Humboldt First Scholarship: All Local High School Graduates to Be Offered Annual $1000 Scholarship to HSU
[Stock photo of a graduate’s cap by Kym Kemp]
Starting next fall, all new freshmen who graduate from a local high school will be offered an annual scholarship of $1,000 at Humboldt State University.
The new Humboldt First Scholarship will help more North Coast students pursue a four-year degree while staying close to home. It will be offered automatically to all students who enroll as first-time freshmen at HSU after graduating from high school in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, or Trinity counties.
“This is an investment in the young people of the North Coast, and it’s also an investment in a strong future for this region,” said Humboldt President Tom Jackson, Jr. “I hope this helps students and their families see that college really is possible for them. We want our local students to consider Humboldt State as their first choice, and we want to help them afford it.”
The Humboldt First Scholarship is a guarantee to every new local freshmen of $1,000 annually to offset the cost of tuition, books, and other expenses. Because financial aid already covers full tuition for more than 60 percent of students, many will be able to use the funds to help with living expenses.
“We want our local students to thrive after high school, though to do that, some need financial assistance,” says Fred Van Vleck, Superintendent of Eureka City Schools. “This scholarship will provide students the support they may need to be successful at Humboldt State and achieve their dreams of graduating from college and hopefully stay here to contribute to our local community.”
The scholarship will automatically renew every year for up to four years as long as the student is making satisfactory academic progress.
“This investment reflects HSU’s commitment to increasing access and to sustaining a culture of college completion in the North Coast,” says Jason Meriwether, Interim Vice President of Enrollment Management at Humboldt State.
The Humboldt First Scholarship was created with $250,000 in donations from alumni and others, which was recently allocated by the HSU Foundation. The seed funding will allow the University to provide scholarships for local students who graduate over the next four years. The Foundation will be seeking additional donor support so the University can keep offering the scholarship beyond that time.
“We’re proud to be able to help get this started, and we’re grateful to all the donors who made it possible,” said Manolo Morales, the incoming HSU Foundation Board Chair, a local alumnus of Humboldt State, and a graduate of Arcata High School. “I hope that other donors will see how important this is and be inspired to help as well.”
To support the scholarship, you may give online to the Humboldt First Scholarship for local students. For more information, please contact the HSU Foundation at (707) 826-5200 or [email protected].
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Finally some attention to local potential students. There are plenty of students that could benefit with just a little incentive like this. HAF has lots of small scholarships that seem never to be accessed too. I suspect that with a little diligent inquiry a lot of locals could cobble together a lot of financial aid that will not become a debt later on. I wonder if this is due to some sort of bias in advising or advertising.
Yesssss!!!!
Collage scholarship to HSU. Don’t pick a career that makes over 100k a year or you will fall into the bracket of “white rich nazi” who should be taxed 75% of his/her income. Keep it modest, like art or a forestry degree and you will be fine.
Earning $100,000 a year will not get you into the 70% marginal tax rate. The higher marginal tax rates are being proposed for earnings in the millions of dollars per year. And it’s called a ‘marginal rate’ because the tax rate goes in stages.
a multi-million dollar earner will not pay 70% on all the earnings, that person would pay the same rate regular middle class earners pay on the first few hundred thousand, and then the tax rate would increase for a segment, and again for another segment of the total earnings.
The reason there aren’t many specifics in this response, is that the proposal is not complete until congress can debate it, but the proposal by AOC does top out at 70%.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/4/18168431/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent
Wow Ms Lincoln. I looked in to it. The worse tax bracket is 100k annually. 600k putting you at 40%. Meaning I guess you need to make under 75k or over 10 million to be in the “clear”. this still puts the Uber rich (.05 percent) in paying the most taxes. If you make 300 million a year your paying 120 million in taxes!?!? I’m confused and perplexed now!?!? Thanks for the insight, think I’ll call it a night.
Mr. Cheese, You don’t say what you’re reading, but i havent seen any tax bracket breakdown on this, but i did find this on politifact from january. (Link below)
They said there are about 16,000 americans earning over $10mil a year.
In a nation of 350million people, thats a drop in the sea, but….
If they all only make $11 million (and some make much, much more), it would mean they each have a million being taxed at 70%. That would give the US budget $11 Trillion
The us debt is $22trillion.
We’d literally have that paid in 2 years, so in a few more years, we could get our hydrogen fuel economy moving and get the carbon scrubbers developed and let our children get their planet back.
As far as someone making $300million, they cannot spend that much money. They still have $180million. A year. Theyll suffer through.
Meanwhile elderly grandparents wont die of cold. Kids will inherit a healthy planet. Its a trade i feel comfortable with.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jan/08/explaining-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-70-percent-ta/
Kelley, thank you for taking the time to explain things. I understand a lot more now. Thanks.
I’m not clear on your math. 1 trillion equals 1 million × 1 million. If you take $10 million from 16,000 individuals that equals $160 billion… or less than 1% of the national debt.
I find it ironic that for socialist dreams to have funding they need a wealthy class from whom to take.
Here’s a visual on how big 22 trillion really is:
http://demonocracy.info/
Would you feel better if “socialist dreams” took more from the poor and middle class, like capitalism, and our tax code can do?
The wealthiest take advantage at every corner to keep you working harder and giving more than they ever will.
Whether its “bone spurs” to avoid service or lawyers to avoid paying $1.00 in taxes while making a billion, capitalism has its “ironies” too, in order for the wealthiests’ dreams to be realised.
Capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty by numbers and percentage than any economic system ever instituted.
Socialism, and its various iterations, have killed more humans than any government system instituted.
Regarding broad strokes, ideology and totalism;
Socialist leaders have led millions to their deaths.
So have capitalist conservatives, like Hitler.
Do you have any idea how many Capitalism has killed?
Doubt it.
https://eand.co/if-communism-killed-millions-how-many-did-capitalism-kill-2b24ab1c0df7
@Kym, I think this article would be worth your time to read too, if you can find the 10 minutes.
Hitler was not a capitalist. Nazi Germany was a controlled economy.
20th century democide:
Pre 20th century democide:
20th century Mortacracies.
when a picture is worth a billion lives
`
Your ignorant of Hitler.
Read the first 2 chapters of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, an 1100 page informative book on Hitler and the NAZI party.
“Anti-socialist” page 42.
Or stay ignorant.
Not like Hitler sold millions of copies of Mien Kampf for profit.
I know you still haven’t read about the “Rohm purge” which killed any socialists in the early Nazi party.
You obviously don’t read anything I link to.
Including how capitalism has killed more than communism discussed in my last link.
Believe what makes you feel safest Ullr, but your still wrong to any educated person on the subject.
And I’d say the same to you. Fact: Nazi Germany was a top down controlled economy. That is the antithesis of free market capitalism
Fact: left wing ideologies in the 20th century led to the deaths of more people than other combination of ideologies.
You still haven’t offered a working definition of socialism.
Read the Third paragraph.
There are examples littered throughout The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
I’ve read the 1100 pages.
I have Mein Kampf as well.
Hitler hated socialists.
The internet is available to you as well.
If you were half interested in research you could be less ignorant.
I’m showing you pages from my books, I think I’m going to comfortably say I’m more interested in research than you.
He was an anti-semitic, anti-socialist capitalist nationalist.
Hitler equated the Jews with capitalism. He was staunchly anti-capitalist:
“We want to build up a new state! That is why the others hate us so much today…. They are, after all, plutocracies in which a tiny clique of capitalists dominate the masses, and this, naturally, in close cooperation with international Jews and Freemasons.”
Speech at the Berlin Sportpalast on the opening of the Kriegswinterhilfswerk, September 4, 1940, Adolf Hitler
“Germany’s economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.”
Speech on the 21st Anniversary of the National Socialist Party (24 February 1941)
“It is already war history how the German Armies defeated the legions of capitalism and plutocracy. After forty-five days this campaign in the West was equally and emphatically terminated.”
Berlin: Hitler’s Order of the Day Calling for Invasion of Yugoslovia and Greece (April 6, 1941)
“In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: ‘Here we have liberty.’ By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the ‘freedom of the press.’ In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion.”
Speech to the Workers of Berlin (10 December 1940)
A strong critique of your primary source:
“Yet (William L. Shirer’s) effort was heavily criticized at the time by experts on Nazi Germany, and rightly so. Its main strength—Shirer’s closeness to the events that he was describing—was also its main weakness. It focused too heavily on political and military history and paid too little attention to other aspects of the history of the Third Reich. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was not abreast of academic research even when it was published in the 1960s, and it is hopelessly out of date now. For all his critical acumen, Shirer seems in the end to have been taken in by Nazi propaganda that portrayed the regime as the fulfillment of long-held German dreams. He mixed with Nazi bigwigs to get information, but he did not make any effort to contact representatives—inside or outside Germany—of the millions of people, notably in the working-class districts of Germany’s great cities and the industrial areas of the Ruhr, who disliked most of what Hitler was doing and had vehemently opposed the Nazis before they came to power. Of course, it would have been very dangerous to have done this, but others (notably the British consul in Hamburg) did so; and because of his skewed sources of information, Shirer rushed to sweeping conclusions about ‘the German character’ that were embarrassing to read even in the 1960s, let alone today. ”
https://newrepublic.com/article/85601/steve-wick-rise-fall-third-reich
Jews were swine to Hitler and he believed anti-semitic conspiracy theories regarding Jews polluting the “Pure Aryan Race”.
It was nothing about Capitalism.
He took money from Henry Ford for Christ sake.
He made money from Mein Kampf sales as an anti-socialist.
It’s fine you Googled a reasonable critique of the book, but you still don’t take the time to Google the “Rahm Purge, aka Night of Long Knives”.
The facts regarding Hitlers anti-socialist views are not what is scrutinized in your book critique.
Those facts are undisputable and any objective source will tell you this.
German Industry and the Third Reich
“It became clear that despite some financial links between individual industrialists and the Nazi party, big business did not, to use the German phrase, “in den Sattle heben” (“lift Hitler into the saddle”). On the other hand, German industralists did little to help salvage the crumbling Weimar democracy during the Nazis’ ascendancy in the early 1930s.”
https://www.adl.org/news/op-ed/german-businesses-and-nazis
“The picture of the relationship between German big business and the Nazi party which Turner provides us is one that reveals how little big business had to do with the party’s success. In Republican Germany, the big business community was a loosely organized, politically ineffective interest group that was held together primarily by its opposition to the growing menace of Sozialpolitik, that is, the modern welfare state. Its political dealings were mainly with the so- called bourgeois parties of the center and right the DVP (Deutsche Volkspartei), the DDP (Deutsche Demokratische Partei), and the DNVP (Deutschnationale Volkspartei). However, the general disdain big business had for the republican form of government, a government that jeopardized the privileged position it once held under the defunct Imperial order, precluded any serious attempt to use the system to its advantage, a system where “votes, not money” were the determining factor in political success.
“In this milieu the NSDAP (pre NAZI party) was only one of many political parties big business considered funding. However, because of the party’s anti-capitalist economic policies, evident since the proclamation of the 25- point program of February 1920, the big business community was never able to reconcile itself to lending more than half-hearted support, and this was invariably of a tactical, rather than an ideological, nature. This distrust of a party that seemed more often than not ready to side with the radical left on important social and economic issues became so pervasive that not even the party’s strident anti-Marxism and its desire to inculcate support for national values could overcome it.”
GERMAN BIG BUSINESS AND THE RISE OF HITLER, by Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. New York: Oxford University Press 1985. Hardcover, 487 pages.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p369_Ries.html
Mein Kampf was given free to every newlywed couple and every soldier fighting at the front… that’s not particularly capitalistic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Popularity
Ford was an industrialist who was very interested in fascism as a way to further Ford motors growth. Fascism is antithetical to free market capitalism. It is top-down economic control. Free market capitalism is liberal by its very nature; allowing individuals to exercise their will to freely exchange goods and services.
Ullr,
You literally have nothing, because he was a capitalist.
Even your links don’t say he’s a socialist.
Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Nazi Germany and at the center of World War II in Europe, earned millions of Reichsmarks throughout his political career, mainly through sales of his book Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) and his combined Chancellor and President salaries. After coming to power, Hitler moved to make himself tax-exempt.
While hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic had crippled the German economy and plunged millions of German workers into unemployment, Hitler and his party received lavish donations from wealthy benefactors at home and abroad.[7] The iconic American car maker and anti-Semite Henry Ford was reported to be one of the foreign supporters.[7] Helene Bechstein, part of a rich aristocratic family who sold pianos, supported Hitler financially and gave him a top hat and business suit.[7] The Ruhr steel barons Fritz Thyssen and Gustav Krupp donated almost five million Reichsmarks to the Nazi Party over the course of the war.[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_wealth_and_income
And you’re still ignoring the Rohm Purge. No wonder why.
I’m not sure your angle with Night of the Long Knives.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Night-of-the-Long-Knives
It was Hitler’s consolidation of power. Pretty much how every authoritarian leader deals with a leadership position: eliminating anyone who can threaten that tenuous grasp on power.
Your contention that because he had a lot money makes him a capitalists is ludicrous. Every “socialist” dictator has managed to amass plenty of wealth off the backs of everbody else.
Maduro in Venezuela for instance:
https://fortune.com/2019/02/25/maduro-may-hold-millions-in-baidilda-fund-opposition-says/
You have not studied the Rohm Purge.
You don’t understand Hitler’s rise to power, obviously.
Once Hitler had acquired draconian powers under the March 1933 Enabling Act, Röhm expected a second revolution in Germany based on true socialism.
Many men in the SA were from the working class and they now expected Hitler to reward their loyalty with what Röhm called a ‘Second Revolution’.
It never happened.
Hitler had needed big business to get him into power and he knew that their leaders would never tolerate any advance in the power of the working class at their expense.
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/ernst-rohm/
The Night of the Long Knives – 150 leaders of the Stormtroopers SA were executed.
Many members of the SA were committed socialists and demanded that Nazi policy embrace socialist aims.
This was not a direction the Nazis wished to follow so the SA were eliminated.
https://www.historyonthenet.com/nazi-germany-politics-society-third-reich
And?
You mean Hitler used grass roots support to get him in posistion then he screwed those that helped him… gee, that sounds like a politician in any country.
From there he consolidated power and created a fascist state partnering private industry and state control to create a top down economy. That is NOT free market capitalism.
Like my links above noted, big business did not get Hitler into power.
I recommend watching this whimsical study in contrast:
https://reason.com/2019/10/16/watch-the-march-of-history-mises-vs-marx/#comments
Ignore it all you want.
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-872343
The Rohm purge was the Socialist purge, duh.
And?
That doesn’t default to “capitalism”.
I think we are using the same words with different working definitions.
Ullr,
I have not ever said NAZI Germany was a free-market capitalism society!
I’ve only said Hitler was an anti-socialist and capitalist, and any notions of NAZI Germany being socialist-based is flat-out wrong.
The NAZI party was a right-wing Nationalist group.
There is no other way to put it.
You and others have ignored this and continued to say Hitler and the NAZIs were socialists, falsely.
That’s the “debate” you’ve been involved with, again.
cap·i·tal·ism
/ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
“an era of free-market capitalism”
– Oxford
I don’t think you get to decide who wins and who loses. You tend to ignore my direct questions when I attempt to get clarity from you.
You also mischaracterized my argument. I argued that Hitler and many in the upper ranks of the Nazi party thought of themselves as socialists. This was distinguished from Marxism by “national” socialist. Also, they were very much anticapitalist, hence the top down economic system best called fascist.
I argued that Hitler and many in the upper ranks of the Nazi party thought of themselves as socialists. This was distinguished from Marxism by “national” socialist.
And that’s why your wrong.
You still don’t have a solid understanding of Hitlers rise to power, his positions and propaganda, along with blatant facts like the Rohm purge which executed the socialists of the party.
You ignore that socialists were killed by the NAZI party all throughout its history.
You ignore that communism and socialism were viewed similarly then by Germans as is now by Americans.
All of your links have stated Hitler was anti-communist.
My links say that and anti-socialist.
Everything says he took money from capitalists to support his Nationalist agenda.
You have nothing that says he was a socialist other than his co-opting of a political party that he joined as a military spy, and/or the 25 point nationalist program that was never fully implemented, but also excluded everyone but true Germans.
I didn’t decide who is right, others have already told you.
Plus, I’m just arguing NAZI history, something you can’t change and likely won’t find new information on because it was so well documented and scrutinized.
Keep bludgeoning away. All the quotes I gave from Hitler in this exchange were 1940 or after. Well after he needed any pretense to be socialist.
” I didn’t decide who is right, others have already told you.” Who?
You are stuck on a very linear, overly simplistic left/right paradigm and you seem to assume that that is how the world is viewed by everyone… It’s not.
Also, you have directly refuted, with counter facts, exactly zero of the points I’ve brought up.
And, since you won’t give me a definition, here’s Oxford’s. It gives no indication of left/right ideology:
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
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.
From your definition:
which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
So, explain that to the Jews, blacks, gays and socialists who were executed.
You accuse me of sticking to paradigms while you post definitions of socialism and capitalism and ask where does it say left or right.
Your using quotes from Hitler, as if he was known to tell the truth to the masses.
You regurgitate the 25 point plan. It was never implemented.
Capitalism fueled NAZI growth.
They were anti socialists.
So simple.
* You dont remember just a week ago when the operator of this site chimed in to tell you whose right?
It doesn’t matter.
There’s no objective history that points to your arguement, so it doesn’t matter who says it: You’re wrong!
Nah, Ullr won this round. Better luck next time.
Your late.
Like, 85 years late.
History already was decided.
You are siding with an ill informed belief system over facts, if you think Ullr is right.
But most do that everyday, so your not special or right. Just another normal American.
Wheres Adolf?
https://www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/socialists.html
A list of Famous Socialists leaves Adolf out.
Why?
Because he was a right- wing conservative Nationalist
Where is Hitler or NAZI Germany on this list of examples of Socialism below?
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-socialism.html
Nowhere!
And its not because Ullr is right!
“…which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
“So, explain that to the Jews, blacks, gays and socialists who were executed.”
Simply, the Nazi party had a narrow view on who they thought constituted part of their community.
The NAZIs killed Ernst Rohm and the socialists because that’s not what they were, ever, except in your brain.
The extent your willing to go and how wrong you are, in the face of all I have given you shows willful ignorance to an extreme.
It’s your life.
Why is Adolf and NAZI Germany NOT credited as being Socialist anywhere credible?
Do you think they forgot to list them, or maybe, dead old white guys forbid, you’re wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/576026914bbe6f0387846f98/countries-that-have-tried/#48b40101591e
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-socialism.html
https://www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/socialists.html
Stop being dense.
Wheres Adolf and the NAZIs?
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/576026914bbe6f0387846f98/countries-that-have-tried/#48b40101591e
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-socialism.html
https://www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/socialists.html
Only in your illinformed beliefs were they socialists.
Oh!
I found Adolf!
Not in Socialism or examples of socialist states, but in Fascism, a right wing extremism based on racism.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
The governments of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria and Adolf Hitler in Germany are also iconic examples of fascism.
Fascist governments are different from communist ones in that fascists, in theory, support the right of labor representatives and corporate representatives (CEOs, company presidents, etc.) to negotiate – through a system called corporatism. Fascists usually work closely with corporations and economic elites, and use the resources to build up the military and other parts of the fascist state. Fascist states take over schools and other parts of civil society in order to promote nationalism and propaganda.
But I told this to you 6 months ago, so I dont expect you to recieve it now either.
You should’ve realised this with the Rohm purge information that you should’ve looked into further.
So, now you’re trying to give me a working definition of socialism. I guess you don’t like Oxford’s definition.
“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn
“In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.
Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the “F” scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label “fascist” has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.
Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.
While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/#206cda5d47a6
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
I know you’ll dismiss these links because they don’t agree with your point of view. That’s fine. Unlike what you try to do in discussion, I’m not trying to sell you on an idea. My only interest is that you understand from where the idea is coming. It doesn’t really matter if you agree or disagree with the conclusions. Cheers.
See, I agree with your quoted definition of fascism. As I said:
“From there he consolidated power and created a fascist state partnering private industry and state control to create a top down economy. That is NOT free market capitalism.”
I’m done with your willful ignorance.
Now your just arguing debates you made up yourself.
No one has said NAZI Germany was a free market capitalist society.
You said he and they were socialist.
They weren’t.
Utter ridiculousness.
Grow up.
Theres no lists of socialists that includes Hitler.
He was a right wing fascist, Nationalist and racist.
That’s what I have been telling you all year.
And you still can’t see it for how simple it is.
KEYNES
AT
HARVARD
Economic Deception
as a Political Credo
BY
ZYGMUND DOBBS
A Veritas Study
2009 Web version transcribed from the
REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION (1969)
Return to
Table of Contents
VII
FASCISM—KEYNESISM—SOCIALISM
“Within the left-wing underworld there is a struggle as to whether Marx or Keynes are to be the main symbols of the process to socialize the world. The Kremlin issues directives to all of its parties to oppose the socialist efforts to install Keynes in place of Marx.
One of the main communist charges is that “The Nazi fascists were especially enthusiastic supporters of Keynes.”(10)
This proves not to be a mere Communist exaggeration. The Nazis did admire the Keynesian theme whereby the government has authority over the whole economic life of the nation. Harvard’s Schumpeter wrote that in Nazi Germany “A work like Keynes’ General Theory could have appeared unmolested—and did.” Nazi thinking paralleled Keynesism to such an extent that during 1935 in Nazi Germany Professor Carl Fohl wrote a work which duplicated Keynes’ theories.(11) The parallels between Fohl’s work and that of Keynes’ General Theory startled socialist thinkers especially as Keynes’ General Theory was not yet published at the time that Fohl completed his work. Schumpeter’s insistence that Nazism did not molest economic theories because it was primarily a political movement is erroneous on its face since Keynesism is a socialist political creed which uses economic forms mainly to justify political views.(12)
Norman Thomas, leading spokesman for avowed socialists, as contrasted with secret socialists like Keynes, states:
. . both the communists and fascists revolutions definitely abolished laissez-faire capitalism in favor of one or another kind and degree of state capitalism. . . . In varying degree, these basic enterprises were collectivized under the undemocratic control of an elite, which had at its disposal all the powers of a police state.(13)
Norman Thomas correctly puts Nazism in the anti-private enterprise camp:
The social and economic consequences of fascist triumph under the German form were revolutionary, unless one insists on reserving the word revolutionary for a triumph of the working class. In no way was Hitler the tool of big business. He was its lenient master. So was Mussolini except that he was weaker.(14)
Norman Thomas’ admission that Communists and Fascists have a common result to “abolish Laissez-Faire”—is precisely what Keynes had in mind. Thomas, of course, fails to include socialists in the above category since it would be a reflection upon himself and his comrades. Nevertheless the family resemblance is there. Keynes is the umbrella under which the Big Government advocates find shelter, be they Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Socialist or combinations of all four. Norman Thomas himself admits:
. . . on governments Keynes has had great influence and his work is especially important in any reappraisal of socialist theory. He represents a decisive break with laissez-faire capitalism.(15)”
https://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch07.html
Brian- if your goal was less to prove yourself right and someone else wrong, there might be a consensus. For example some of your links with examples of “socialism” include many countries where they were both socialist AND nationalist. In fact most countries where socialist leadership was achieved were both. They describe two different concepts- one an economic system and the other political system which frequently function together.
Socialism certainly is loaded with examples of brutality and state sponsored mass abuse of its own populace from the USSR and Stalin to the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. China, clearly labelled socialist, is socialist, racist and nationalist.
If you insist on defining all socialism as being communism, you will never acknowledge that socialism is a fluid concept. Communism is where the State absolutely controls all the methods of production, theoretically for the good of all but inevitably it’s co opted by a tyrant where there is not seperation between what’s good for the tyrant and what’s supposed to be good for the people.
Socialism on the other hand can operate in a small way, where a small group forms a cooperative, while others are relentlessly capitalistic- the controlling political entity can function to accommodate both. Or socialism can operate in a large way where all significant production is state owned but individualism is not illegal- it’s just restricted. One more iota of control of the individual will push socialism into communism where everything owned in common.
Neither socialism nor capitalism is ideologically immoral. But both can be misused to become immoral. That immorality is created when force is accepted to be necessary to achieve the goal. There in lies the opposition to socialism. While capitalism can and has frequently co-opted using government as a force, people still find room to oppose it successfully while socialism, combining economic and political control in one easy package, is easily turned into suppression of the individual. In fact, it is so easily turned into a dictatorship, it may be considered inevitable. While turning capitalism into a dictatorship is more akin to herding cats- some just won’t go.
In fact, this whokecomment section is a microcosm of that dichotomy- the socialists hysterically demand personal adherence to the glory of socialism while the capitalists refuse to go.
The Author and the issue that he had a great chance of reading while finalizing the manuscript of the 1959 published book.
ironically, the lead story is about “Argentina, the Young Giant of the Far South”
Guest,
I’ve answered you below with more space:
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-872502
now you are ready for the 1200 page book,
“Tragedy and Hope”
WJCs mentor at Georgetown.
Oh boy! This MIGHT just cover books for a semester…wont touch housing or tuition costs..better than nothing I guess..
From the press release:
“Because financial aid already covers full tuition for more than 60 percent of students, many will be able to use the funds to help with living expenses.”
That requires reading, something many commentors don’t really do, apparently.
Government Cheese, and Kelley,
PULL UP!
When all else fails, read the instructions. The Constitution for the united States of America is our instructions. If you can find “income” defined in the internal revenue scam’s code book, i’d sure like to be advised of such. If you can find where the 16th amendment was lawfully ratified, ditto.
Google, “16th amendment ratified.”
The answer is a simple yes.
Even without Ohio, it would have been ratified because enough States said yes.
More on the fraud that is your claim, with respect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_that_Never_Was#Benson's_non-ratification_argument_ruled_fraudulent
~i don’t do GooGhoul or wiki.
Let Government Cheese or Kelley defend what they have to say. You’re jumping in like a mad hater only serves to muddy the water. The truth is out there, you just have to look for it, instead of searching for falsehoods then displaying them in here, as if you’re doing us a big favor.
Fuogle (Trademark)
~you betcha!
Now if i could read encouraging words from Humboldt First Scholarship and Humboldt State, with regards to curriculum, saying the Fed. Constitution, Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, California State Constitution, are being taught —well then— this would be worthy of celebration. The following needs pounded into our heads until we know it like we know the backs of our hands.
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT- Bill of Attainder
A. Terminology
A bill of attainder is defined by the Supreme Court as a legislative act which inflicts punishment on named individuals or members of an easily ascertainable group without a judicial trial.’
This definition has its roots in English common law and parliamentary history. At English
common law, attainder was an “inseparable consequence” of a death sentence imposed by the courts.’ The added penalty of attainder proceeded on the theory that; when it is … clear beyond all dispute, that the criminal is no longer fit to live upon the earth, but is to be exterminated as a monster and a bane to human society, the law sets a note of infamy upon him… and takes no farther care of him than barely to see him executed.
He is then called attaint, attinctus, stained or blackened . . . . [B]y
an anticipation of his punishment, he is already dead in law.’
The consequences of attainder were the forefeiture of the attainted person’s real and personal property” and the corruption of his blood, 7381 U.S. at 440. 8 United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315-16 (1946), cited with approval in United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49 (1965).
9 4 BLACKSTONE., COMNTA=s *380. 10 Ibid. 11Id, at *381.
CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW
the latter consequence meaning he could not inherit and no one could inherit from him.”2 The attainted was “wiped out as if he had never been born.”‘”
~Citations are Bills of Attainder
Notice of Abatement is a Bill of Attainder
You use Google everyday.
All the bullshit you pump in your brain and have posted on here from YouTube is owned by, guess who-gle?
Consider this me helping you, like with the picture posting and technical comment troubles.
~truly, Brian, this second-grader bullying that you get off on, speaks volumes. Then you wind it up w/patting yourself on the back. Funnier than hell.
How about? You can be right.
I’ll just file you in with the “Friends of Government” groupies.
Duck duck go will give you the same information if you’re willing to read about the 16th.
But your not, are you?
Your little way of typing Google shows your scared of it.
Just use Duck Duck Go, and inform yourself of the fraud in saying the 16th wasn’t ratified.
I’m sorry I called your YouTibe videos bullshit. But they have been.
I’m impressed lately by your efforts to push less bullshit around here, but there’s still work to do with you.
Signed, your most bestest unfriendliest friend of the Government.
In the interest of Kyms website and being bigger than you, I’ll ignore this.
That means so very little coming from you TRB.. go hug form 540 2EZ.. some more!
ig·nore
/iɡˈnôr/
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
“he ignored her outraged question”
Ullr Rover,
~you got the 11:11 spot w/the correct conclusion.
You win today’s First Place Blue Ribbon!!
He tried soo hard tho.. lol..
Too late…
@ Kym
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the language on your Grads Cap photo is edgy… zoom in and see for yourself.
You may ask why was I zoomed in on a Grad Hat stock photo.
Well, I noticed what I thought was mud splattered on it, and thought “only in Humboldt”.
As I looked closer it was just gold ink/paint from the writings on his cap, which then required zooming in….
Her cap…https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2013/may/18/hsu-graduation/
“Drink, Fuck.”
School was awesome, I would go back in a heartbeat.
Thanks for the link.
Found Under Carnal Knowledge. Fuck is an acronym Bobbies in England used to write on the charging instrument when arresting prostitutes.
~since your head is in the gutter, maybe you will ‘get off’ on figuring our what shit is an acronym for. Then with all that learned wisdom, you can come back in here and share with us.
hint: “Drink, Fuck” is NOT edgy. How does repetition of stupidity aid our ailing society?
Fuck did not come from Found Under Carnal Knowledge written by English Bobbies. They weren’t established until 1829. There are several uses of fuck recorded as far back as the 1500’s. Scholars generally say the word is Germanic–“akin to Dutch fokken to breed (cattle), Swedish dialect fókka to copulate” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fuck
My mind’s not in the gutter, HumCo.
I was simply being observant, and reminiscing about youth.
Sorry your confused.
hint: “Drink, Fuck” is NOT edgy. How does repetition of stupidity aid our ailing society?
At least one of those deeds brought you into this world, fyi.
TP
Brian,
~your lack of education and desire to know anything of real value is disheartening.
This can’t be that hard to figure out. YOU, TRB, like to pay taxes and encourage others to do the same. I, on the other hand, do not pay taxes because once i figured out the whole thing is rigged, i stopped, and encourage others to do the same.
What you have to say here, (pay taxes), has no foundation. (sorta like your never-ending “ism” conversations w/Ullr Rover).
“And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen.” –de Tacqueville
Would you mind providing a link to your website?
~i’m not taking any more questions.
Guest,
Brian- if your goal was less to prove yourself right and someone else wrong, there might be a consensus.
This statement does not take away from the fact that someone is indeed wrong and someone is indeed right.
In today’s age of misinformation, I’ll disagree with you on the importance of showing the difference between the two.
For example some of your links with examples of “socialism” include many countries where they were both socialist AND nationalist. In fact most countries where socialist leadership was achieved were both.
Those links are really unnecessary, until you argue with fundamentalists.
There is literally nothing to show that Hitler was a socialist.
Whether it’s the Rohm purge or understanding the early days of the party that Hitler took over as a military spy, Hitler was never a socialist.
He hated communists, socialists and more than all, Jews.
I’ve shown so many examples, it’s clear cut.
Look again at this:
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-872343
Or this:
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-872303
Or literally anything on the net like those links you mention me giving.
Britanicca, Jewish and German history books. Shit, Mein Kampf all do not portray any hints that Hitler was a socialist. They all say flat out that Hitler WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.
Stop the misinformation.
Neither socialism nor capitalism is ideologically immoral. But both can be misused to become immoral.
I agree. And 30 comments ago I posted this link that explains that further:
https://eand.co/if-communism-killed-millions-how-many-did-capitalism-kill-2b24ab1c0df7
this whole comment section is a microcosm of that dichotomy- the socialists hysterically demand personal adherence to the glory of socialism while the capitalists refuse to go.
Bullshit.
Where is one socialist on this thread?
Further where does that socialist promote and defend socialism hysterically or not?
The only thing I have done is said there are better examples of bad socialism than Hitler, because Hitler was not a socialist.
It’s a conservative false ideology and it’s scary to confront for them because it destroys common held beliefs of Hitler being a left-wing radical, when in fact he was a right-wing wing radical.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRIZnqq_lzFeDT9QX1r87tmJxs9Gg%3A1571511136707&source=hp&ei=YFurXem2KI3g-gSwqK2ADg&q=how+many+socialists+did+Hitler+kill&oq=how+many+socialists+did+Hitler+kill&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.3…3124.16257..17205…1.0..0.314.6480.0j8j21j1……0….1…….8..35i362i39j46i362i39j35i39j0j0i131j46i131j0i22i10i30j0i22i30j0i13j33i22i29i30j33i299j30i10.pc0cvS85V74
Again.
How does this aid our ailing society? Tell us something worth knowing. Maybe discuss Bill of Attainder. Or:
Harvest – n (bef 12c) akin to L carpere to pluck, gather. GK kerpasfruit, keirein to cut –more at shear.
1) The season for gathering in agriculture.
Note the word season. Season does not happen in a greenhouse. Season does not happen on plants that are overfed -like our population. Season has been ripped from us, and no one even noticed. Let’s call it “The New Normal”.
Season disappeared when the word harvest was included in a greenhouse, and, as programmed Geo-engineered weather escilates; that none dare put on the table. G-bye, season and good bye harvest.
Furthermore, I found that only the German Socialist is ‘international’ in the sense that he feels himself obliged not to demand justice for his own people in any other manner than by whining and wailing to his international comrades. Nobody could ever reproach Czechs or Poles or other nations with such conduct.
In short, even at that time, already I recognized that this evil is only partly a result of the doctrines taught by Socialism, Pacifism, etc., but mainly the result of our totally inadequate system of education, the defects of which are responsible for the lack of devotion to our own national ideals.
Page 100, Mein Kampf
“Your using quotes from Hitler, as if he was known to tell the truth to the masses.” -TRB
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-872379
may those jeans stay parked in the wilderness of Trinity Co.
Do you mind if I just call you Sid Vicious?
Keep talking.
..pathology of a narcissist.
https://kymkemp.com/2019/06/12/no-permits-no-plants-says-humboldt-county-sheriff-after-assisting-in-sohum-raid-yesterday/#comment-823308
that road leads nowhere.
you might try writing that screenplay instead of whatever it is you do here.
it’s like taking a monkey off your back.
c’mon in, water Is regreshin.
monkeys don’t swim.
free yoself from the need to be right…over in left field.
I got a movie to catch.
Das Leben der Anderen.
Mein Kampf is not a political speech full of rhetoric that you seem to believe like many an ol Germans did.
Mein Kampf is his philosophy, in writing.
Where he discusses his desire to use propaganda to sway the masses (the shit you quote) to further the German-Aryan race.
Where he discusses his distaste of socialists, Jews, mixed breeding and Marxism.
What you do is the equivalent of telling us that “Mexico did pay for the wall” because Donald Trump said they would in a speech.
With respect.
Hitler and the socialist dream
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone’s disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan “Crusade against Marxism” as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.
“His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit”. He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx”, implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been “a private Russian affair”, whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.
“For half a century, none the less, Hitler has been portrayed, if not as a conservative – the word is many shades too pale – at least as an extreme instance of the political right. It is doubtful if he or his friends would have recognised the description. His own thoughts gave no prominence to left and right, and he is unlikely to have seen much point in any linear theory of politics. Since he had solved for all time the enigma of history, as he imagined, National Socialism was unique. The elements might be at once diverse and familiar, but the mix was his.
“On 16 June 1941, five days before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Goebbels exulted, in the privacy of his diary, in the victory over Bolshevism that he believed would quickly follow. There would be no restoration of the tsars, he remarked to himself, after Russia had been conquered. But Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and “real socialism” planted in its place – “Der echte Sozialismus”. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries. And to the end of his days he believed that socialism was what National Socialism was about.”
Well, you can be wrong with others too.
The only reason Adolf studied Marx is apparent and explained by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
Apparently your not the only one to not study.
Urged by my own daily experiences, I now began to investigate more thoroughly the sources of the Marxist teaching itself. Its effects were well known to me in detail. As a result of careful observation, its daily progress had become obvious to me. And one needed only a little imagination in order to be able to forecast the consequences which must result from it.
……
Yet all this had its good side; because the more I came to know the individual leaders, or at least the propagandists, of Social Democracy, my love for my own people increased correspondingly.
Considering the Satanic skill which these evil counsellors displayed, how could their unfortunate victims be blamed?
Page 58
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear.
Page 59
But the features that contributed most to estrange me from the Social Democratic movement was its hostile attitude towards the struggle for the conservation of Germanism in Austria, its lamentable cocotting with the Slav ‘comrades’, who received these approaches favourably as long as any practical advantages were forthcoming but otherwise maintained a haughty reserve, thus giving the importunate mendicants the sort of answer their behaviour deserved.
Page 38
“The Jewish doctrine of Marxism..
I’m sure you can find something to tell me Hitler was a Jew lover, in private.
And as the Rohm purge demonstrates, there was no desire for the NAZIs to be socialists.
The Night of the Long Knives – 150 leaders of the Stormtroopers SA were executed.
Many members of the SA were committed socialists and demanded that Nazi policy embrace socialist aims.
This was not a direction the Nazis wished to follow so the SA were eliminated.
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-872343
“Your[sic] using quotes from Hitler, as if he was known to tell the truth to the masses.” -TRB
From my link above:
“…Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and “real socialism” planted in its place – “Der echte Sozialismus”. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries. And to the end of his days he believed that socialism was what National Socialism was about.”
in the end, it is just a competition over who controls the levers of power, and some people can spend a lifetime understanding others who are worthy of a case study, without leaving a worthy legacy themselves.
this is , in my opinion, why the people at the top don’t have much interference from the neo feudal class of peasants who work the land as tenants, busy with work, school, and play.
shall we pivot to neo feudalism and what the future looks like?
someone once said driving forward, lookin in the rearview mirror is a poor way to drive.
you really don’t need to engage with someone who can’t play at your level, they will always deflect and ignore the critical points.
it’s obvious that you make your points clearly and reasonably, he obfuscates with his own tired desire to be right.
you have the moral high ground, and have a wisdom that many people could learn from.
Chris Rock once said , “women aren’t going to let reason, f**kup a perfectly good argument.
You’re right, SOS.
~i awarded First Prize Blue Ribbon to Ullr Rover about 11:30 this morning. Must not have met approval of She who must be obeyed.
6 out 5 Jesuits, recommended spanking to time outs for long term effectiveness and control of a young child’s development.
testing is such a wonder
Well, thanks. Living in the sticks I sometimes feel I need intellectual exercise. Arguing online is the closest thing I can find without driving somewhere.
Ultimately, I agree with “in the end, it is just a competition over who controls the levers of power…” Those in power don’t give 2 shits about their political philosophy as long as it keeps them in power. It keeps the plebs distracted in day-to-day survival while the power players play their game.
In a bit of serendipity, the family and I watched Inglorious Basterds last night.
I think we all did!
yes, it’s important to keep our sticks sharpened, and I can appreciate the opportunity for intellectual discourse, but many of us have noticed the very points you make which fail to be countered or challenged responsibly.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/facts-vs-opinions-examples-games-activities.html
Yes, well sometimes the exercise is like pedaling an exercise bike: round and round, but ultimately you get nowhere.
Neo feudalism wearing the skirt of socialism is a serious threat to all of us. Ironically (or intentionally ), the central control of the monetary system (Federal Reserve) will create conditions in the economic system where a central bank needs to take control. The cycles of boom and bust created by inflationary policies of the Fed will ultimately create a busted bubble so large that our current, illusionary free market system can not recover and the Fed will step in to save everyone… at a small price. This is the last piece to consolidate control under the umbrella of a global system.
/” This is the last piece to consolidate control under the umbrella of a global system.”/
~with The Triangle at the epicenter, and traitors in our midst.
_____________________
Comment on a YouTube vid, yesterday;
#WhyWeNeedInternationalCourtOfTheHague Col. Larry Wilkerson, who teaches national security students, says, “We are an Empire.” We have 800 bases around the world. If so, why does the military, backed by the Federal Reserve, in South Florida, bring a tide of synthetic gaseous immovable gray/dirty clouds over our skies which trap in the heat and force South Florida’s people to breathe heavy metals? What Empire murders their own people? Geoengineers use manufactured and steered so-called tropical storm Nester (in October) traveling over cold waters from west to east in the Gulf as an excuse to blanket South Florida with atmospheric permanently pumped in toxins. This last as long as the manufactured fake tropical storm last and beyond. That’s Nazi science.
Ullr,
Is your only point (now) to say Goebbels was arguably a socialist at heart?
Or are you saying anything else?
Because if that’s your only point, after all said and done, and no more points about Hitler being a socialist, or the NAZI party being socialist, then we can talk about this new point of discussion.
I said:
” I argued that Hitler and many in the upper ranks of the Nazi party thought of themselves as socialists. This was distinguished from Marxism by “national” socialist. Also, they were very much anticapitalist, hence the top down economic system best called fascist.”
I’ve already said it and backed it up with a lot of evidence from the Nazi’s themselves saying so as well as modern academics making that argument. If you had taken an opportunity to read anything I posted you would not be asking what you just asked.
Nevermind then
why let reason and facts f*#kup a perfectly good argument?
when a comedian can illustrate human behavior more succinctly than a scholar, we have crossed that bridge where language in the hands of educators fail to make their own children know the difference between right and wrong.
you don’t want to be that scholar, who’s books aren’t burned, and posts aren’t worth reading because there is little perceived value in the conversation between the fool and the wise man, if only to learn why we live in a world of wise men who work for fools.
And the Chinese call them selves the Peoples Republic of China so they are obviously populist devotees of a republican form of government. Just as the rulers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are both committed to democracy and its manifestation through a truly republican form of government.
For that matter that must mean that the Soviet Union was an association of Soviets- popularly elected local assemblies led by workers. I thought it was a top down dictatorship led by Bolshevists.
Hitler was a legally elected and then legally elevated official of a Republic that was capitalist in its economy. Hitler, like the limited monarchs and absolute monarchs who led colonial empires was a despot who advanced his agenda through capitalist corporations. Note such controlled, subsidized and legally propped up colonial corporations as the British East India and Hudson’s Bay company. Like all governments in capitalist countries Hitler put his fingers on the scale of the market economy that he governed. Like Roosevelt and Churchill he controlled his economy in war time and threatened the capitalists with violence if their choices didn’t advance his ends.
IG Farben “employed” and profited from workers from the camps. It was like many German concerns a stockholder owned entity. The German stock market traded on an upswing until 1943 when losses on the Russian front flattened out its rise.
Agreements between Farben and Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) prevented Standard from contributing to the production of synthetic rubber, which was needed after the Japanese captured the Indonesian rubber plantations. Roosevelt, that communist, threatened to nationalize Standard and its profits if they didn’t cough up the patents and proprietary information to make the synthetic rubber. I forget how it turned out but Standard still balked and demanded that the US government indemnify them if Farben sued them after the war. Farben was also the nominal owner of enough of the Concentration Camp infrastructure that the Allies declined to bomb the rail lines to the camps.
That Hitler threatened that his followers and official government entities would attack the corporations in Germany if they crossed him in any way is no surprise. Turning popular and governmental action against perceived enemies and political opponents is the knee jerk reaction of would be despots throughout history and even to this day. Hitler hated any independent locus of power and authority. Vilifying the Industrialists, as he did with all potential challengers (such as the press and even the idea of a free press) doesn’t mean that his economy wasn’t capitalist. I would guess that he boasted about the rise in the stock market and tried to bully his central bankers to promote its rise. He did take direct action to prevent its decline as things began to fall apart.
In case my point isn’t obvious: Hitler spoke of himself as a Socialist. I have no idea what he actually thought. He was, as I read and understand him from others, primarily a propagandist and a despot who used the available tools (a capitalist German economy) to advance his megalomania.
The German economy stopped being “capitalist” as soon as the ruling party seized control of production and distribution.
Re-quoted from above:
“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn
“In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.
Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the “F” scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label “fascist” has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.
Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.
While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/#206cda5d47a6
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
Geez, Britain seized the economy of India, were they no longer capitalists? King George attempted to seize the economies of the colonies, him too? For that matter Milton Friedman and Henry the K had Agusto Pinochet seize the Chilean economy and then Friedman and his graduate students directed “experiments” on that economy. Are you going to expel Friedman from the pantheon of capitalist ideologues? You sound like a sectarian christian expelling everyone who ever did anything vile from Christianity and then declaring Christianity pure.
The Fed and the congress effectively seized the American financial system in 08 by directly pumping $750 billion into the banks and $2 trillion or more through the New York Fed into the stock and bond markets.
Roosevelt declared bank holidays and seized assets right and left during the war.
I’ll grant that Hitler liked the word socialism because it implied (to him) state power. It no more implied that to Eugene Debs or many other socialist theorists than Freedom and Capitalism imply to you (or me) colonial servitude and periodic mass murder. However, I think I’ll take Mao at his word (The Peoples REPUBLIC of China) and the Kims (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) of and declare them Republicans.
Note: I am not a socialist, nor am I a capitalist. I believe that the “isms” in both of those words hide a lot of violence and fuzzy thinking. If you want some clear thinking on systems of ideology look up CS Lewis’ (who wrote the Narnia books and had is own limitations in assessing Christian ideologies) writings on democracy and government.
I think we are operating from different definitions of capitalism. Any top down control of an economy is antithesis to capitalism. This can be egalitarian control or tyrannical control. Certainly King George was no capitalist. I think you are conflating capitalism with industrialism or corporatism. Both of the latter lends itself to fascism. Free market capitalism is an ideal that we will never realize as long as the economy is controlled by our government/bankster/corporate overlords.
Yes, I think you are right. I take as capital-IST any system that operates on a principle of elevating return on financial capital investment above other values. Most colonial empires were mercantile-capitalist ventures. The limited liability corporation was a way for the monarchs of Europe (and the would be rulers of elitist republican USA) to focus the wealth of nobility and other elites on their conquest dreams.
Adam Smith’s theories were hagiographic white washes of what was decidedly not occurring in Britain at the time. The Kings declared winners through exclusive colonial charters. Those who held these or had amassed outrageous profits of the slave trade were running roughshod over the actual local market economies. They were creating debt peonage and debt slavery and debt criminality. They were destroying local markets in labor and the livelihoods of subsistence farmers, fishermen and artisans through their outsized influence on policies and ability to buy and sell an entire local economy through the accumulation of massive stores of currency. Adam Smith then created this fiction that implied that the control of local markets was ordained by a rationalist enlightenment version of angels, the “invisible hand.” He called it Capitalism for a reason, though. Though his theory deified the market it elevated to effective lordship the processes and the controllers of capital markets.
I’m not sure I like markets and despise their deification. I know I don’t like the elevation of anyone to lordship and since the Capitalists have held that position all of my life and the lives of all of the ancestors I ever personally knew I’ll take them as the true despots to be overthrown. But I’m leery of revolutions because I’ve seen the aftermath of the Russian Revolution play out in the horizon of my lifetime. “Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.” Pete Townshend
One additional thought: I like capital- which I define as the accumulated wealth of a community that supports its productivity.
I’ve seen hippy, idealist and activist communities retreat from control and responsibility for their capital and the capital of the larger community for fear of corrupting themselves or out of a lack of confidence in the communities abilities to govern the complexities of generational assets. It’s a big mistake, in my view, to leave the responsibility for our capital in the hands of the Capitalists.
Investopedia follows Alan Greenspan into a totally banking focused definition of Capital . . . “financial assets” rather than, as my dad explained it to me “productive capacity.”
I think that this uncoupling of finance from actual productive wealth represents either one of the biggest mistakes or biggest opportunities of my lifetime- if we could only figure out how human communities can step in and take responsibility for what I take to be the actual valuable assets.
I appreciate your input, b.. To me Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is simply the aggregate of all the individual will’s moving the market. No deity needed, just unfettered access.
Ironically, the hippy idealists could have leveraged their capital had they embraced capitalism rather than run from it. Catherine Austin Fitts introduced the idea to use community collected investment to create leveraging pools of wealth to benefit the community. Rather than using some sort of investment broker, community member pool their money to invest in things that fit the communities interests… after all it only takes 1,000 people investing $1,000 to have $1 million in capital to leverage. None of this takes a revolution. .. other than in thought and cooperation with your neighbor.
I support the scholarships 100%. I think it is a great move by Mr. Jackson and I hope he continues to cater to local interests.
Cheers.
Yes, Ullr,
Now we’re thinking in the same neighborhood.
I think of Austin Fitts all the time when I consider the question of Capital and community. She talks about all forms of capital including the real assets. I would think that the Socialists and the Libertarians and the Anarchists and even the Conservatives could find a way to get together and “socialize” our community capital. Or at least we could unite in our little factions and cooperate with each other when appropriate. My biggest problem would be deciding which faction to join. Instead we bicker, amongst ourselves when we make our little cooperative ventures, often about things we have no control over or responsibility for.
Again I’ll emphasize that Capital is not (just) money, it is also the real assets that make human activity more productive including the tended ecosystems of all cultures, the store of ideas and relationships, the knowledge and the tools.
b., If these last 2 comments are all that comes from this back and forth then it was well worth it. Perhaps a seed has been planted.
B.,
Much of what you said is correct, however, throughout Mein Kampf and his policies (Rohm purge and sending socialists to labor camps) Hitler never said of himself as a socialist.
Unless you don’t see that his ” socialism was Nationalist” only.
The only arguement is that he may not have even been a true Nationalist, as my friend in Germany has recently discussed with me.
He never was a socialist, and his nationalism was strictly anti-semitic and racist.
He used right wing paramilitary groups to be his muscle.
So, theres no correlation to any left-wing ideology.
Powerists, Despots and megalomaniacs take any label that’s convenient and are willing to commit vile acts under almost any flag. I recall from my long ago reading of Helter Skelter that Charles Manson liked “free love.” And my memory is clear of listening to and watching that great freedom loving statesman, Richard Nixon, declare war on the American people in the name of protecting the mental, social and physical health of American youth from the scourge of “drugs”. As an active young Republican and conservative ideologue I sympathized with the stated aims of the man and his policies, but I recognized immediately that declaring war on the American people was the move of a dedicated powerist. I was never the same. I’m still conservative but not A conservative.
“Principle not Party”
Those who fought to continue slavery believed they were fighting for freedom. Jim Jones believed he was leading his followers to heaven. I’m not sure that Stalin believed in socialism any more or less than American generals believed that they were saving Vietnamese villages by destroying them. People who are power starved enough to commit mass murder are probably unreliable witnesses to their own motivations. The documentary about Robert McNamara illustrates this principle pretty well.
Taken against the plain sight truth of the German economic structure, I take Goebbels with a few grains of salt. Goebbels diaries have been characterized as often though not always delusional.
I don’t have any other source for this other than this book review but I rather like the picture of a man who was so good at convincing himself of anything that he could likewise control a crowd’s reactions and thoughts:
“Goebbels had a unique relationship to information and rhetoric. A friend once recounted that Goebbels had, at a Nazi rally, given 4 consecutive speeches, one for monarchism, one for liberalism, one for communism, and finally one for nazism, and at each one the entire crowd rose to its feet and applauded. The friend further remarked that listening to Goebbels speak, you’d’ve followed him anywhere! to any ideology! . . . ”
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/761404.The_Goebbels_Diaries_1942_1943
Here you go… from the horses mouth:
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels#Diary_excerpts
And
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Do you know what propaganda is?
Your position on Trump:
” Follow his policies, not his rhetoric.”
Your position on Hitler:
“Follow the propaganda rhetoric, dont mind the policies”
Interesting way to do things I might say.
Do you know what patronizing is? If you have a point, make it.
Already did, but you ain’t hearing it.
Don’t read this;
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism
Or this;
https://fee.org/articles/were-the-nazis-really-socialists-it-depends-on-how-you-define-socialism/
Whatever you do, dont click this either;
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
Aw come on,
I’ve never been patronized by TRB probably because I don’t have the inclination or the will to disagree with him at length. But I wonder why you all don’t just “get over it.” I also suspect that patronizing is a bit of a blind spot for him, it seems like the water his school of fish swim in. Of course I might have a bit of a blind spot there myself, so what would I know?
Hey, does anybody have any thoughts on SCHOLARSHIPS?
B.,
Thanks for your input thus far.
I don’t “get over it” because it’s important to know history and not let revisionists recreate it to suit their political ideals, in any day or age.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
Aw gee wally it seems like some thinks never change…..
https://freqpower.com/power-structures-about-to-be-rendered-obsolete-buckminster-freq-power-remix/
I’m caught up on another blog going back and forth back and forth
just like you folks do here
Imagine that
Oh the old Stunned gimmick. Ullr doesn’t remeber, apparently:
https://kymkemp.com/2019/08/08/hispanic-drug-traffic-organization-grow-raided-k-9s-used-to-capture-suspects-says-trinity-county-sheriffs-office/#comment-855461
No surprise seeing you here Sid.
I called you out hours ago:
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-872589
And:
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-872617
psssst hey Real Brian
I’ve got an idea for you
Get ahold of Kym and ask her who stunned is
She and I had a little email exchange about how I couldn’t diss you the way you diss “others”
She didn’t agree with me that you diss “others”
Imagine that
Phoot
/”She didn’t agree with me that you diss “others”/
~not gonna happen.
Roleplay the victim some more.
We’ve all been on moderation and all used namecalling against each other.
I’ve helped you recently many times and now correct you “with respect” and only a slight smart ass attitude.
If you cant handle being corrected I suggest you stop typing.
Being a fake victim is fake cool.
“We’ve all been on moderation and all used namecalling against each other.”
Not a true statement. Ernie has not been on moderation
~there’s no such thing as group guilt. You say the nastiest things. Other commenters point this out and the discussion ends, quick. Nothing changes.
So on we go. As Ull Rover just said, it’s like peddling a stationary bicycle, just go round and round to nowhere.
Best of luck to you.
Herewith we come to the effect, if not the point, of the revisionist exposition: it is not only to transfer the stigma of the Second World War’s genocidal violence from the right to the left, so that criticisms of racialized populism can be dismissed as “leftist fascism.”
It is also to suggest that the war was a crusade against state collectivism of all types – including the welfare state for which many Westerners, in fact, fought. They reason by means of a simplistic, ahistorical syllogism: since socialism is statism/collectivism (like public health and public transport), and Nazism was statist/collectivist (and promoted public health and public transport), social democratic public health and public transport measures must be fascist.
…..
The collective ignorance displayed by this revisionist commentariat is proportionally related to the outlandishness of its historical interpretations and its sophomoric ignorance of the recent history of Western civilization.
The revisionists likely neither know nor care that the monument erected to the German strikers who lost their lives confronting the Kapp Putsch was ritually destroyed by the Nazis in 1936. But others do.
Whether those who remember the past can confront the slow-motion putsch against welfare states and the historical experiences of the catastrophic twentieth century that spawned them remains an open question.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
Thanks Brian, you provided a link which lays out my posistion perfectly.
From your link:
“The Nazis didn’t call their ideology “national socialism” because they thought it sounded good. They were fervently opposed to capitalism. The Nazi Party’s chief propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, even once remarked that he’d sooner live under Bolshevism than capitalism.”
“In establishing national socialism, the Nazis sought to redefine socialism yet again. National socialism began as a fusion of socialist ideas of a technocratically-managed economy with Völkisch nationalism, a deeply anti-Semitic form of German nationalism. In their burgeoning ideology, the Nazis saw both capitalism and communism as unhealthily materialistic and based in selfishness rather than national unity, traits they negatively associated with Judaism. Oswald Spengler, one of the main intellectual influences of Nazism, went so far as to call Marxism “the capitalism of the working class.” The Nazis’ redefinition of socialism was realized through the Völksgemeinschaft, which served as a means of connecting the individual to the state.”
https://fee.org/articles/were-the-nazis-really-socialists-it-depends-on-how-you-define-socialism/
Of course, and I knew that you would seize on it, and I gave it to you with so much other information that your subjectivity is apparent.
Your falling to a revisionist narrative.
The title of the article is a bit of a hint to the conclusion;
Were the Nazis Really Socialists? It Depends on How You Define Socialism
But here’s more from the article you hail as a victory;
On the other hand, the Nazis were virulently anti-communist. That sentiment, along with German nationalism and anti-Semitism, was one of the main pillars of Nazism outlined by Hitler in Mein Kampf. Once in power, the Nazis supported and were supported by big business, and they even privatized a few government-operated services—all things that would make Karl Marx roll in his grave.
…..
While the Nazis were disdainful of capitalism, this disdain did not extend to capitalists themselves.
Class conflict figured little into the Nazi conception of socialism, with the exception of the party’s Strasserist faction, which was purged during the Night of the Long Knives.
Instead, Nazis considered both capitalists and workers necessary, occupying their own important roles within the Völksgemeinschaft. The Nazis also distinguished themselves from Marxists in their support for private property, although this came with some caveats.
….
In establishing national socialism, the Nazis sought to redefine socialism yet again.
Now, the NAZIs are not recognized as socialist by any of the links I’ve given;
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-socialism.html
https://www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/socialists.html
You can not say the NAZIs followed the definition of Socialism by the definition you linked too.
The NAZIs killed and put Socialists into labor camps..
The NAZIs were a right-wing paramilitary force..
Mein Kampf, quoted above by me, details just some of Hitlers disdain for “Jewish Socialism”..
I’ve given you links to capital gains in NAZI Germany.
Even you know that they took capital from capitalists.
It just goes on and on.
Your scared to be associated with the right wing racism that’s still alive and well.
The post you replied to explains your point of view perfectly, regarding why you must revise the history of Hitler being right wing, into a false history of him being left wing.
Uh, ok Brian. However you want to back pedal. Your very links back up my assertion that the Nazi party engaged in a form of socialism.
One link gives you a way to redefine socialism into a small portion of the NAZI system, which in further study is still false.
It by no means argues that the NAZIs were socialists.
Your choosing what the other link explains, why to revise clear history.
Its apparent too.
You’ve never warned people of Nationalism.
You’ve never compared Hitler to Nationalism.
Your (racist) right wing ideology made you skip right over the first 2 letters of the acronym NAZI, when warning others of Hitler.
Indeed, it is a must to link Hitler to the radical left for you, when by all accounts he was radical right.
This is psychology 101
“Ah, this was back when a leftist would actually engage in a discussion and at least try to defend the utter nonsense he believes. Today, they simply shout you down or call for “muscle” to have you removed from their presence like good little totalitarians.”
https://youtu.be/ZY_nq4tfi24
stay classy:)
Thanks. That was a great back and forth. I’ve never seen Ole Billy Buckley so agitated.
These are pretty much the same arguments that go on today and, within the general civility of the day, pretty much in the same fashion between conservatives and liberals. What was remarkably different from an interview of today was the fact that the interviewer, Howard K. Smith, minimized his interference and at least in the clip it would be hard to tell exactly what his personal opinion was. Nowadays can you imagine any press interviewer not firing loaded, unanswerable and mostly rhetorical questions at the participants? At the end of the”alloted time” no one would have heard much from Vidal and very little from Buckley but would be in no doubt about the viewpoint of the interviewer.
Oh the good ol’ stressful ’60s…
Why are you watching talking heads on CNN or FOX?
And why be confused by opinion “news” vs. reporting?
Pretty sad of you to make up criticisms when you haven’t even looked at the link being discussed. The link was to a recording of 1968 debate piece between Gore Vidal and William Buckley- both are deceased. Fox and CNN weren’t yet a gleam in their unmarried parent’s eyes at the time. It’s more akin to history rather than news.
Guest, no, I was not referring to what you chaps were watching. …I was referring to this section of your statement:
What was remarkably different from an interview of today was the fact that the interviewer, Howard K. Smith, minimized his interference and at least in the clip it would be hard to tell exactly what his personal opinion was.
Surely my response makes sense now.
No. It doesn’t.
This link is weak on their argument. Just because a government makes a return on capital investment does not make it capitalist.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism
In general I thought this paper garbage with no backing sources, but they had this little tidbit which echoed my assertion earlier in our discussion.
From your link:
“The “Night of the Long Knives” purged the old SA, not because they were a hidden vestige of socialism, but because Roehm’s army of street thugs were a potential threat to Hitler’s personal consolidation of power. A struggle over socialism in the Nazi party played absolutely no role in the purge of 1934.”
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
Yes, this section of the article disagrees with me and others about the socialist purge, however I agree with its entirety that NAZIs were far right loonies.
The reason that it disagrees with the Rohm purge as being a socialist purge is because that it entirely may be true, due to how little socialism meant to Hitler in comparison to propagandist power grabs.
Again, another failure of realization on your behalf.
Brian.
how did they get to that point?
how does a nation of people, by actions, words or their silence end up being loonies, under the direction of a group of people lead by a belief that they were right and the others were wrong.
somehow I think the intelligent questions and debate is to look at what brought them to that point.
there is the path to compassion within that journey.
be kind and understanding in your quest for your truth.
with respect and compassion.
sinbad
As you now I see, I took your links one at a time.
“What part of “..sought to redefine socialism yet again..” do you not understand?” Apparently you don’t understand. The concept of socialism has not been stagnant in its definition as elucidated in the very link you provided.
So you define socialism as forcing everyone who disagrees with your racism to labor camps?
Again:
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
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.
The Nazi party, simply, had a narrow view of constitutes “community”… I feel like I’m repeating myself. This back and forth has become boorish. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Your attempts at bludgeoning are ineffective.
This is you redefining socialism.
Like a NAZI.
just take some deep breaths and let go of your need to be right. you can have an opinion but beating others over the head with it makes you no better than that which you rail against. Be kind to yourself and know that you are not alone on this path to learning. honor those who can reach others with compassion, and the ability to bring people closer to their higher calling.
I think you keep missing your target with your approach.
with respect.
disengage, colonel rover, disengage.
“A point of view can be a dangerous luxury
when substituted for insight and understanding.”
— Marshall McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy
only time on this earth and experience can provide that which the youth crave most.
~wisdom~
we must learn to love our own truths and live by them, even if we must walk alone in silence.
“That is Part of Our Human Battle, fighting the ego, the over culture and finding our own way. we suffer in part because we all feel we are special vs the same, connected and unified and Compassion should be taught and our society would be so different. we are Our Own worst enemy”
let the healing process begin.
https://youtu.be/ZdO-Nyk4-jU
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#adhominem
Some advice for the RHBB debate team.
How can you possible argue with someone and not call them names? That’s patently absurd, you troglodyte.
It’s possible. Just keep stepping around the piles of crap littering the battlefield and keep the eyes on the prize. And know that when Brain gets very frustrated, he always makes personal insults with no attempts at substance – it is an unerring indicator that his tank is empty and his opponent has won. It just that winning never means he evolves his position.
But since the latest bit of disingenuous renaming by the liberal is frequent use of “democratic socialism”, this argument is inevitable. Might as well start it now. The question that will never be answered is which part of the cobbled together term can be done without and that part is certainly democracy. What happens when the majority doesn’t vote for socialism? If they have the access, socialists will institute it by fiat. For everyone’s good of course.
can you feel the love and compassion?
who’s version of reality is appropriate if the lessons fail to land and Make any difference in the lives of people here and now.
the common people pay for the trillions spent on the interests of the few and people are tired of excuses labeled as history lessons.
may we see through the lies and coercion and simply shrug off the ties that bind.
Ullrs and NAZI socialism redefined, or simply put; right-wing racist facism:
Aryanization (German: Arisierung) was the forced expulsion of Jews from business life in Nazi Germany, Axis-aligned states, and their occupied territories.
It entailed the transfer of Jewish property into “Aryan” hands in order to “de-Jew the economy”.
The process started in 1933 in Nazi Germany with so-called “voluntary” transfers of Jewish property and ended with the Holocaust.
By 1 January 1938, German Jews were prohibited from operating businesses and trades, and from offering goods and services.
On 26 April 1938, Jews were ordered to report all wealth over 5,000 Reichsmarks, and their access to bank accounts was restricted. On 14 June 1938, the Interior Ministry ordered the registration of all Jewish businesses.
Aryanization combined the racial motives of National Socialism with traditional antisemitic resentments within the middle classes (Mittelstand) and the expansionist tendencies of big business.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryanization
“Both Buckley and Vidal were classically educated gentlemen and intellectual equals, however, in this case Buckley allowed Vidal to get under his skin and lost it but regained his composure. Debate rule number one, never let your debate opponent unsettle you emotionally or you will lose.”
Actually, I think that this argument of Nazi’s being “socialist” can actually inherently ever be won by either side.. because the Nazi’s incorporated both aspects of Capitalism and Socialism into their economic tactics. I don’t think the Nazis were inherently “socialist” just like they were not inherently “capitalists” either..
For example, “socialism” exhibits a collectivist mind frame.. Honestly, does Having One totalitarian leader absolutely in charge of absolutely everything like Hitler was, sound like “collectivism”.. One guess.. No it doesn’t. The Nazi’s also got rid of and executed all their labor organizers and labor union leaders.. Not really a worker party thing exactly either…
In other aspects, “the people’s car”.. state-owned automobile company, then known as Gesellschaft zur Vorbereitung des Deutschen Volkswagens, I would say, that was a socialist construct. But there again, the production was inherently in the hands of the industrialists.. and produced by forced labor.. In other aspects, like metal and steel productions.. they were inherently capitalists that privatized the industries and left the productions in charge of the industry..
Some Info from Wiki…
But after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.. However, the privatization was “applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference.”[42
/Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner (June 2006). “The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry” (PDF). The Journal of Economic History. Cambridge University Press. p. 406./
Social policies…
The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[71] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.[72] Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented “racial self-help” and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare…
One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests.[49] Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds.[50] Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937-38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government’s revenues.[51] There was also an ideological motivation. Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. [52] The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” [53] Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.” [54]
They also did have socialist programs like Kraft durch Freude.. ‘ Strength through joy.. In reality, German socialism became a form of state control at wages little above the subsistence level. To divert workers’ minds from this reality, socialism also provided workers with dirt cheap pleasure cruises and vacations and cheap sport opportunities, all supervised by the workers’ Kraft durch Freude (Strength through Joy) organization. Of course, the worker’s footed much of the bill by paying dues’..
Stalemate
https://www.vox.com › nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert
“strength through joy”
if only we had that access for humanity.
how about humanity through humility, and joy.
it’s incredibly difficult to figure out who is the victim and who is the perp. when the injury of the real victims are swept under some rug in the Smithsonian, and history is written by the winners.
https://youtu.be/ZdO-Nyk4-jU
https://youtu.be/ZdO-Nyk4-jU
Mistaking Aryanization for socialism is more than a mistake.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryanization
Thinking NAZIs were socialist while not acknowledging what they truly were is a mistake, and false.
It’s a racist philosophy. It’s a racist revisionist history.
Ullr supports it.
Why?
What follows is not ad hominem, its observation and good memory.
Back in March, Ullr was the ONLY person to thumbs up this comment:
(Nigger): It’s just a word. Who cares. [edit] I’m sick of this racist crap. I’m a white boy [edit] if you want to know. Yee ha love America. Home of the free.
https://kymkemp.com/2019/03/18/mother-speaks-out-after-hoopa-teen-in-trouble-for-shouting-a-racial-slur-at-a-non-school-event/#comment-795600
But that wasn’t enough for Ullr.
In another comment down the line, he makes his own thoughts about “nigger” apparent;
Some folks give too much power to words. Get over it. Get over yourself. For some reason modern culture likes to make mountains out of mole hills
https://kymkemp.com/2019/03/18/mother-speaks-out-after-hoopa-teen-in-trouble-for-shouting-a-racial-slur-at-a-non-school-event/#comment-795515
And then;
In the case of the video, the (word nigger) simply translates to “black”… hardly offensive.
https://kymkemp.com/2019/03/18/mother-speaks-out-after-hoopa-teen-in-trouble-for-shouting-a-racial-slur-at-a-non-school-event/#comment-795859
But he then compares “squarehead” to “nigger”, for offensive terms;
Squarehead a Nordic person, such as a Scandinavian or a German. Refers to either the stereotyped shape of their heads….
If I recorded someone yelling this ethnophaulism at me would it garner a single bit of attention or discussion? Of course not.
The thread devolves into more racist tropes that are pure ridiculousness to any objective reader.
Now, why does this fit into the discussion now regarding NAZIs?
Because;
Herewith we come to the effect, if not the point, of the revisionist exposition: it is not only to transfer the stigma of the Second World War’s genocidal violence from the right to the left, so that criticisms of racialized populism can be dismissed as “leftist fascism.”
….
The collective ignorance displayed by this revisionist commentariat is proportionally related to the outlandishness of its historical interpretations and its sophomoric ignorance of the recent history of Western civilization.
The revisionists likely neither know nor care that the monument erected to the German strikers who lost their lives confronting the Kapp Putsch was ritually destroyed by the Nazis in 1936. But others do.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
So the next time a Tucker Carlson or Candace Owen’s type commentor says either;
Racism isn’t real.
Or
NAZIs were socialists.
Realise what your hearing;
Revisionists hard at work defending the work of their racist predecessors.
Ullr, I would explain this to any friend of mine, it just happens that this is your position – and you should know about it.
The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.
But after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse.
Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[41]However, the privatization was “applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference.”[42]
The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.
[43] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”[44]
Companies privatized by the Nazis included the four major commercial banks in Germany, which had all come under public ownership during the prior years: Commerz– und Privatbank , Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft , Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank .
Also privatized were the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G.(United Steelworks), the second largest joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was IG Farben) and Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG , a company controlling all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry.
The government also sold a number of shipbuilding companies, and enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned utilities companies.
Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services, and these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies.[48]
One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests.
Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds.[50]Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937-38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government’s revenues.[51]
There was also an ideological motivation. Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people.
The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” [53] Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.” [54]
The month after being appointed Chancellor, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because “private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy” and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism.[55]
In the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank.[56]
Many of these businesses continued to support Hitler even during the war and even profited from persecution of the Jews. The most infamous being firms like Krupp, IG Farben, and some large automobile manufacturers.[57]Historian Adam Tooze writes that the leaders of German business were therefore “willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany.”[58] In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level.[59] Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment.[60]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
like Apple and Google in Communist China supporting the dictator winnie the pooh, and his control over his people and now Hong Kong.
let’s bring this conversation to the present day, because our very own US companies are helping dictators put freedom in tightly controlled boxes.
you have a good chance to call out modern day corporation’s and their technologies that are controlled by heads of state.
thanks for your efforts.
Also important to understsnd is the use of two words interchangeably;
“Communism” and “Socialism”
Germans in the 1920s and 1930s made no distinction between the two.
Indeed even Marx, who Hitler hated, used the words interchangeably;
In Marxist theory, the socialist mode of production, also referred to as lower-stage of communism or simply socialism as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_mode_of_production
This matters because Hitler studied Marxism thoroughly.
Mein Kampf is filled with anti-communist (socialist) rhetoric.
Hitler was like any other German in 1920s who did not differentiate between the two.
“Hitler’s socialism was his own and subordinate to his secret aims. His concept of organized economy was close to genuine socialism but he would be a socialist only so long as it served the greater goal.”
John Toland Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography New York: NY, Anchor Books—Doubleday (1976) p. 314
“When [Friedrich] Krohn and Hitler first met around the time that Hitler first attended a meeting of what was to become the Nazi Party, Hitler told him that he favored a ‘socialism’ that took the form of a ‘national Social Democracy’ that was loyal to the state, not dissimilar to that of Scandinavia, England, and prewar Bavaria.”
Thomas Weber, Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi, New York, NY, Basic Books, 2017, pp. 66-67
“What people don’t remember is that Hitlerism was about more than just militarism, nationalism, and consolidation of identity politics. It also involved a substantial shift in German domestic politics away from free enterprise, or what remained of it under Weimar, toward collectivist economic planning.”
Lew Rockwell, Headed to National Socialism, July 10, 2009.
“Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany’s bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.”
Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938, Time; January 2, 1939.
Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
Attributed by Otto Wagener in Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985)
In the past—that is, for most people it is still the present-the individual is everything, everything is directed at maintaining his life and improving his existence, everything focuses on him. … In socialism of the future, on the other hand, what counts is the whole, the community of the Volk. The individual and his life play only a subsidiary role. He can be sacrificed—he is prepared to sacrifice himself should the whole demand it.
p. 16
Aren’t these liberals, those reprobate defenders of individualism, ashamed to see the tears of the mothers and wives, or don’t these cold-blooded accountants even notice? Have they already grown so inhuman that they are no longer capable of feeling? It is understandable why bolshevism simply removed such creatures. They were worthless to humanity, nothing but an encumbrance to their Volk. Even the bees get rid of the drones when they can no longer be of service to the hive. The Bolshevik procedures are thus quite natural.
pp.16-17
But first, there will have to be national socialism. Otherwise the people and their governments are not ready for the socialism of nations. It is not possible to be liberal to one’s own country and demand socialism among nations.
p. 170
What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.
p. 149
After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.
p. 288
But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.
p. 26
Otto Wagener (29 April 1888 – 9 August 1971) was a German major general and, for a period, Adolf Hitler’s economic advisor and confidant.
So Ullr, what are the chances that Adolf was successful in escaping to south America?
if we’ve been told that he died in the bunker, and there’s a chance he did not, what does this say to the complex reality that has been distilled over the 75 plus years since the end or WW2.
how much is real, perceived, or just interpretation?
I dated a German gal in college and she was convinced the holocaust didn’t happen the way the history books have it wriiten.
I don’t know what to believe anymore…, but I have a funny feeling that most history is written by the winners and being overly attached to what other people think is the root cause of our pain and suffering.
although there are plenty of people who are suffering at the hands of multinational corporations, investors who extract resources at a cost yet to be determined, and governments who are practically complicit in feeding off its populations.
, like the photo of those morticracies, it’s almost as if there is a larger agenda.
“Rings of Power”
https://mises.org/library/tolkien-v-power
so it could be reasoned that corporations learned from The rise and fall of regimes that fed off the corporate world, so that corporations learned how to control governments, so that the profits of business would never be sacrificed like it had been in the past. this is where I see true power in the wings. not ffrom the government, but from the individuals looking to harness the power of a central command. ..privatization of profits, socialization of losses.
you’d think that evolution isn’t just for gadgets anymore
as a side note, what are your thoughts on the genetic testing and experimentation that Germans have done and the fact that Bill Gates has been associated with the Epstein fella?
there is talk of the genetic engineering that has been done outside of the US, and who wouldn’t want to clone their favorite pet to see if the clone and the original issue would play along nicely.
That’s a lot to unpack. …
I don’t think it really matters whether Hitler put a slug into his head or went on permanent vacation in Argentina. Even if it came out officially that he was shipped off by ally forces. Heck, operation paperclip is official history a nobody seems to care that NASA and the whole US space and rocket program came from the Nazi’s… we’ll sort of. I’ll get to that with Epstein.
Post WW2 the US populace had their first chance to be bombarded by the propaganda machine. Television hammered a unified message into the psyche of everyone. The history that was told was the history that fit the agenda. Really, it’s no different than today… the tack has simply changed with more streams of information to filter, discredit or obfuscate.
Khrushchev’s influence in the presidential election of JFK is not widely known, for instance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/06/this-kremlin-leader-bragged-about-tipping-a-u-s-presidential-election/
With regards to corporate control of government it has been argued that has always been the case. Buckminster Fuller called them the “pirates” who set up governments to keep the people in line to extract resources to further the wealth of the pirates so that could set up more governments to keep the people in line…..
The table of deaths by government is really telling. I couldn’t find the hard data, but based on this site of a current individual homicide rate of 8.8 per 100,000 people worldwide that is 70k homicides annually based on 7 billion people. https://ourworldindata.org/homicides
This skews the number upward by a lot, but if you take that number over 100 years that’s 7 million people. (I’s probably closer to 2 million with the population increase over the last century.) Put that against the 262,000,000 killed by governments (non-combatants) and I think the bogey man has been hiding in plain sight.
As for Epstein… I think he was a pawn in a bigger game; used to set the honeypot to get powerful people in compromising situations to leverage against them. The people in Epstein’s orbit had some very peculiar connections… including back to the starting of JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and the birth of rockets in the USA.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-has-more-skeletons-in-her-family-closet-than-a-house-of-horrors
And
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvbxgm/the-last-of-the-magicians
Despite his wealth Gates is just another tool. Play the game or be put to bed. I’ll leave it at that.
“Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” Samuel Clemens
Alex Jones mentality discussions aside, it’s simple;
Fascists were welcomed by other fascists.
“Ratlines” were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe in the aftermath of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in Latin America, particularly Argentina, Chile,….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_aftermath)
Pinochet and the Caravan of Death in Argentina and beyond, came to be after the coup in Chile, 9/11/1973.
President of Chile at the time Salvador Allende, the world’s first democratically-elected socialist, was plotted against by his military and by the CIA – in continued efforts to prevent the “domino effect ” of socialism in South America.
Allende killed himself in The Presidential Palace, rather than surrender to the far right forces at work in Chile.
Pinochet killed thousands while dictating Chile for 19 years.
I was born in Chile under Pinochet, as I’ve previously stated.
But this again ties into why NAZIs were NOT socialists.
And let this be your introduction to Ronni Moffett and Orlando Letelier, RIP.
so now you call people FASCISTS?
how many in your family fought for the freedoms of this country? you have some balls calling ullr and I fascists, when my family fought them in WW2, and have spilled blood in every war since the beginning of the Republic.
SACRIFICES aren’t just for immigrants.
so you can enjoy your freedoms.
your welcome.
been there done that.
6th floor Hotel Carrera, Plaza DE Moneda.
when the peso was 370 to 1 US
the question is how much you learned from death and the maiden.
people die every day.
you can pick and choose who is close to your house, but don’t expect others to care.
if you want compassion you must have compassion, otherwise it’s another negotiation.
give and take.
sleep well
we all have family that’s sacrificed.
US Steel. ..employed many…some took jobs in other country countries and married into the local culture.
stalker… not so much.
I just want to know why you think you can berate and belittle people to your side…
you got the gifts, and in a way, I do support you. I just wish it was easier on all of us. you just can’t help yourself and I should try to encourage you to keep your eyes on the prize. I never mean to put others down, it’s just hard to see you push so much in the wrong direction with so much vitriol.
Dunce?
what’s your IQ?
I don’t think intelligence is a measure of the man.
it’s the ability to have compassion and realize when being right isn’t the goal that will help your fellow brother or sister.
be careful of judgment of things you and I had no part of creating, just find the harmony with those you disagree with.
most people think you are off the rails, but I know you have potential. so i try to encourage you to seek the higher ground.
forgive me, I don’t mean to engage on that level.
lost a good friend this week.
I just wish you had a better way of communicating your passion.
oh, …you remind me of him, my good friend, stubborn and full of himself, i just couldn’t help him, and now he’s gone. I just wish you peace in your heart, and in this world.
just another day in the jungle , brother.
my name isn’t sid, BTW.
peace to you and yours.
in lakesh
“The Fascist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (”praxis”). That concept was the product of certain Marxist and Sorellian inspirations (many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel)—as well as the influence of contemporary Italian idealistic doctrines from which Fascist mentality drew substance and achieved maturity.”
“The Philosophy of Fascism” Giovanni Gentile
I suspect Giovanni Gentile is not a name you know. He was arguably ‘the’ expert on fascism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile
Revisionism at work.
If the absurdity of this style of reasoning is all too apparent, it is nonetheless widely believed. Already in 2007 in his book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg ran the line that “the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.” Ever since, conservatives charge “liberal fascism” when their views and behaviour are challenged.
The current revisionist bible is Dinesh D’Souza’s The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left published in the United States last year to predictable applause from the right-wing parallel universe. It inverts the left-wing case that Trumpism is an incipient form of fascism (a view with which neither of us agrees, and that Dirk Moses has explicitly criticised) to argue that the Democrats and left in general are the true heirs of fascism. Not Trump but Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are Mussolini or Hitler’s ideological offspring.
D’Souza stands in the tradition of neo-liberals like the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek, who conflated fascism and communism as forms of collectivism inimical to the market economy and freedom it claims to represent. Peter van Onselen makes a related point by trotting out the venerable theory of totalitarianism to equate fascism and communism as similarly illiberal. In D’Souza’s rendering, the American New Deal that rescued millions of Americans from poverty after the Great Depression was a form of fascism because it entailed state intervention. (Was the much greater state economic planning during the war effort that aided Hitler’s defeat also a form of socialism/fascism, one wonders?)
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
I’m really curious how you’ve ignored the industrial privatization by NAZIs in Germany.
And also, if NAZIs were your dreaded socialist left, why were they welcomed by the socialist killing right of South American dictators?
Nothing adds up in your revisionist assessment of clear history.
How is this “revisionist” when it was written in the 1920’s?
And the Time article written in 1939, is that “revisionist” as well?
From your post:
many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel
Ok.
Who is Sorel?
Georges Eugène Sorel; French; 2 November 1847 – 29 August 1922) was a French philosopherand theorist of Sorelianism.
His notion of the power of myth in people’s lives (in particular, national myth) inspired socialists, anarchists, Marxists, and fascists.
It is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sorel
What is Sorelianism?
Sorelianism is advocacy for or support of the ideology and thinking of French revolutionary syndicalist Georges Sorel. Sorelians oppose bourgeois democracy, the developments of the 18th century, the secular spirit, and the French Revolution, while supporting classicaltradition.
A revisionist of Marxism, Sorel believed that the victory of the proletariat in class struggle could be achieved only through the power of myth and a general strike.
To Sorel, the aftermath of class conflict would involve rejuvenation of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.[3]
With the seeming failure of Syndicalism, in 1910 he announced his abandonment of socialist literature and claimed in 1914, using an aphorism of Benedetto Croce that “socialism is dead” due to the “decomposition of Marxism”.
Sorel became a supporter of Maurrassian integral nationalism beginning in 1909, which he considered as having similar moral aims to syndicalism despite being enemies materially.
In this sense, Sorelianism is considered to be a precursor to fascism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorelianism
Now, I know from our previous discussions that you only know of Giovanni because of Dinesh and Mises.
That is what is explained in my link;
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
The problem is you trusted those revisionists too much and you didn’t learn more on your own.
Revisioning is not much different from redefining, stop trying so hard to do either.
From your link:
many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel
Who the hell is Sorel?
Georges Eugène Sorel; French; 2 November 1847 – 29 August 1922
French philosopherand theorist of Sorelianism. His notion of the power of myth in people’s lives (in particular, national myth) inspired socialists, anarchists, Marxists, and fascists.
It is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sorel
What the hell-ianism is Sorelianism?
Sorelianism is advocacy for or support of the ideology and thinking of French revolutionary syndicalist Georges Sorel.
Sorelians oppose bourgeois democracy, the developments of the 18th century, the secular spirit, and the French Revolution, while supporting classicaltradition.
A revisionist of Marxism, Sorel believed that the victory of the proletariat in class struggle could be achieved only through the power of myth and a general strike.
To Sorel, the aftermath of class conflict would involve rejuvenation of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
With the seeming failure of Syndicalism, in 1910 he announced his abandonment of socialist literature and claimed in 1914, using an aphorism of Benedetto Croce that “socialism is dead” due to the “decomposition of Marxism”.
Sorel became a supporter of Maurrassian integral nationalism beginning in 1909, which he considered as having similar moral aims to syndicalism despite being enemies materially.
In this sense, Sorelianism is considered to be a precursor to fascism.
I know from previous discussion you only know of Giovanni because of Dinesh or Mises, both adherents to revisionism.
The problem is you did not really learn anything, you passed myth from one person (Sorel) to another (Giovanni) to another (Dinesh) to another (you).
I can see right through it, it’s so clear.
Revisionism is not much different from redefining.
I suggest you try less of both.
What is “revisionism”? Can you give me a working definition? And the quote from Time?
Loose definition;
Making shit up to suit your belief or ideal.
Source: my brain
I do appreciate irony. Thanks for that.
Well you obviously don’t take well to factual historical information.
So, your welcome.
Its really cute how you ignore everything that undermines your position.
But let me finally address your lust for definitions.
Within the Marxist movement, the word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism_(Marxism)
But that’s not all that is going on. What else is happening?
Historical Negatianism;
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_negationism
And lastly, because revisionism can be constructive, here’s another link that explains your position exactly:
Issues arise, however, when a historian presents a revisionist thesis, such as “Americawas founded by a radical Zionist cabal” or “Communism had its origins in Picasso’s Blue Period”, and do not back it up with anything resembling credible facts. They may even deny the credibility of those facts (see the section on denialists below) or ignore contradictory evidence (it was the Rose Period that was plastered with anti-capitalist messages, not the Blue).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
I wonder what he would have to say if he had been born in Germany in the 1900s.
would he have been working hard to change the minds of fellow Germans, would he have a different perspective if he experienced first hand what was going on to his native Germany before, during, and after WW1?
Hindsight is always 20/20.
where would any of us stand given the propaganda and the culture and the education of that time period.
we are having a hard time understanding what these current events mean within the context of our education and history and culture, yet we don’t even have the ability to know what is the goal of our elected and non elected parties, with so much secrecy and covert agendas being rolled out carefully like some Hollywood screenplay.
truth is stranger than fiction, and who knows why we have so much science fiction shoved down our throats.
space doesn’t seem like home, but from the push, that’s where we are headed.
Sorry Brian, you haven’t presented a single thing that undermines my posistion. A lot of stuff to weakly back your posistion, but you haven’t addressed anything I’ve posted directly. And everything I’ve posted casts doubt on your posistion.
I’ll go back to my last pertinent question to you: how can references coming from the 1920’s and 1939 be called “revisionist” when they predate all the attempts at writing history you’ve have chosen to quote, except Mein Kampf… where you use Hitler’s primary propaganda piece to back your posistion (even though you called him a liar) while ignoring what he said in 1940 and later when he was firmly in power. Either quotes from him are worthy of consideration or they are not.
I understand that you’re fully entrenched in your belief. That’s fine; I’m not trying to change your mind, but you have to be a lot more deft at arguing than you’ve demonstrated to change my mind. And I’m willing, but you’ve failed to demonstrate your point adequately… by addressing directly the plethora of information I’ve offered that runs counter to your narrative.
Ad hominem’s are not only logical fallacies, they are a last resort of someone who’s run out of ammo. Insinuating a connection between me and the Nazi’s is abhorrent. My grandfather was in D-Day. My mother’s house was seized by the Nazi’s when they invaded her hometown. If you continue with such asinine comments I’ll cease any further efforts to communicate with you.
What is the difference between fascism and communism to you?
does it really matter at this point?
what is the point of this, if to simply justify the difference in opinions.
it’s an exercise in pedagogical flexing, and I’m curious what relevance does this line of inquiry serve if we can’t apply the rational to a current set of circumstances that lifts the conversation to a place where we can apply a solution for the perspective you both have.
what did Buckley and Gore accomplish with their long standing differences of opinion?
can we bring the lessons to 2020?
we are here to Poooooomp Yoooooou
UP!
There is no difference to me. Both are anathema. Both are a threat to my liberties. Both require a state authority to run roughshod over individual rights to implement a flawed ideology. Both are evil and should be destroyed with extreme prejudice.
So, you can’t answer any of my numerous questions, eh?
Sinbad, this whole exercise is mostly mental masturbation. I don’t think it will yield anything of value unless b. gets back and we can further discuss microeconomics.
With regards to socialism, I think it’s dangerous to treat it with kid gloves which is how it has manifested into current modern culture. If people were aware the the Nazi’s embraced a version of socialism the idea of socialism would be tossed where it belongs. Having social programs does not equal socialism. Socialism requires faith in the State to provide for the people. History has shown that state controlled economic do not work.
Being social, helping your neighbor, being your brothers keeper are all bottom up moral choices. The state has no place to dictate moralities.
Again, it’s just mental masturbation. I doubt the ideas will go bet on the 3 or 4 people enduring this thread.
Cheers.
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-874008
Roger that Ullr.
I concur and respect your style. you are exceptionally gracious with your patience and time. I do enjoy the ability to share and learn from everyone here. I just wanted to say I appreciate your humanity and humility. it really does show the Power of your mantra and your desire to share your knowledge with the community in a manner that makes you easy to hear and appreciate.
I know the competition has something to learn, even if it’s just how the information is delivered, and the attachment to outcome.
even the best intentions get high jacked and that is usually what happens to most systems of Governing, because of that incredibly delicate balance of human nature to always be good in the face of power and limited transparency.
that’s the takeaway for me.
cheers AND Respect
In your Google searches of the difference between fascism and communism you realized that you cant answer without undermining your position.
Hitler was a fascist, a happy follower of Sorel.
Karl Marx was a Jew.
Hitler did not like Jews.
Sorel did not like Marxism.
Karl Marx did not support privatization.
Hitler privatized NAZI Germany for his war efforts which were supplanted by the “power of myth” and “brutal force”- both disciplines of Marx revisionist and Sorelianism founder Georges Sorel.
When you see Sorels wiki, you see Adolf Hitler was inspired by him.
It does not say Adolf Hitler on Karl Marxs Wiki.
Why?
Because Sorel is the inspiration for Fascist traditionals, like Hitler and Mussolini.
And Marx was the inspiration for Soviet Communist Russia, which Hitler hated.
And look, I’ve now studied enough to recite this with free thought.
You resort to a cop out answer like: “They’re both threats to my freedom.”
This is what debating with a fundamentalist looks like.
PS, the answers have been given in every comment. You’re the only one not hearing them.
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2019/10/12/exit-from-matrix-your-power-in-a-decaying-world/
this back and forth was synchronization and how much our minds can be used to guide us through these mental exercises that rely on how we process information.
what is the lasting lesson left by the Nazis and the experiments they were conducting on the human mind and body?
this is what we have been dealing with,
how do we control a population so effectively that guns become an antiquated tool.
I think both fascism, and socialism were just the same means to an end.
control.
your can argue over the details, but it’s the desire to control the people and all instruments were developed for that purpose.
I think we are entering into a new paradigm of top down control and we can see Chinas use of a social credit score to dissuade negative behavior by restricting access to goods and services for those who don’t play the game like good citizens.
this is where the conversation can pivot, and why books are slowly becoming an outdated means of expressing our thoughts, and sharing information.
we are being evolved, and this is the fascinating aspect of what all forms of technology are doing to how we learn and how we interact.
our words are written, into computer screens, and we are losing the humanity and the civility that human face to face interactions have provided us since we were scratching symbols into the walls of caves.
we’ve come a long way, yet the hardware is still the same as 10,000 years ago. imagine how we got here….
do you think we had help??
cheers and good luck.
From your link:
“Sorel had been politically monarchist and traditionalist before embracing orthodox Marxism in the 1890s. He attempted to fill in what he believed were gaps in Marxist theory, resulting in an extremely heterodox and idiosyncratic view of Marxism. For instance, Sorel saw pessimism and irrationalism at the core of Marxism and rejected Karl Marx’s own rationalism and “utopian” tendency. Sorel also saw Marxism as closer in spirit to early Christianity than to the French Revolution. He did not view Marxism as “true” in a scientific sense, as orthodox Marxists did, but believed Marxism’s “truth” lay in its promise of a morally redemptive role for the proletariat, within a terminally decadent society.”
Sorel mutated Marxism to fit his interpretation. His foundation was Marxism.
And you asked what the difference between fascism and communism was TO ME. Not what the philosophical differences are.
And yet all you can produce is a copy-paste or a cop-out.
Still, you dont explain the difference as clear as I can tell you and other readers;
Marx was a socialist/communist traditionalist (and Jew) who Hitler hated.
Hitler, like Mussolini, was a fascist, by any informed account of Sorelianism
, the inspiration of fascism.
Again, and simpler:
Marx = Jew, Private property hating communist.
Sorel = French Revolution hating, brutality loving , Marx dissident, enforcer of ” power of myth”
Hitler = hated Jews and privatized business in Germany post Weimer Republic, used “power of myth” and brutality to rule, hated Marx Communist Russia
America = Capitalists, fought with Communist Soviet Russia against Fascist Hitler Germany.
The above comment by me breaks this discussion down to elementary levels.
Everyone can understand it who is not playing a willfully ignorant fundamentalist.
PS.
Otto was a NAZI.
What part of redefining socialism do you not get?
You obviously are very sympathetic to the NAZI goals of propaganda; namely rewriting fascism into communism, or Aryanization as socialism.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Hitler was further right than you are wrong, which at this point of your clinging desperately to revisionism, is quite remarkable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryanization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/17/humboldt-first-scholarship-all-local-high-school-graduates-to-be-offered-annual-1000-scholarship-to-hsu/#comment-873207
b., I think this topic is worthy of discussion. I also think that this type of community investment would bridge divides between all the cliques you mentioned: socialists because the idea of collectivism, the libertarian because of the voluntary contract, the anarchist because of using a tool of the “man” to undermine control of the “man” and the conservative because of capital return on an investment.
I’ve been toying with this model of microeconomics for quite some time and see it as a way for communities to take control of their mutal interests while helping their functional capacity in the larger markets. Certainly the core of a healthy community is the part that can’t be monetized, but capital investment can certainly help that part of a community grow.
Another aspect of it is the potential to use community “shares” as substitute for fiat. If a community LLC or other legal fiction had a real value through asset acquisition the community shares would have definitive capital value and “real” trade value. Unlike FRN fiat which is issued in debt.
This was an interesting story. I have a few “Petol’s”.
https://www.topic.com/the-silver-currency-of-cannabis-country
It’s not what I was thinking, but deserves exploration. Unfortunately, the feds don’t like competing currencies and showed it when they crushed the “Liberty Dollar”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)
” trauma is the disconnect”
https://youtu.be/ZdO-Nyk4-jU
Those are all good points Ullr. I really appreciate b.’s and your input and commentary on micro economics. Thankyou!
I think that this book.. “Small is beautiful… A study of economics as if people Mattered” or what some have coined “Buddhist Economics” is an excellent reference. It’s written by a well studied economist. It’s fairly old book, but it’s still fairly relevant today.. It’s probably fairly idealistic.. but it still has lots of good information. Another video, I was watching was referring to Small, not only being beautiful, but also less fragile. Or more stable of an economy, once it’s in motion…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/10/small-is-beautiful-economic-idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful
A good vid on a modren stance
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6rPcxxqcvCw
Small is less fragile..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xyXwrpmt0zk
Possibly the commenter-formerly-known-as-Sid?
But. You can’t call other commenters dunces, Brian.
How about Ah-sid,
Because he’s trippin if he thinks he is fooling anyone.
My comment should never have been made, but only because the commentor and his alter egos should have been banned all together.
I believe in second chances. A lot of the commenters on this site benefit from that…
Ha ha! Yes…Thank you!
https://youtu.be/ZdO-Nyk4-jU
trauma is the disconnect.
what are you looking for outside of yourself Brian?
this is an incredible talk with an incredible doctor who has much to share about this journey we are on.
I hope you find the time to sit with this and let go of that pain body that brings out a frequency that is difficult to resonate with…
with respect
You need to talk ideas. This is moving into harassment and your attempt to be not Syd is failing. One more of these and you’re gone.
seriously?
a powerful lecture on healing by Dr Gabor Mate, is seen as harassment?
as other commenters have noted, Kym, this exchange borders on an unhealthy attachment to outcome, far beyond any resolution.
so it just makes more work for you.
I’m just trying to integrate a voice of compassion on some difficult times.
I should have just stuck with the link.
I know how hard you work, and I respect that, you have my compassion.
there’s enough pain and suffering in this world, don’t shut down the voices of healing .
blessings
If you were chasing someone around in real life no matter what they said and preaching at them, yes, that is harassment in my book.
you have made your point.
I think we need more healing, bit as I’ve been saying, delivering to those who are ready and willing is important.
I’ve heard you.
as Ullt noted,
“I’m guessing you’re shooting for a “gotcha” moment. Good luck.”
It could be reasonable to assume that there is plenty attachment to outcome in life and pain and suffering is a direct result of that attachment.
thank you for your patience!
~i see you as a voice of reason, sos. With way more patience than i have. I look forward to what you have to say, and how you say it. Don’t get bounced defining TRB’s weirdness.
I see what he does, is unhealthy and I see the lengths he goes, with insults and name calling, and I just think there’s more important ways of contributing to and elevating the discussion.
the way he tries to beat people over the head who don’t see it the way he does, is symptomatic of a deeper issue. lost a good friend who sounded and acted like him…I think he died miserable because he couldn’t change the world with his approach.
I don’t agree with his approach and it’s never to late to wake up.
telling people they act like nazis, and fascists is very poor behavior, that insult the ancestors of many people’s families who fought against Germany in ww2.
he just keeps trying to prove that he has the truth. I feel sorry for him, really. he should have better manners.
maybe it’s all upside down and inverted
keep on keeping on
maybe his pineal gland is calcified?
https://youtu.be/5DrM90dg5t4
//”When The Body Says No: Exploring the Stress-Disease Connection”//
The body – We, the People – says, “NO”!
The Stress-Disease Connection – The County Supes, Planning Dept’s., John Ford, pretend Sheriff slash Coroner – you know, the whole fam damnly.
Comment from vid: Futures 2 years ago:
while these things can be helpful I think the most important thing he said was something like before the mind created the world the world created minds – any work done individually might help the individual but what we need is to work together to change the world to ensure its a place that minimizes suffering and enhances thriving for the species as a whole.
“The only division is between those who are awake and those who have yet to awaken.” Cathy O’Brien
even attachment to outcome.
in the end , we will have to let go of everything.
in the end I’m hoping to smile as I pass, grateful for ride.
(10:34 was a ‘pass around’).
Yes, “even attachment to outcome.”
Had our history and historians not been burned and disemboweled, and we all had privy to knowledge of our past, we now would have been able to easily confront upcoming disaster upon disaster. We would all have been prepared to face upcoming devastation, rather than screwing around w/literature and brand names, logos and movie lines.
The only thing that T.H.E.Y. can hold onto is the fact that by behavior of astounding selfishness in survival, they have assured the extinction of all.
~i know, somehow i do know, my own life was stolen, and i can say, it sucks to know it.
Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, October 19, 2019, #219 ( Dane Wigington )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBoeGoZX8gE 54 mins. 3 days ago
Thank you, Shasta.
Have you yet asked Dane Wigoutman why he photoshops so much?
Does he post on your website?
why are we here, Brian?
why do people argue over the methods of governing instead to the tools which begin to look more and more like mass produced goods
, for mass produced people.?
“”You resort to a cop out answer like: “They’re both threats to my freedom.”
This is what debating with a fundamentalist looks like””
I think it’s important to understand why we must have a firm grip on the fundamentals, so that there is a connection between cause and effect, without losing sight of the endgame.
I thought Ullr was gracious in simplifying why he chooses to understand the means of production , regardless of what flavor of ice cream you choose. he was on point that regardless of the methods, they both need centralized power to be effective, and when someone tells you that you must give up your fundamental liberties for church or state, the end game needs to be clarified, as to what the cost is.
the people who make ice cream are simply the ” variety is the slice of life” kind of people, like different chefs who produce different means of making calories digestible.
the question is less about the source of the calories, but what you are free to do with the energy those calories provide, and it doesn’t upset the balance that nature seems to self correct.
” equanimity ”
if you must pay for the privelege to consume calories, just so you can produce a product that can be helpful to a centralized government, does it really matter what those calories are called.
energy in, energy out.
you are spending a great deal of energy trying to say your source of calories is better than Ullr, but in the end, all that matters is whether you are realizing what it means to be a part of this human experience and if you are realizing your passions and you are not causing harm.
it’s not who you love.
but DO YOU LOVE?!
with respect to your passion, that it doesn’t cause harm to others, I’ll support your desire to create the dish you most love to consume…(and maybe willing to share if you have any leftovers.)
we all have different ways of expressing our gifts.
does it really matter ….? as long as you can live free to speak your truth, without expecting others to always agree?
you got this.:)
peace
`
https://youtu.be/NjAkTEUMEfA
sidekick driving .;)
I found this link to be informative and helpful for a look at the difference between fascism and communism.
Both are terms that are thrown around loosely with a very topical understanding.
But take 30 minutes and try to think about it on your own;
http://factmyth.com/factoids/communism-and-fascism-are-different/
From your link:
“Communism and Fascism are both conformist and collectivist evolutions of socialism…”
That is the whole thing you have been arguing against. That is the whole point I have made over and over and over again.
“…that generally reject liberalism, democracy, capitalism, and all other forms of socialism.”
Furthering to back my point up.
So, you agree with this article 100%, right?
I can copy paste .02% of it and it should confirm your position, right?
What are you actually shooting for, Brian? You seem to be off the mark. At this point are you just trolling?
I’m shooting for a yes or no answer.
Am I correct in understanding that this article is something you support as correct and accurate?
So, you’re just trolling.
I doubt you’ll find any article with which I agree 100%. The summary statement I quoted back to you is accurate from my point of view, and reflects what I’ve been saying through these, now ridiculous, number of comments. From there we could have expanded the conversation, but you would not concede that point to even begin a larger conversation.
Your point was: Hitler was a Socialist
My point was : Hitler was not a socialist
Does that article confirm your position in your brain?
I know you can read.
Again:
From your link:
“Communism and Fascism are both conformist and collectivist evolutions of SOCIALISM (emphasis added) that generally reject liberalism, democracy, capitalism, and all other forms of socialism.”
I’m guessing you’re shooting for a “gotcha” moment. Good luck. I have work to do.
Ullr, anyone can see your coping-out.
You posted .002% of that article and said, “see!”
So the article must be accurate enough.
What you posted is not a summary statement.
But for people who don’t want to read for 30 minutes, the article has a chart that clearly puts Hitler as a right wing fascist.
The article points out clearly the difference of fascism and communism.
And it clearly lays out why Hitler is not a socialist.
If I had asked myself the difference of fascism to communism, I would have said, ” the difference is Georges Sorel and Karl Marx.”
That’s real history.
You are adhering to historical denialism.
It’s very obvious at this point.
You say your open to learn, but that’s another “power of myth” that you yourself are believing.
I’ve broken this discussion down to elementary levels, and your cop-out answers or pure ignoring of evidence is evident.
You haven’t even acknowledged the privatization of NAZI Germany which upset the socialist ideals of the Weimar Republic.
You’ve ignored that Aryanization was the goal of the fascist Hitler.
You’ve ignored that socialism and communism were interchangeable to Hitler, and he hated Communism.
Oh, did we forget Marx was a Jew?
Did you forget who fought with who in WW2, and why?
Did you not study Georges Sorel and earlier revisionists of communist Marx?
You asked how people in the 20’s could revision….ignoring that Jew Communist Marx was 100 years before your quotes.
I don’t need to “gotcha”.
I’m really thankful for your ignorance.
It helped me to dive into some studies I had not perused before.
I have a much better understanding of Communism/Socialism and Fascism.
I know more about early philosophers like Marx and Sorel than I did before.
I understand more about WW2 and beyond.
I had never thought too much why ultra-right South American dictators would welcome NAZIs in post ww2.
If anything, your willfil ignorance has put a lot of education onto this thread because of my willingness to counter it.
So, thanks. To you!
I’m tossing in this article for myself and others;
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44009621
If you don’t understand why, I won’t be surprised.
“…anyone can see your[sic] coping-out.” I’m not really comfortable communicating with someone who assumes to speak for everyone.
Did you bother to look at the chart in the link you posted? Hitler is about one inch right of Stalin.
You’re still stuck in a left versus right world.
The difference of “anyone” vs. “everyone”…
I chose the word carefully. Because anyone could see. I dont know what everyone is seeing.
For instance, now Guest is seeing it too:
The included in the list of fascist dictators were Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Saddam Hussein, Ide Akin, etc.– Guest
Ps
I’m far from stuck on anything other than good information and objectively processing it with individualistic critical thought.
What do communism and fascism have in common? They equally use military power as tools of government . The included in the list of fascist dictators were Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Saddam Hussein, Ide Akin, etc. The communism communist dictators were Stalin, Mao, Castro, Lol Pot, Kim Jong-il, etc. All great users of their military to control people inside and outside of their countries. So a socialist philosophy and a fascist philosophy obviously don’t prevent militarism.
The same observation applies to nationalism- both philosophies equally gave nationalists power although for sheer wholesale abuse fascism can’t match communism.
Socialists can not disavow that communism is as far left on the socialist scale as can be had although they are embarassed by that. Is there an equally scale of fascism? Can a person be sort of fascist like they can be sort of socialist? Possibly but I can’t think of any country that is sort of communist or sort of fascist. Because fascism and communism are not opposites- they are both based on control by law and might. And it is wrong to think of fascism as opposite of socialism. The opposite of socialism is capitalism, not fascism, nationalism or militarism.
Using the term “fascist” is a deliberate misuse by socialists used as an insult when that is not comparing the same things. There are many examples of capitalist countries that are not fascist, from Switzerland to Ireland. But are there countries that are socialist that are not communist? In the end, every step of socialism progress ends up being a step towards communism simply because there are too few people in any country that willingly give up everything to the state. A capitalist can always tolerate some level of socialism, although it swings back and forth, as long as they feel they personally have enough freedom. But those who advocate for socialism can not stop at any point. For them there is always the next battle to manage something for the good of everyone. And they will keep at it until they kill innovation and adventure as anti-social. A primary sign of this is the tendency to insult and bully anyone who will pull up at total agreement with them.
Guest,
Now we are getting somewhere.
But, you said;
And it is wrong to think of fascism as opposite of socialism.
The opposite of socialism is capitalism, not fascism, nationalism or militarism.
It’s not wrong to think of fascism as opposite to socialism.
One is left wing politics, the other is right wing politics.
That is the very nature of this incredibley long lesson regarding Hitler; a right wing fascist (and nationalist).
https://youtu.be/UvfJkqF1g6w
synchronization
it’s a good time to revisit an old tale.
/”So, you’re just trolling.”/
~my dollhair$ are on this one.
Place your bets.
sos @10:22 last night,
Good ol Jon Rappoport. His site has been up and down and up and down. I lost connection the second time around. So, thanks for this reminder to check back in w/him.
“Solutions to private problems and public problems require the ability to think things through, logically, and to reject what is unworkable or biased—but above and beyond that, a person needs to be able to imagine solutions that haven’t been tried before.”
~there’s no such thing as a sovereign in commerce. What needs to be rejected, then? Commerce.
Old time lines are done. Some will hold onto the versions of the old reality, and replay –like watching Law & Order re-runs. If still in the Matrix, the $ will be taken away – won’t work. Hold the neutral point of compassion to dis-spell polarity. We need …some form of agreed upon exchange to rebuild.
Solutions – I’m going with Constitutions, State and Fed . . . since this “hasn’t been tried before”.
https://youtu.be/hF_BHZqmt6s
maybe this will help those who battle themselves through others
“what would I say to my younger self”
“- Look inside yourself
– You don’t have to work so hard to be liked and loved, you’re okay
– Allow life to come to you
– Open your heart and see what possibilities reveal themselves to you
– It’s not your fault
– Accept yourself
– To thy own self be true / Be true to your own self
– Don’t be afraid of your own truth and to explore it
– Don’t be afraid to let go of your own truth if a deeper truth speaks to you
– What ever work you do out there in the world, do an equal amount of work internally”