’t say . . .
    Confederate

    Fascist, Nazi

    Say . . .
    Partisan, political and divisive

    Polarizing

    Playing partisan politics

    Putting politics above what’s best for America

    Why . . .

    We cannot call Tea Partiers Confederates or fascists, or compare their actions to the Civil War or World War II. Persuadable voters don’t understand the comparison, it seems dated, and it alienates some of our friends.

    Americans are increasingly aware that the Tea Party is far outside of the mainstream, and that its members are divisive, extremely partisan, and playing politics.
    http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/how_to_talk_about_the_opposition

  • Torcer

    …………………………………..

    Definition of WEAPON
    1: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
    2: a means of contending against another
    Examples of WEAPON
    assault with a deadly weapon
    The pitcher’s slider is his most effective weapon.
    a new weapon in the fight against cancer
    The mayor’s campaign unleashed its secret weapon.
    Origin of WEAPON
    Middle English wepen, from Old English wǣpen; akin to Old High German wāffan weapon, Old Norse vāpn
    First Known Use: before 12th century
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weapon

  • Torcer

    ……………
    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
    II. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS Page 22.
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

  • Torcer

    Tag Archives: Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN)
    May 28, 2014
    Their Men in Caracas: The Cuban Expats Shoring Up Maduro’s Government
    From military advisers to aid workers, thousands of Cubans form an information network across Venezuela’s economy

    By Paulo A Paranagua, Guardian Weekly
    Cuba hopes ally Nicolás Maduro can avoid an election in the throes of an economic crisis. Photograph: Miguel Gutierrez/EPA

    Cuba hopes ally Nicolás Maduro can avoid an election in the throes of an economic crisis. Photograph: Miguel Gutierrez/EPA

    When asked how many Cubans are working in Venezuela, minister of foreign affairs Elías Jaua cites the 25,000 medical aid workers in the programme launched by the late president Hugo Chávez, adding “about 1,000 sports trainers and 600 farming technicians”. The opposition claims the number is higher, particularly as there are Cuban advisers in all the ministries and state-owned companies.

    At the end of February the student leader Gaby Arellano tried to present a petition to the Cuban ambassador in Caracas. “We will not allow Cubans to interfere in our affairs any longer,” she said. “We don’t want them to go on controlling the media, directing military operations or indoctrinating our children.” Teodoro Petkoff, a leftwing opposition figure, is not convinced Havana exerts that much influence. “Such claims play down the responsibility of the Chavistas for what’s going on,” he says.

    Defence specialist Rocío San Miguel believes Cuba really does influence policymakers in Venezuela. She recalls the way Chávez’s illness was managed, his hospitalisation in Havana clothed in secrecy, and the transfer of power to Nicolás Maduro (pictured), who was educated in Cuba. “Cuban officers attend strategic planning meetings for the armed forces,” she says, basing her claim on insider sources.

    “It’s not a myth, it’s the reality,” says General Raúl Baduel, minister of defence under Chávez and now in custody at the Ramo Verde military prison. The Cubans have modernised the intelligence services, both the Sebin (Bolivarian National Intelligence Service) that reports directly to the president, and military intelligence. They also set up a special unit to protect the head of state.

    Furthermore Cubans have computerised Venezuela’s public records, giving them control over the issue of identity papers and voter registration. They have representatives in the ports and airports, as well as supervising foreign nationals. They took part in purchases of military equipment and work on the Maracaibo airbase.

    “All Cuban ‘internationalists’ have had military training and must, if required, fulfil combat duties,” San Miguel asserts. “Cubans form an information network which keeps Havana up-to-date on shifts in public opinion,” says political observer Carlos Romero.
    https://cubaconfidential.wordpress.com/tag/bolivarian-national-intelligence-service-sebin/

  • Torcer
  • Torcer

    reactionary (adj.) Look up reactionary at Dictionary.com
    1831, on model of French réactionnaire (19c.), from réaction (see reaction). In Marxist use, “tending toward reversing existing tendencies,” opposed to revolutionary and used opprobriously in reference to opponents of communism, by 1858. As a noun, “person considered reactionary,” especially in politics, one who seeks to check or undo political action, by 1855.
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=reactionary

  • Torcer

    “Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution was not – and is not – a grant of rights to the citizenry. Instead, the Constitution is a “barbed-wire entanglement” designed to interfere with, restrict, and impede government officials in the exercise of political power.” – Jacob Hornberger

  • Torcer

    “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.” – Frederic Bastiat

    “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.” – Frederic Bastiat

  • Torcer

    Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Winston Churchill

    Man is not free unless government is limited- Ronald Reagan

  • Torcer

    If North Korea Isn’t Communist, Then What Is It? | The …
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/if-north-korea-isnt-communist-then-what-it-14394

    nationalinterest.org/…north-korea-isnt-communist-then-what-it-14394

    19-11-2015 · What is their big fear? A Northern invasion of South Korea. I argued against this interpretation last month, and I would reckon most North Korea analysts …

    ……………………………………………………………………….

    If North Korea Isn’t Communist, Then What Is It?
    Robert E Kelly
    November 19, 2015
    Last month I argued that North Korea is not really a communist state, at least not as we normally understand Marxist-Leninist states in the 20th century. For example, North Korea is governed by a monarchic family clan; its ‘socialism’ has been broadly replaced by corruption (at the top) and informal marketization (at the bottom); it flirts with race-fascism. Yet it does still retain obvious elements of old Stalinist states – for example, in its iconography, obsession with ideology, and anti-Western foreign policy relationships.

    In my experience in this area, both scholarly and journalistic, this creates a lot of confusion and intellectual competition, with consequent political repercussions over how exactly to respond to North Korean provocations. There is a wide division out there about just how to interpret North Korea, what it ‘really’ is, what it ‘really’ wants, and so on. Similarly, a common retort to de-legitimize one’s intellectual opponents in the study of North Korea is to claim another does not really ‘understand’ the ‘true’ North Korea.

    The easy answer is to throw up one’s hands and call North Korea sui generis. That may be right in the way North Korea synthesizes seemingly disparate elements into what should be an ideological rube-goldberg jalopy. But North Korea manages to hang on regardless of how many times we analysts say it is an incoherent mess. So it seems worthwhile to sketch out some of the various interpretations floating around out there. Based on my experience at conferences, in scholarship and journalism, from my trip to North Korea itself, and so on, I would say there are five primary interpretive angles:

    1. North Korea as ‘classic’ Cold War Stalinist alternative to South Korea:

    Who believes this? Non-Korean journalists, Korean conservatives and military, non-elite Americans

    What is their ideology? Traditional conservative

    What is their big fear? A Northern invasion of South Korea

    I argued against this interpretation last month, and I would reckon most North Korea analysts would say this is no longer the best way to read Pyongyang. But I find it is still quite popular. Its appeal is obvious. It is easy to understand, parallels nicely with South Korea as the liberal democratic alternate, and fits into an obvious frame – the Cold War.

    And because North Korea started out this way, all sorts of vestiges remain: the socialist moniker (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), the iconography (lots of red, the flag, the national seal, the party symbol), the autarkic ideology. And Kim Il Sung, the regime founder, almost certainly believed in socialism or communism (although whether his son and grandson do is matter of intense debate).

    2. North Korea as a dangerous rogue state gumming up the works of globalization and U.S. hegemony:

    Who believes this? U.S. hawks and think-tankers

    What is their ideology? Neoconservative

    What is their big fear? Nuclear proliferation

    The idea here is that North Korea has actually successfully adapted to the end of the Cold War and remade itself as a gremlin in global governance. It refuses to follow even the most basic rules; its decision-making is a fog to outsiders; it does not belong to any international organizations. It is the most unpredictable state in the system. Back when he was Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz captured this anxiety well: “I’m more profoundly skeptical of North Korea than of any other country—both how they think, which I don’t understand, and the series of bizarre things they have done.”

    3. North Korea as a semi-fascist barracks state

    Who believes this? Various intellectuals (Brian Myers, Josh Stanton, Christopher Hitchens, Vox), my North Korean minders

    What is their ideology? None
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/if-north-korea-isnt-communist-then-what-it-14394

  • Torcer

    North Korea at 70: Just how ‘communist’ is the DPRK these days?
    10 October 2015 was officially the 70th anniversary of the Korean Workers Party (KWP), the North Korean communist party. This past weekend saw a huge military parade through Kim Il Sung Square (the central plaza of Pyongyang). Foreign journalists were flown in for a rare ‘privileged’ (read: manipulated) view of the party and military in full glory. Kim Jong Un even spoke, a genuinely rare event. A high-level foreign dignitary from another ostensibly ‘communist’ one-party state — China — also showed up.

    Observers who remember the Cold War will immediately see the resemblance to old Soviet-style parades, and, in the surfeit of red banners, party slogans, and communist iconography, one could be forgiven for thinking this is still a Marxist-Leninist party. As Andrei Lankov has noted, the KWP maintains the structure of such a party, as well as its real goal: the maintenance of totalitarian power.
    Ideology is surprisingly important

    North Korea acts as if ideology is hugely important. All citizens attend weekly ‘ideology classes.’ Kim Il Sung, the regime founder, put a Confucian writing brush into the party symbol to emphasise ideology alongside labour. The regime relentlessly touts the theoretical achievements of Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il as authors and thinkers. It flogs the notion that juche, Pyongyang’s communist-offshoot regime ideology, is a widely studied, globally relevant philosophy. Both Kims are credited with writing huge numbers of books and pamphlets on communist theory.

    When I visited Pyongyang, we were taken to a museum dedicated solely to Kim Il Sung’s thousands (yes, thousands) of publications. One could buy them in shops everywhere (they are also downloadable here), and most are communist in tone, with lots of Marxist jargon about the revolution, bourgeois dogmatism, Hegel, the ‘iron laws’ of history, and so on. North Korea even still has one of those bloated, ostentatious communist monikers; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (to which Voltaire’s famous quip about the Holy Roman Empire equally applies).

    So given that this KWP anniversary ostensibly celebrated the cadres leading Korea toward this juche ideal, it is worth considering just how ‘communist’ the DPRK is in practice.

    North Korea, much like East Germany, was built around the notion that it was a socialist alternative to a decadent capitalist failure. When I teach North Korea to South Korean students, I usually start here, because such language formally defined North Korea for so long. South Korean college students, by national security design (unfortunately), are not actually taught that much about North Korea, and almost none of them know the teleological ‘stages of history’ which Marxist states avowed for decades. By that standard, North Korea is in the post-revolutionary, dictatorship of the proletariat stage, the revolution having been Kim Il Sung’s take over. The purpose now — again, by strict Marxist-Leninist ideology — is to guard against counter-revolutionary revanchists at home (hardly a threat anymore at this point), as well as external bourgeois foes (the Americans, South Korean ‘puppets,’ and the Japanese) who would undermine the new order. When this project is secured, the state can ‘wither away’.
    Communism ain’t what it used to be: North Korean ‘deviationism’

    Like every other Marxist state though, the DPRK state never withered away. In fact, it got larger — much larger. North Korea has also failed or drifted so far from anything like socialism, communism, or Marxism-Leninism, most analysts did not take this KWP anniversary seriously, focusing instead on the military bombast. The following are a few of what Marxists of yore would have called ‘deviations’.

    Firstly, North Korea is a monarchy. The sheer oxymoronic ridiculousness of a ‘communist monarchy’ has always struck me. Nothing demonstrates the ideological contortions of the DPRK as much as a family succession. That is a feudal practice, of course, which is exactly the type of thing communism was supposed to eliminate as backward and repressive.

    Marx and Lenin were bitingly harsh in their critiques of feudalism. One of Marx’ most mean-spirited comments was his famous complaint of the ‘idiocy of the peasantry,’ meaning they stood outside of history as passive, uninformed spectators mired in ignorance. And, of course, the primary historical claim of just about every Marxist theorist and leader was that history moved in stages and the communism was the next one after capitalism. When Khrushchev said ‘we will bury you’, he meant exactly that: these large Marxist-metaphysical forces of history were working against capitalism, no matter what it did to stop them, and communism was the inevitable future. This is why leaders like Stalin and Pol Pot were so harsh on their feudal-agricultural communities; they were ‘behind’ in the Marxist historical mechanic. Even Mao had the good sense to avoid the ‘familiasation’ of the Chinese Communist Party (his wife did not last too long) and famously criticised Confucius as a feudal reactionary.

    Yet here we have a communist regime openly going back to a pre-capitalist mode rather than moving forward into the post-capitalist era as its own ideology says it should. One wonders how KWP ideologues must work to square this blatant neo-feudalism with regime ideology.

    The second deviation is North Korea’s flirtation with nationalism, racism, and, arguably, fascism. It is pretty well established that North Korean ideology emphasises the unique racial characteristics of the Korean people (the minjok). This too is a pretty egregious violation of twentieth century Marxism-Leninism, with its ideological insistence on ‘internationalism’ and its use of the struggle against fascism to legitimate itself. Even China just celebrated its own victory over fascism. Yet as early as the 1970s, east bloc diplomats were noting just how bizarre North Korea was becoming along these lines, and there is a school of North Korea interpretation which says it is really Japanese fascism in a Marxist guise. Nationalism is vastly more important than class, especially when even class in North Korea is defined by blood.

    Next come corruption and marketisation. The first two deviations are political: North Korean monarchic governance and emphasis on blood explicitly contradict any conventional interpretation of nineteenth and twentieth century Marxism. But economically too, North Korea has effectively given up public distribution or ‘socialism’ in exchange for informal marketisation coupled with oligarchic rent-seeking.

    If one defines socialism as economic distribution guided by the state, then this collapsed in North Korea in the late 1990s. The famine decimated the pubic distribution system (PDS). In a terrible irony, it was the cadres who most believed in the system who died first. They waited in vain for the PDS to supply them and refused to indulge in the corruption and illicit trade with China that helped others survive. Almost everyone outside of the elite who survived the ‘Arduous March’ engaged in some form of illicit trade, private agriculture, or corruption to survive. These informal market mechanisms have proven hard to root out. At this point, the state may no longer be trying, as these non-state provisions help keep the population healthier and likely less restive. Marketisation from below has also fueled growing corruption which, like the food trade, may actually be informally tolerated by the regime to keep it afloat.

    So if you wondered why last weekend’s party extravaganza did not so much celebrate the party as the military and the state’s nuclear program, this is why. The KWP is an ideological shell. After two monarchic successions and the collapse of the PDS, it is no longer a vehicle for the ‘workers’ nor a communist ‘vanguard party.’
    https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/north-korea-70-just-how-communist-dprk-these-days

  • Torcer

    Socialist Venezuela Isn’t ‘Socialist’ in More Than 87% of Network …
    http://www.mrc.org/articles/socialist-venezuela-isnt-socialist-more-87-network-stories
    http://www.mrc.org/articles/socialist-venezuela-isnt-socialist-more-87-network-stories Proxy Highlight

    Mar 9, 2015 … Editor’s Note: Explicit Language Socialism has been blamed for turning Venezuela “into an authoritarian basket case,” but the broadcast news …

    Socialist Venezuela Isn’t ‘Socialist’ in More Than 87 … – NewsBusters
    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/03/09/socialist-venezuela-isnt-socialist-more-87-network-stories
    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/03/09/socialist-venezuela-isnt-socialist-more-87-network-stories Proxy Highlight

    Mar 9, 2015 … Socialism has been blamed for turning Venezuela “into an authoritarian basket case,” but the broadcast news networks rarely admit that. In fact …

    Unconvincing Explanations For The Disaster In Venezuela That Is …
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/22/unconvincing-explanations-for-the-disaster-in-venezuela-that-is-bolivarian-socialism/
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/22/unconvincing-explanations-for-the-disaster-in-venezuela-that-is-bolivarian-socialism/ Proxy Highlight

    Jul 22, 2016 … Important to note is that Venezuela isn’t socialist, it’s social democratic. Note that this is specifically directed at me. And if you search Forbes …

    Ep. 696 The Problem With Socialism: Tom DiLorenzo Educates …
    http://tomwoods.com/ep-696-the-problem-with-socialism-tom-dilorenzo-educates-socialist-millennials/
    http://www.tomwoods.com/ep-696-the-problem-with-socialism-tom-dilorenzo-educates-socialist-millennials/ Proxy Highlight

    Jul 18, 2016 … I have been told boldly that Venezuela isn’t Socialist, it’s a military dictatorship. So if it were _actually_ Socialism, it would be in great shape.

  • Torcer

    Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf
    (English translation)
    TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION

    Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.

    JAMES MURPHY.
    Abbots Langley, February, 1939
    http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/politica/hitla002.htm

  • Torcer

    “One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting.” – C.S. Lewis

  • Torcer

    “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan

  • Torcer

    …………………………………………..

    Definition of gravity
    noun
    [mass noun]
    1Physics
    The force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass.
    1.1 The degree of intensity of gravity, measured by acceleration.
    Origin
    Late 15th century (in gravity (sense 2)): from Old French, or from Latin gravitas ‘weight, seriousness’, from gravis ‘heavy’. gravity (sense 1) dates from the 17th century.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gravity

    …………………………

    Definition of gravity
    noun
    [mass noun]
    1Physics
    The force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass.
    1.1 The degree of intensity of gravity, measured by acceleration.
    2Extreme importance; seriousness.
    ‘crimes of the utmost gravity’

    3 Solemnity of manner.
    ‘has the poet ever spoken with greater eloquence or gravity?’

    Origin
    Late 15th century (in gravity (sense 2)): from Old French, or from Latin gravitas ‘weight, seriousness’, from gravis ‘heavy’. gravity (sense 1) dates from the 17th century.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gravity

  • Torcer

    “Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic
    premise. There is no such thing as a person’s “fair share” of wealth.
    The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided
    because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy
    is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.”
    – P.J. O’Rourke

  • Torcer

    ………………………………….

    “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/132893-socialism-like-the-ancient-ideas-from-which-it-springs-confuses

  • Torcer

    Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf
    (English translation)
    TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION

    Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.

    JAMES MURPHY.
    Abbots Langley, February, 1939
    http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/politica/hitla002.htm

  • Torcer

    Hitler and the socialist dream
    He declared that ‘national socialism was based on Marx’ Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger

    George Watson
    Sunday 22 November 1998
    In April 1945, when Adolf Hitler died by his own hand in the rubble of Berlin, nobody was much interested in what he had once believed. That was to be expected. War is no time for reflection, and what Hitler had done was so shattering, and so widely known through images of naked bodies piled high in mass graves, that little or no attention could readily be paid to National Socialism as an idea. It was hard to think of it as an idea at all. Hitler, who had once looked a crank or a clown, was exposed as the leader of a gang of thugs, and the world was content to know no more than that.

    Half a century on, there is much to be said. Even thuggery can have its reasons, and the materials that have newly appeared, though they may not transform judgement, undoubtedly enrich and deepen it. Confidants of Hitler. such as the late Albert Speer, have published their reminiscences; his wartime table-talk is a book; early revelations like Hermann Rauschning’s Hitler Speaks of 1939 have been validated by painstaking research, and the notes of dead Nazis like Otto Wagener have been edited, along with a full text of Goebbels’s diary.

    It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone’s disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan “Crusade against Marxism” as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.

    His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit”. He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx”, implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been “a private Russian affair”, whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.

    That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race – implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground”. Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him.

    Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism. It was a theory of history and not, like liberalism or social democracy, a mere agenda of legislative proposals. And it was a theory of human, not just of German, history, a heady vision that claimed to understand the whole past and future of mankind. Hitler’s discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in “the community of the volk”, not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to “convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”, meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.

    That realisation was crucial. To dispossess, after all, as the Russian civil war had recently shown, could only mean Germans fighting Germans, and Hitler believed there was a quicker and more efficient route. There could be socialism without civil war.

    Now that the age of individualism had ended, he told Wagener, the task was to “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”. Marx and Lenin had seen the right goal, but chosen the wrong route – a long and needlessly painful route – and, in destroying the bourgeois and the kulak, Lenin had turned Russia into a grey mass of undifferentiated humanity, a vast anonymous horde of the dispossessed; they had “averaged downwards”; whereas the National Socialist state would raise living standards higher than capitalism had ever known. It is plain that Hitler and his associates meant their claim to socialism to be taken seriously; they took it seriously themselves.

    For half a century, none the less, Hitler has been portrayed, if not as a conservative – the word is many shades too pale – at least as an extreme instance of the political right. It is doubtful if he or his friends would have recognised the description. His own thoughts gave no prominence to left and right, and he is unlikely to have seen much point in any linear theory of politics. Since he had solved for all time the enigma of history, as he imagined, National Socialism was unique. The elements might be at once diverse and familiar, but the mix was his.

    Hitler’s mind, it has often been noticed, was in many ways backward-looking: not medievalising, on the whole, like Victorian socialists such as Ruskin and William Morris, but fascinated by a far remoter past of heroic virtue. It is now widely forgotten that much the same could be said of Marx and Engels.

    It is the issue of race, above all, that for half a century has prevented National Socialism from being seen as socialist. The proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said. But there were still, in Marx’s view, races that would have to be exterminated. That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called “The Hungarian Struggle” in Marx’s journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler. It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired. The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism was already giving place to capitalism, which must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire races would be left behind after a workers’ revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.

    That brutal view, which a generation later was to be fortified by the new pseudo-science of eugenics, was by the last years of the century a familiar part of the socialist tradition, though it is understandable that since the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945 socialists have been eager to forget it. But there is plenty of evidence in the writings of HG Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis, the Webbs and others to the effect that socialist commentators did not flinch from drastic measures. The idea of ethnic cleansing was orthodox socialism for a century and more.

    So the socialist intelligentsia of the western world entered the First World War publicly committed to racial purity and white domination and no less committed to violence. Socialism offered them a blank cheque, and its licence to kill included genocide. In 1933, in a preface to On the Rocks, for example, Bernard Shaw publicly welcomed the exterminatory principle which the Soviet Union had already adopted. Socialists could now take pride in a state that had at last found the courage to act, though some still felt that such action should be kept a secret. In 1932 Beatrice Webb remarked at a tea-party what “very bad stage management” it had been to allow a party of British visitors to the Ukraine to see cattle-trucks full of starving “enemies of the state” at a local station. “Ridiculous to let you see them”, said Webb, already an eminent admirer of the Soviet system. “The English are always so sentimental” adding, with assurance: “You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.” A few years later, in 1935, a Social Democratic government in Sweden began a eugenic programme for the compulsory sterilisation of gypsies, the backward and the unfit, and continued it until after the war.

    The claim that Hitler cannot really have been a socialist because he advocated and practised genocide suggests a monumental failure, then, in the historical memory. Only socialists in that age advocated or practised genocide, at least in Europe, and from the first years of his political career Hitler was proudly aware of the fact. Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: “If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites – and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose.” There was loud applause. Hitler went on: “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?” The point was widely understood, and it is notable that no German socialist in the 1930s or earlier ever sought to deny Hitler’s right to call himself a socialist on grounds of racial policy. In an age when the socialist tradition of genocide was familiar, that would have sounded merely absurd. The tradition, what is more, was unique. In the European century that began in the 1840s from Engels’s article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found.

    The first reactions to National Socialism outside Germany are now largely forgotten. They were highly confused, for the rise of fascism had caught the European left by surprise. There was nothing in Marxist scripture to predict it and must have seemed entirely natural to feel baffled. Where had it all come from? Harold Nicolson, a democratic socialist, and after 1935 a Member of the House of Commons, conscientiously studied a pile of pamphlets in his hotel room in Rome in January 1932 and decided judiciously that fascism (Italian-style) was a kind of militarised socialism; though it destroyed liberty, he concluded in his diary, “it is certainly a socialist experiment in that it destroys individuality”. The Moscow view that fascism was the last phase of capitalism, though already proposed, was not yet widely heard. Richard remarked in a 1934 BBC talk that many students in Nazi Germany believed they were “digging the foundations of a new German socialism”.

    By the outbreak of civil war in Spain, in 1936, sides had been taken, and by then most western intellectuals were certain that Stalin was left and Hitler was right. That sudden shift of view has not been explained, and perhaps cannot be explained, except on grounds of argumentative convenience. Single binary oppositions – cops-and-robbers or cowboys-and-indians – are always satisfying. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was seen by hardly anybody as an attempt to restore the unity of socialism. A wit at the British Foreign Office is said to have remarked that all the “Isms” were now “Wasms”, and the general view was that nothing more than a cynical marriage of convenience had taken place.

    By the outbreak of world war in 1939 the idea that Hitler was any sort of socialist was almost wholly dead. One may salute here an odd but eminent exception. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, Orwell saw the disaster as a “physical debunking of capitalism”, it showed once and for all that “a planned economy is stronger than a planless one”, though he was in no doubt that Hitler’s victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy had long stood at the head of socialist demands; and National Socialism, Orwell argued, had taken from socialism “just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes”. Hitler had already come close to socialising Germany. “Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a socialist state.” These words were written just before Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union. Orwell believed that Hitler would go down in history as “the man who made the City of London laugh on the wrong side of its face” by forcing financiers to see that planning works and that an economic free-for-all does not.

    At its height, Hitler’s appeal transcended party division. Shortly before they fell out in the summer of 1933, Hitler uttered sentiments in front of Otto Wagener, which were published after his death in 1971 as a biography by an unrepentant Nazi. Wagener’s Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, composed in a British prisoner-of-war camp, did not appear until 1978 in the original German, and arrived in English, without much acclaim, as recently as 1985. Hitler’s remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made utopian socialism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as Victorian socialism had done before it, an intense economic radicalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe.

    Socialism, Hitler told Wagener shortly after he seized power, was not a recent invention of the human spirit, and when he read the New Testament he was often reminded of socialism in the words of Jesus. The trouble was that the long ages of Christianity had failed to act on the Master’s teachings. Mary and Mary Magdalen, Hitler went on in a surprising flight of imagination, had found an empty tomb, and it would be the task of National Socialism to give body at long last to the sayings of a great teacher: “We are the first to exhume these teachings.” The Jew, Hitler told Wagener, was not a socialist, and the Jesus they crucified was the true creator of socialist redemption. As for communists, he opposed them because they created mere herds, Soviet-style, without individual life, and his own ideal was “the socialism of nations” rather than the international socialism of Marx and Lenin. The one and only problem of the age, he told Wagener, was to liberate labour and replace the rule of capital over labour with the rule of labour over capital.

    These are highly socialist sentiments, and if Wagener reports his master faithfully they leave no doubt about the conclusion: that Hitler was an unorthodox Marxist who knew his sources and knew just how unorthodox the way in which he handled them was. He was a dissident socialist. His programme was at once nostalgic and radical. It proposed to accomplish something that Christians had failed to act on and that communists before him had attempted and bungled. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”

    That was the National Socialist vision. It was seductive, at once traditional and new. Like all so- cialist views it was ultimately moral, and its economic and racial policies were seen as founded on universal moral laws. By the time such conversations saw the light of print, regrettably, the world had put such matters far behind it, and it was less than ever ready to listen to the sayings of a crank or a clown.

    That is a pity. The crank, after all, had once offered a vision of the future that had made a Victorian doctrine of history look exciting to millions. Now that socialism is a discarded idea, such excitement is no doubt hard to recapture. To relive it again, in imagination, one might look at an entry in Goebbels’s diaries. On 16 June 1941, five days before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Goebbels exulted, in the privacy of his diary, in the victory over Bolshevism that he believed would quickly follow. There would be no restoration of the tsars, he remarked to himself, after Russia had been conquered. But Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and “real socialism” planted in its place – “Der echte Sozialismus”. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries. And to the end of his days he believed that socialism was what National Socialism was about.

    The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson is published by Lutterworth, pounds 15
    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

  • Torcer

    How the Nazis Used Gun Control
    In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

    In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

    During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

    In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

    The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

    This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

    That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

    SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

    The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

    No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.
    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

  • Torcer

    Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
    https://www.mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

    Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
    My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

    The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

    When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?

    Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

    The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

    What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

    De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
    […]
    In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of “economic crimes,” in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
    [..]
    Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.
    https://www.mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

  • Torcer

    An English Lawmaker Called Hitler a Socialist. After the Arguing is Done, the Audience is Cheering. http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/217711-3-english-mp-daniel-hannan-gives-blistering-speech-setting-record-straight-real-socialists/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=entry-meta&utm_campaign=Sharing via @ijdotcom

    An English Lawmaker Called Hitler a Socialist. After the Arguing is Done, the Audience is Cheering.
    In this speech, posted on December 9th of this year, Hannan sets out to prove how the infamous German fuhrer Adolf Hitler was not a man of the right, but a different type of socialist.
    Mr Hannan opens, “Ladies and gentleman, who said this? ‘I am a socialist. And a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Count Reventlow.’
    Among the points that back Mr. Hannan’s point is the official Nazi platform; particularly, its economic policies:

    9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
    10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
    Therefore we demand:
    11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. […]
    14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
    15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
    In bold letters, the Nazi platform summarizes:

    COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

    As Hannan points out, while socialists and fascists, two different kinds of authoritarian collectivists, fought one another for power, both groups were hostile to the classically liberal true “right” – which stands for individual freedom.

    Later on in the video [5:30], a questioner asks: “How is it freedom to not have your daily bread, to not go to a reasonable school, to not have any opportunities to develop yourself as a young person…?”

    Mr. Hannan replied, “Let’s leave aside whether or not one means positive freedom or negative freedom. If you want those opportunities, if you want decent schools, if you want a rise in living standards, would you go to North Korea or South Korea?” Much of the audience applauded in approval.

    In a related article in the Telegraph, “So total is the Left’s cultural ascendancy that no one likes to mention the socialist roots of fascism,” Daniel Hannan points out how uncomfortable it makes people to recite basic historical facts about history:

    One of the most stunning achievements of the modern Left is to have created a cultural climate where simply to recite these facts is jarring. History is reinterpreted, and it is taken as axiomatic that fascism must have been Right-wing, the logic seemingly being that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists were nasty. You expect this level of analysis from Twitter mobs; you shouldn’t expect it from mainstream commentators.

    It is astounding to see how one political faction can so thoroughly dominate discourse as to condition the cultural terrain whereby any opposition is considered “hate,” “racism,” or “bigotry.” But much like with the Democratic Party in the United States, the first rule of polite, politically correct conversation is to never drag the skeletons out of the left’s closet.

    English Conservative MEP:Hitler Was A Socialist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Rini9Yu0M

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/217711-3-english-mp-daniel-hannan-gives-blistering-speech-setting-record-straight-real-socialists/

  • Torcer

    MYTH BUSTED: Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/ via @scrowder

    MYTH BUSTED: Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal
    A favorite tactic employed by leftists is to describe the Nazis as “right wing,” with Adolf Hitler, their leader, as the grand leader of this “right wing” movement. Rewriting history is pretty common for leftists, as their history is littered with injustice (the KKK was founded by Democrats, did you know?). Injustices they claim to fight against today. Awkward.

    Adolf Hitler wasn’t “right wing.” If you take nothing else from this post, just remember Hitler was a socialist. With terrible facial hair. There’s an easy way to remember it, too. NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers‘ Party. Associate it with blunt mustaches.

    What does National Socialist German Worker’s Party mean? Glad you asked. Is it different from “Democratic socialism”? Only in semantics. A Democracy is mob rule, which is why America is actually a constitutional, representative republic, NOT a democracy. A representative republic protects the minority from the majority, whereas a democracy is the rule of the majority. Leftists get caught up in words, getting tripped up over “National Socialism” as opposed to “Democrat Socialism.” But it’s just that. Semantics. So when Hitler ginned up hatred for the Jews, he could get the mob to agree with him. He could get the mob to believe him. There were no representatives to stop Hitler. He was one man helming the desperation of a majority of people. Spot the difference?

    When we examine Hitler’s Nazi Germany through the lens of history, most, if not all of us, think of the Holocaust. In fact the holocaust might be the only thing we associate with Hitler’s Nazis. We’ve all been told of the Jews being marched off to death camps where they were worked, tortured, then gassed. We’ve also heard of the experiments conducted by Hitler’s Dr. Mengele. All terrible practices which we rightly find horrifying. Unless you’re one of those people who think Planned Parenthood is great.

    What we don’t often hear or learn about is how Hitler ruled the rest of Germany, what his domestic policies were for the German people he didn’t march off to death camps. Hitler’s domestic, socialist policies will be the focus of this post. Trigger warning: they’re eerily similar to what American Democrats tout today. Double trigger warning? He initially had the support of the mob of people. So replace many of Hitler’s policies with something you hear from Bernie Sanders…
    [..]
    Employment for All
    After that depression, Hitler made a huge promise to his people: employment for all. How did he do it?
    http://www.markedbyteachers.com/gcse/history/hitler-s-domestic-policies-between-1933-1939-engaged-widespread-popularity-among-german-people-how-far-would-you-agree.html
    So Hitler created jobs…through government. While at the same time, he criticized certain segments of the population, demeaning them, blaming the countries woes upon them. The rich, they just ruin everything. Sound familiar?
    Big Education
    If you haven’t seen it yet, go watch http://louderwithcrowder.com/holocaust-survivor-draws-chilling-similarities-between-nazism-and-obama/
    […]
    The Police State
    If you dared oppose the Nazis or Hitler politically, especially with your words, you better watch out.
    http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007675
    In Conclusion

    Hitler was a horrible human being. But aside from how he treated the Jews, aside from his monstrous ways, his policies were anything but “conservative.” He wanted big government, he wanted big education, he wanted thought control. He hated political dissidents. He loathed free-speech. He feared an armed citizenry.

    So stop saying “Hitler was right-wing.” No, he wasn’t. If anything, he was a full-fledged left-winger. With a horrible mustache.
    http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/

  • Torcer

    “Never waste a good crisis” Hillary Clinton

  • Torcer

    #national Socialist Left
    #Socialism=FAILURE
    #Reference

    Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
    https://www.mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

    Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
    My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

    The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

    When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?

    Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

    The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

    What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

    De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
    […]
    In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of “economic crimes,” in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
    [..]
    Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.
    https://www.mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

  • Torcer

    An English Lawmaker Called Hitler a Socialist. After the Arguing is Done, the Audience is Cheering. http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/217711-3-english-mp-daniel-hannan-gives-blistering-speech-setting-record-straight-real-socialists/? via @ijdotcom

    An English Lawmaker Called Hitler a Socialist. After the Arguing is Done, the Audience is Cheering.
    In this speech, posted on December 9th of this year, Hannan sets out to prove how the infamous German fuhrer Adolf Hitler was not a man of the right, but a different type of socialist.
    Mr Hannan opens, “Ladies and gentleman, who said this? ‘I am a socialist. And a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Count Reventlow.’
    Among the points that back Mr. Hannan’s point is the official Nazi platform; particularly, its economic policies:

    9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
    10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
    Therefore we demand:
    11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. […]
    14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
    15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
    In bold letters, the Nazi platform summarizes:

    COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

    As Hannan points out, while socialists and fascists, two different kinds of authoritarian collectivists, fought one another for power, both groups were hostile to the classically liberal true “right” – which stands for individual freedom.

    Later on in the video [5:30], a questioner asks: “How is it freedom to not have your daily bread, to not go to a reasonable school, to not have any opportunities to develop yourself as a young person…?”

    Mr. Hannan replied, “Let’s leave aside whether or not one means positive freedom or negative freedom. If you want those opportunities, if you want decent schools, if you want a rise in living standards, would you go to North Korea or South Korea?” Much of the audience applauded in approval.

    In a related article in the Telegraph, “So total is the Left’s cultural ascendancy that no one likes to mention the socialist roots of fascism,” Daniel Hannan points out how uncomfortable it makes people to recite basic historical facts about history:

    One of the most stunning achievements of the modern Left is to have created a cultural climate where simply to recite these facts is jarring. History is reinterpreted, and it is taken as axiomatic that fascism must have been Right-wing, the logic seemingly being that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists were nasty. You expect this level of analysis from Twitter mobs; you shouldn’t expect it from mainstream commentators.

    It is astounding to see how one political faction can so thoroughly dominate discourse as to condition the cultural terrain whereby any opposition is considered “hate,” “racism,” or “bigotry.” But much like with the Democratic Party in the United States, the first rule of polite, politically correct conversation is to never drag the skeletons out of the left’s closet.

    English Conservative MEP:Hitler Was A Socialist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Rini9Yu0M

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/217711-3-english-mp-daniel-hannan-gives-blistering-speech-setting-record-straight-real-socialists/

  • Torcer

    “Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.” Marko Kloos Why the gun is civilization

  • Torcer

    “Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people. We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should. Happy Fourth of July.”
    Ronald Reagan

  • Torcer

    Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party
    The program of the German Workers’ Party is an epochal program.

    The leaders reject the idea of setting up new goals after those included in the program have been achieved merely in order to make possible the further existence of the Party by artificially inducing discontent among the masses.

    1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

    2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

    3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

    4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

    5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

    6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province. or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

    We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

    7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

    8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

    9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

    10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

    Therefore we demand:

    11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

    Breaking the Bondage of Interest

    12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

    13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

    14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

    15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

    17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

    18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

    19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

    20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

    21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

    22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

    23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

    (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

    (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

    (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the nonGermans from the Reich.

    Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

    24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

    The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:

    COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

    25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

    The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

    The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/nsdappro.asp

  • Torcer

    Hitler Joins German Workers’ Party
    Corporal Adolf Hitler was ordered in September 1919 to investigate a small group in Munich known as the German Workers’ Party.

    The use of the term ‘workers’ attracted the attention of the German Army which was now involved in crushing Marxist uprisings.

    On September 12th, dressed in civilian clothes, Hitler went to a meeting of the German Workers’ Party in the back room of a Munich beer hall, with about twenty five people. He listened to a speech on economics by Gottfried Feder entitled, “How and by what means is capitalism to be eliminated?”

    After the speech, Hitler began to leave when a man rose up and spoke in favor of the German state of Bavaria breaking away from Germany and forming a new South German nation with Austria.

    This enraged Hitler and he spoke out forcefully against the man for the next fifteen minutes uninterrupted, to the astonishment of everyone. One of the founders of the German Workers’ Party, Anton Drexler, reportedly whispered: “He’s got the gift of the gab. We could use him.”

    After Hitler’s outburst ended, Drexler hurried over to Hitler and gave him a forty-page pamphlet entitled: “My Political Awakening.” He urged Hitler to read it and also invited Hitler to come back again.

    Early the next morning, sitting in his cot in the barracks of the 2nd Infantry Regiment watching the mice eat bread crumbs he left for them on the floor, Hitler remembered the pamphlet and read it. He was delighted to find the pamphlet, written by Drexler, reflected political thinking much like his own – building a strong nationalist, pro-military, anti-Semitic party made up of working class people.

    A few days later, Hitler received an unexpected postcard saying he had been accepted as a member into the party. He was asked to attend an executive committee meeting, which he did. At that meeting he was joyfully welcomed as a new member although he was actually very undecided on whether to join.

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler describes the condition of the party: “aside from a few directives, there was nothing, no program, no leaflet, no printed matter at all, no membership cards, not even a miserable rubber stamp…”

    Although unimpressed by the present condition of the German Workers’ Party, Hitler was drawn to the sentiment expressed by Drexler that this would somehow become a movement not just a political party. And in this disorganized party, Hitler saw opportunity.

    “This absurd little organization with its few members seemed to me to possess the one advantage that it had not frozen into an ‘organization,’ but left the individual opportunity for real personal activity. Here it was still possible to work, and the smaller the movement, the more readily it could be put into the proper form. Here, the content, the goal, and the road could still be determined…”

    He spent two days thinking it over then decided.

    “I finally came to the conviction that I had to take this step…It was the most decisive resolve of my life. From here there was and could be no turning back.”

    Adolf Hitler joined the committee of the German Workers’ Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or DAP) and thus entered politics.

    Copyright © 1996 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved
    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/joins.htm

  • Torcer

    Nazi Party
    political party, Germany
    Alternative Titles: National Socialist German Workers’ Party, National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP

    Nazi Party, byname of National Socialist German Workers’ Party, German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), political party of the mass movement known as National Socialism. Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, the party came to power in Germany in 1933 and governed by totalitarian methods until 1945.

    It was founded as the German Workers’ Party by Anton Drexler, a Munich locksmith, in 1919. Hitler attended one of its meetings that year, and his energy and oratorical skills soon enabled him to take over the party. He ousted the party’s former leaders in 1920–21 and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. In 1920 Hitler also formulated a 25-point program that became the permanent basis for the party. The program called for German abandonment of the Treaty of Versailles and for the expansion of German territory. These appeals for national aggrandizement were accompanied by a strident anti-Semitic rhetoric. The party’s socialist orientation was basically a demagogic gambit designed to attract support from the working class.

    Under Hitler the Nazi Party grew steadily in its home base of Bavaria. It organized strong-arm groups to protect its rallies and meetings. These groups drew their members from war veterans groups and paramilitary organizations and were organized under the name Sturmabteilung (SA). In 1923 Hitler and his followers felt strong enough to stage the Beer Hall Putsch, an unsuccessful attempt to take control of the Bavarian state government in the hope that it would trigger a nationwide insurrection against the Weimar Republic. The coup failed, the Nazi Party was temporarily banned, and Hitler was sent to prison for most of 1924.

    Upon his release Hitler quickly set about rebuilding his moribund party, vowing to achieve power only through legal political means thereafter. The Nazi Party’s membership grew from 25,000 in 1925 to about 180,000 in 1929. Its organizational system of gauleiters (“district leaders”) spread through Germany at this time, and the party began contesting municipal, state, and federal elections with increasing frequency.

    However, it was the effects of the Great Depression in Germany that brought the Nazi Party to its first real nationwide importance. The rapid rise in unemployment in 1929–30 provided millions of jobless and dissatisfied voters whom the Nazi Party exploited to its advantage. From 1929 to 1932 the party vastly increased its membership and voting strength; its vote in elections to the Reichstag (the German Parliament) increased from 800,000 votes in 1928 to about 14,000,000 votes in July 1932, and it thus emerged as the largest voting bloc in the Reichstag, with 230 members (38 percent of the total vote). By then big-business circles had begun to finance the Nazi electoral campaigns, and swelling bands of SA toughs increasingly dominated the street fighting with the communists that accompanied such campaigns.

    When unemployment began to drop in Germany in late 1932, the Nazi Party’s vote also dropped, to about 12,000,000 (33 percent of the vote) in the November 1932 elections. Nevertheless, Hitler’s shrewd maneuvering behind the scenes prompted the president of the German republic, Paul von Hindenburg, to name him chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933. Hitler used the powers of his office to solidify the Nazis’ position in the government during the following months. The elections of March 5, 1933, gave the Nazi Party 44 percent of the votes, and further unscrupulous tactics on Hitler’s part turned the voting balance in the Reichstag in the Nazis’ favour. On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which “enabled” Hitler’s government to issue decrees independently of the Reichstag and the presidency; Hitler in effect assumed dictatorial powers.

    On July 14, 1933, his government declared the Nazi Party to be the only political party in Germany. On the death of Hindenburg in 1934 Hitler took the titles of Führer (“Leader”), chancellor, and commander in chief of the army, and he remained leader of the Nazi Party as well. Nazi Party membership became mandatory for all higher civil servants and bureaucrats, and the gauleiters became powerful figures in the state governments. Hitler crushed the Nazi Party’s left, or socialist-oriented, wing in 1934, executing Ernst Röhm and other rebellious SA leaders at this time. Thereafter, Hitler’s word was the supreme and undisputed command in the party. The party came to control virtually all political, social, and cultural activities in Germany. Its vast and complex hierarchy was structured like a pyramid, with party-controlled mass organizations for youth, women, workers, and other groups at the bottom, party members and officials in the middle, and Hitler and his closest associates at the top wielding undisputed authority.

    Upon Germany’s defeat, Hitler’s suicide, and the Allied occupation of the country in 1945 at the end of World War II, the Nazi Party was banned, and its top leaders were convicted of crimes against peace and against humanity.

    There have been minor Nazi parties in other countries (such as the United States), but after 1945 Nazism as a mass movement was virtually nonexistent.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nazi-Party

  • Torcer

    Rise of the Nazis
    Take a look at key events that led to the Nazi party’s rise to power in Germany.
    Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazi Party, grew into a mass movement and ruled Germany through totalitarian means from 1933 to 1945. Founded in 1919 as the German Workers’ Party, the group promoted German pride and anti-Semitism, and expressed dissatisfaction with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the 1919 peace settlement that ended World War I (1914-1918) and required Germany to make numerous concessions and reparations. Hitler joined the party the year it was founded and became its leader in 1921. In 1933, he became chancellor of Germany and his Nazi government soon assumed dictatorial powers. After Germany’s defeat in World War II (1939-45), the Nazi Party was outlawed and many of its top officials were convicted of war crimes related to the murder of some 6 million European Jews during the Nazis’ reign.

    Nazi Party Origins

    In 1919, army veteran Adolf Hitler, frustrated by Germany’s defeat in World War, which had left the nation economically depressed and politically unstable, joined a fledgling political organization called the German Workers’ Party. Founded earlier that same year by a small group of men including locksmith Anton Drexler (1884-1942) and journalist Karl Harrer (1890-1926), the party promoted German nationalism and anti-Semitism, and felt that the Treaty of Versailles, the peace settlement that ended the war, was extremely unjust to Germany by burdening it with reparations it could never pay. Hitler soon emerged as a charismatic public speaker and began attracting new members with speeches blaming Jews and Marxists for Germany’s problems and espousing extreme nationalism and the concept of an Aryan “master race.” In July 1921, he assumed leadership of the organization, which by then had been renamed the Nationalist Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party.

    Through the 1920s, Hitler gave speech after speech in which he stated that unemployment, rampant inflation, hunger and economic stagnation in postwar Germany would continue until there was a total revolution in German life. Most problems could be solved, he explained, if communists and Jews were driven from the nation. His fiery speeches swelled the ranks of the Nazi Party, especially among young, economically disadvantaged Germans.

    In 1923, Hitler and his followers staged the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich, a failed takeover of the government in Bavaria, a state in southern Germany. Hitler had hoped that the “putsch,” or coup d’etat, would spark a larger revolution against the national government. In the aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler was convicted of treason and sentenced to five years in prison, but spent less than a year behind bars (during which time he dictated the first volume of “Mein Kampf,” or “My Struggle,” his political autobiography). The publicity surrounding the Beer Hall Putsch and Hitler’s subsequent trial turned him into a national figure. After his release from prison, he set about rebuilding the Nazi Party and attempting to gain power through the election process.
    Hitler and the Nazis Come to Power: 1933

    In 1929, Germany entered a period of severe economic depression and widespread unemployment. The Nazis capitalized on the situation by criticizing the ruling government and began to win elections. In the July 1932 elections, they captured 230 out of 608 seats in the “Reichstag,” or German parliament. In January 1933, Hitler was appointed German chancellor and his Nazi government soon came to control every aspect of German life.

    Under Nazi rule, all other political parties were banned. In 1933, the Nazis opened their first concentration camp, in Dachau, Germany, to house political prisoners. Dachau evolved into a death camp where countless thousands of Jews died from malnutrition, disease and overwork or were executed. In addition to Jews, the camp’s prisoners included members of other groups Hitler considered unfit for the new Germany, including artists, intellectuals, Gypsies, the physically and mentally handicapped and homosexuals.
    Militant Foreign Policy: 1933-39

    Once Hitler gained control of the government, he directed Nazi Germany’s foreign policy toward undoing the Treaty of Versailles and restoring Germany’s standing in the world. He railed against the treaty’s redrawn map of Europe and argued it denied Germany, Europe’s most populous state, “living space” for its growing population. Although the Treaty of Versailles was explicitly based on the principle of the self-determination of peoples, he pointed out that it had separated Germans from Germans by creating such new postwar states as Austria and Czechoslovakia, where many Germans lived.

    From the mid- to late 1930s, Hitler undermined the postwar international order step by step. He withdrew Germany from the League of Nations in 1933, rebuilt German armed forces beyond what was permitted by the Treaty of Versailles, reoccupied the German Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in 1938 and invaded Czechoslovakia in 1939. When Nazi Germany moved toward Poland, Great Britain and France countered further aggression by guaranteeing Polish security. Nevertheless, Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and Great Britain and France declared war on Germany. Six years of Nazi Party foreign policy had ignited World War II.
    Fight to Dominate Europe: 1939-45

    After conquering Poland, Hitler focused on defeating Britain and France. As the war expanded, the Nazi Party formed alliances with Japan and Italy in the Tripartite Pact of 1940, and honored its 1939 Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact with the Soviet Union until 1941, when Germany launched a massive blitzkrieg invasion of the Soviet Union. In the brutal fighting that followed, Nazi troops tried to realize the long-held goal of crushing the world’s major communist power. After the United States entered the war in 1941, Germany found itself fighting in North Africa, Italy, France, the Balkans and in a counterattacking Soviet Union. At the beginning of the war, Hitler and his Nazi Party were fighting to dominate Europe; five years later they were fighting to exist.
    Systematic Murder of European Jews

    When Hitler and the Nazis came to power in 1933, they instituted a series of measures aimed at persecuting Germany’s Jewish citizens. By late 1938, Jews were banned from most public places in Germany. During the war, the Nazis’ anti-Jewish campaigns increased in scale and ferocity. In the invasion and occupation of Poland, German troops shot thousands of Polish Jews, confined many to ghettoes where they starved to death and began sending others to death camps in various parts of Poland, where they were either killed immediately or forced into slave labor. In 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, Nazi death squads machine-gunned tens of thousands of Jews in the western regions of Soviet Russia.

    In early 1942, at the Wannsee Conference near Berlin, the Nazi Party decided on the last phase of what it called the “Final Solution” of the “Jewish problem” and spelled out plans for the systematic murder of all European Jews. In 1942 and 1943, Jews in the western occupied countries including France and Belgium were deported by the thousands to the death camps mushrooming across Europe. In Poland, huge death camps such as Auschwitz began operating with ruthless efficiency. The murder of Jews in German-occupied lands stopped only in last months of the war, as the German armies were retreating toward Berlin. By the time Hitler committed suicide in April 1945, some 6 million Jews had died.
    Denazification

    After the war, the Allies occupied Germany, outlawed the Nazi Party and worked to purge its influence from every aspect of German life. The party’s swastika flag quickly became a symbol of evil in modern postwar culture. Although Hitler killed himself before he could be brought to justice, a number of Nazi officials were convicted of war crimes in the Nuremberg trials, which took place in Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1949.
    http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nazi-party

  • Torcer

    Nazi beliefs
    The crisis of 1923 led to ordinary Germans supporting more extreme parties such as the Nazis, which only began in 1919 as a small political group. The Nazis appeared to offer a better future and something for everyone which gave them widespread appeal.
    Nazi ideology

    In 1919, Adolf Hitler joined a small right-wing group called the German Workers’ Party. He took over as its leader, and changed its name to the National Socialists (Nazis).

    The party developed a 25-Point Programme, which – after the failure of the Munich Putsch in 1924 – Hitler explained further in his book ‘Mein Kampf’.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/nazibeliefsrev1.shtml

  • Torcer

    Nazi Party
    The Nazi Party, and its precursor, The German Worker’s Party, was born out the anger and frustration prevalent in the aftermath of World War I and the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. There were many alienated, maladjusted soldiers and ex-soldiers with a thirst for adventure and a distaste for the peace brought on by the Treaty and the resulting democratic republic. They eagerly joined the German Workers’ Party in growing numbers. Hitler discovered that he had a talent for connecting with these disenfranchised, angry people and knew how to play on their fears.

    The political platform of the Nazi Party was based on a 25-point program, including the union of all Germans in a greater German Reich; rejection of the Treaty of Versailles; the demand for additional territories for the German people (Lebensraum); citizenship determined by race with no Jew to be considered a German; all income not earned by work to be confiscated; a thorough reconstruction of the national education system; religious freedom except for religions which endanger the German race; and a strong central government for the execution of effective legislation.

    Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party
    The Avalon Project
    Lillian Goldman Law Library
    Yale Law School

    Nazi Party (NSDAP)
    Spartacus Educational

    Modern History Sourcebook:
    The 25 Points 1920:
    An Early Nazi Program
    Fordham University

    The Program Of The National-Socialist (Nazi) German Workers Party
    Yad Vashem
    http://holocaustonline.org/nazis-nazism/nazi-party/

  • Torcer

    See Hitler’s Horrifying 1920 Political Platform
    Kenneth W. Rendell,Samantha Heywood
    Apr 11, 2016
    Hitler had joined one of the many small right wing political groups in Munich, the German Workers’ Party, in September 1919. Germany was a country in considerable turmoil and there were many such groups forming, disbanding, forging or breaking alliances, and fighting each other on the streets. The city of Munich was a center of political activity where meetings at its beer halls drew large crowds of people some of whom were attracted by the prospect of violence. By February 1920, Hitler had drawn up this party program together with the original founder of the party, Anton Drexler. It was introduced at a meeting at the Hofbräuhaus on 24 February to which nearly 2,000 people turned up. Hitler was not the main speaker, but when he spoke, some of the crowd became vociferous and violence broke out. However, he managed to overcome the noise and confusion to speak in its favor, and the program was adopted.

    This document clearly identifies three fundamental principles that were to underpin Nazi ideology and policy for the next twenty-five years;

    ‘We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St Germain [between the Allies and Austria].

    We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

    Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.’

    Thirty-two nations had been involved in the peace talks in Paris in 1919, but representatives of the German government were not invited to attend until it was time for them to receive the peace terms that the Allied nations had agreed on. They were given three weeks to comply, with the understanding that if they did not, war would re-commence. 1919 had been a year filled with revolutionary violence and instability in Germany and in other countries too. The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin, and the Bavarian Soviet Republic had both been suppressed by the summer, but fears of further unrest were still high. The Social Democratic government accepted the terms under protest. Germany was stripped of all its overseas colonies, nearly half of its iron industry, a quarter of its coal industry, 12% of its population and 10% of its European territory. It was forced to accept the clause stating that Germany was guilty of starting the war, to undertake to pay reparations and to severely limit the size of its armed forces.

    These terms are not as severe as those Germany had imposed on Russia in 1917 by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. But Hitler was not alone in his view that Versailles had been an utter betrayal of the German people by politicians – a ‘stab in the back’– and that the terms were far too punitive. Along with many other right wing and antisemitic Germans, he laid the blame on Jews. Such a betrayal was inexplicable, in Hitler’s mind, without there being a substantial and deliberate conspiracy to destroy Germany. What is particularly interesting is the emphasis that this program of 1920 places on the other two principles – demands for land, which would later be referred to as ‘Lebensraum’, and for German citizenship to be based on a definition of race which excluded Jews, and that Jews would, therefore, have to leave Germany.
    Antisemitism_cvr.indd Museum of World War II Boston

    Excerpted from the Museum of World War II Boston’s The Power of Anti-Semitism: The March to the Holocaust 1919–1939 by Kenneth W. Rendell and Samantha Heywood, published in conjunction with the exhibition Anti-Semitism 1919–1939 at the New-York Historical Society.
    http://time.com/4282048/1920-hitler-political-platform/

  • Torcer

    Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party
    The program of the German Workers’ Party is an epochal program.

    The leaders reject the idea of setting up new goals after those included in the program have been achieved merely in order to make possible the further existence of the Party by artificially inducing discontent among the masses.

    1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

    2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

    3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

    4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

    5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

    6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province. or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

    We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

    7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

    8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

    9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

    10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

    Therefore we demand:

    11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

    Breaking the Bondage of Interest

    12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

    13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

    14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

    15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

    17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

    18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

    19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

    20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

    21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

    22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

    23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

    (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

    (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

    (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the nonGermans from the Reich.

    Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

    24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

    The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:

    COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

    25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

    The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

    The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.
    http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/PROGRAM.htm

  • Torcer

    Gemeinnutz {m}
    public interest [common good]
    https://www.dict.cc/german-english/Gemeinnutz.html

    24. Wir fordern die Freiheit aller religiösen Bekenntnisse im Staat, soweit sie nicht dessen Bestand gefährden oder gegen das Sittlichkeits- und Moralgefühl der germanischen Rasse verstoßen.
    Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden. Sie bekämpft den jüdisch-materialistischen Geist in und außer uns und ist überzeugt, daß eine dauernde Genesung unseres Volkes nur erfolgen kann von innen heraus auf der Grundlage:

    Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz

    25. Zur Durchführung alles dessen fordern wir die Schaffung einer starken Zentralgewalt des Reiches. Unbedingte Autorität des politischen Zentralparlaments über das gesamte Reich und seine Organisationen im allgemeinen.
    Die Bildung von Stände- und Berufskammern zur Durchführung der vom Reich erlassenen Rahmengesetze in den einzelnen Bundesstaaten.

    http://www.documentarchiv.de/wr/1920/nsdap-programm.html

  • Torcer

    Saturday, December 17, 2011
    The lie before the crime. “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” (“The community comes before the individual”)
    A great Christmas gift idea by Capitalist Pig Asset Management:

    “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” (“The community comes before the individual”)

    In the 12 years between 1933 and 1945, the Nazis massacred over 20 million people. Fueling their murderous evil was the philosophy of collectivism, so integral to Nazi society that it was inscribed around the edge of every Nazi Reichsmark coin.

    “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” (“The community comes before the individual”) concretizes the collectivist belief that individuals have no rights and that “the greater good” is the only standard of value. Under such a system, man is not an end to himself, only a tool to be sacrificed for the Führer, autocrat or ruling mob.

    Only capitalism regards man as a sovereign individual with an inalienable right to his own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Government recognition and protection of individual rights is the hallmark of a moral, peaceful, productive society.

    https://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/12/lie-before-crime-gemeinnutz-geht-vor.html

  • Torcer

    German-English translation for “Eigennutz”
    “Eigennutz” English translation

    Eigennutz m
    Eigennutz
    self-interest, selfishness, ego(t)ism
    examples
    er handelte aus reinem Eigennutz
    he acted from (od out of) pure self-interest (od selfishness)
    examples
    strafbarer Eigennutz JUR
    punishable act committed for personal gain

    Context sentences for “Eigennutz”

    Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz
    public need before private greed

    © OpenThesaurus.de
    Synonyms (German) for “Eigennutz”

    Eigennützigkeit, Selbstbezogenheit, Ichsucht, Eigensinn, Egoismus, Selbstsucht
    https://en.langenscheidt.com/german-english/eigennutz

  • Torcer

    Eigennutz English translation
    Eigennutz {m}
    self-interest
    http://en.bab.la/dictionary/german-english/eigennutz

    —————————————–

    Eigennutz Ei•gen•nutz self-interest
    http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Eigennutz

    ——————

    Eigennutz {m}
    self-seeking
    vested interest
    self-interestedness
    self interest [also: self-interest]
    https://www.dict.cc/german-english/Eigennutz.html

  • Torcer

    Ah yes, the ever popular tactic of the national socialist left of ad hominem attacks as rationalization for an abject lack of an intellectual argument. Since you imply that you supposedly know more than I please explain the following:

    1.Why did they call themselves the: [deutsche Arbeiter-Partei] (National Socialist [German Workers’ Party]) The American Heritage® Abbreviations Dictionary, Third and please come up with something better than the irrelevant ‘North Korea’ or other country name Red herring.
    The point of fact is that there are plenty of country’s whose name that is a true reflection of their national character such as:
    The Principality of Andorra, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Canada, The Cook Islands, The State of Eritrea, Hungary, The State of Israel, Japan, The State of Kuwait, Malaysia, The Principality of Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Independent State of Papua New Guinea, The State of Qatar, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, The Independent State of Samoa, Solomon Islands, The Swiss Confederation, Tokelau, Tuvalu, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,The United States of America.

    2. Then explain this:

    Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf
    (English translation)
    TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION

    Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.

    JAMES MURPHY.
    Abbots Langley, February, 1939
    http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/politica/hitla002.htm

    3. Then Please explain why the collectivist phraseology: Common Good Before Individual Good was so important that they inscribed it on their coinage.

    4. Then you will have to refute This:

    Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
    My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

    The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

    When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?

    Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

    The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

    What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

    De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
    […]
    In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of “economic crimes,” in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
    [..]
    Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.
    https://www.mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy