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!

  • 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”

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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

    MUCH better choices!

  • TED
  • TED

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

  • TED
  • 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

  • TED

    Being dumber than a fresh turd helps…

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

    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

    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 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

    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

    “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

    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

    “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

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy