Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Left's Enduring Charlottesville Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    In fact, the survival of a nation and execution of its interests demands that pragmatism be afforded greater importance than altruism.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
      There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between socialism, fascisism, and communism.
      I'm sorry dude, but this is just dumb.
      All three are based upon collectivism.
      No, Marxist sociailism and communism are based on a materialist historical narrative about the organized working class reclaiming their surplus value from their oppressors and creating a new classless society, or some such nonsense. Fascism is based on the idea of class cooperation and organic hierarchy. Tradition-with-a-capital-T, if you will.
      All three put the government in control of everything. After Karl Marx's death Friedrich Engels admitted that both he and Marx were socialists. They used the term communist in the Communist Manifesto to separate themselves the rest of the socialists. It was simply a word game to make them look different.
      Usage of the terms communist and socialist predate Marx by several decades. It's only been in the last 100 years that the terms have become synonymous with different ideas of how to achieve his goals.

      Max Eastman, a leading socialist activist in the early 20th century, was friends with Lenin, and was invited to go to Russia to look at what the Bolsheviks were doing. He wrote in "The Masses" which he wrote and edited that what Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were doing was socialism.
      I'm not sure quite why, but I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Cool story. Turns out the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks had the same goals.
      The Nazis were socialists too. National socialists. One of the socialist elite's greatest propoganda triumphs of the 20th century was convincing everyone that they hated Hitler when in fact that supported him wholeheartedly until the news of the killing of millions of people by the Nazis made that position too embarrassing.
      The NSDAP wasn't started by Hitler and those who actually took it into power in Germany. Hitler kept the name(and used red banners) in order to "trick" possible socialist and communist sympathizers into coming to meetings early on. There were some Marxist-leaning members of the party(see Gregor Strasser,) but they were all expelled from the party or killed in the Night of Long Knives.
      And the socialist elite hated Hitler. The word [i]privatization]/i] was invented by them as a slur to describe Hitler's was doing. Also he disbanded most of the labor unions in Germany*. Also, he LITERALLY THREW SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS INTO CAMPS.

      Their solution? They came up with the con of saying that the Nazis were right wing and that they were fascists not socialists.
      This whole "right wing'='free market fundamentalist' thing needs to end.

      *-He actually wasn't opposed to labor unions in principle. He just thought they were infiltrated by socialists and communists.

      Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA
      One reaches a point of extremism where all things are the same. Hitler and Stalin are a great example.
      Don't forget Genghis Khan, Mahmoud al Ghazni, and Andrew Jackson. Turns out communism, fascism, tribal chieftainism, theocratic imperialism and representative democracy are all just the same thing.

      What was the difference? Nothing.
      No, just no.
      It was only when Hitler doublecrossed Stalin that he switched sides to our side but that does not change what he was.
      Hitler thought that Stalin was going to doublecross him, so he did it first. Most historians agree on this.

      Which raises a great question: Were we really moral in WWII when our ally was just another Hitler?
      Originally posted by George Patton
      We defeated the wrong enemy.
      Thanks for reading my blog post.
      "People ask me if I've ever been called a Nazi. I answer that no one has ever had dreams of being tied down and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal." - P.J. O'Rourke

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Supremum View Post
        I'm sorry dude, but this is just dumb.
        No, Marxist sociailism and communism are based on a materialist historical narrative about the organized working class reclaiming their surplus value from their oppressors and creating a new classless society, or some such nonsense. Fascism is based on the idea of class cooperation and organic hierarchy. Tradition-with-a-capital-T, if you will.
        Usage of the terms communist and socialist predate Marx by several decades. It's only been in the last 100 years that the terms have become synonymous with different ideas of how to achieve his goals.
        You need to read Friedrich Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom. In it he lays out the parallels between all three totalitarian ideologies and shows how little difference there is between them. From your statement it's plain you've been taught a very common bunch of myths.
        “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
        ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

        “One and God make a majority.”
        ― Frederick Douglass

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
          You need to read Friedrich Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom. In it he lays out the parallels between all three totalitarian ideologies and shows how little difference there is between them. From your statement it's plain you've been taught a very common bunch of myths.
          I've read it. I used to be a libertarian. You're missing the point of what I'm getting at. Sure, there are parallels between any two forms of government, but communism and fascism and national socialism and representative democracy are entirely different things that result in entirely different ways of life(Stalin's Red Fascism notwithstanding).
          Have you read The Doctrine of Fascism, or Capital? If not, you should.
          And don't be so presumptuous.

          Edit: Add Mein Kampf to that list, cuz why not.
          "People ask me if I've ever been called a Nazi. I answer that no one has ever had dreams of being tied down and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal." - P.J. O'Rourke

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Supremum View Post
            I've read it. I used to be a libertarian. You're missing the point of what I'm getting at. Sure, there are parallels between any two forms of government, but communism and fascism and national socialism and representative democracy are entirely different things that result in entirely different ways of life(Stalin's Red Fascism notwithstanding).
            Have you read The Doctrine of Fascism, or Capital? If not, you should.
            And don't be so presumptuous.

            Edit: Add Mein Kampf to that list, cuz why not.
            Max Eastman, who was the first editor-in-chief of the rag The Masses, was invited by a guy by the name of Lenin to Russia just after their revolution. Max Eastman was the leading socialist activist in the US during the time period. He wrote almost all the articles that appeared in The Masses. Just in case you forgot about the following quote from The Road to Serfdom I'll quote it again for you.

            In recent years, however, the old apprehensions of the
            unforeseen consequences of socialism have once more been
            strongly voiced from the most unexpected quarters. Observer
            after observer, in spite of the contrary expectation with which he
            approached his subject, has been impressed with the extraordin-
            ary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "fas-
            cism" and "communism". While "progressives" in this country
            and elsewhere were still deluding themselves that communism
            and fascism represented opposite poles, more and more people
            began to ask themselves whether these new tyrannies were not
            the outcome of the same tendencies. Even communists must
            have been somewhat shaken by such testimonies as that of Mr.
            Max Eastman, Lenin's old friend, who found himself compelled
            to admit that "instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than
            fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-
            democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple", and that it is
            "better described as superfascist"; and when we find the same
            author recognising that "Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of
            being an inevitable although unforeseen political accompani-
            ment of the nationalisation and collectivisation which he had
            relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society", 1
            his conclusion clearly achieves wider significance.
            Chapter 2 The Great Utopia pages 27, 28
            I'm not sure if the paging from my pdf copy of one of the earlier versions of the book is the same as the current version but the chapter alone should suffice to make it easy to find.

            Notice that socialism, communism, and fascism are basically interchangable ideologies. Both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists to begin with and easily slid over into fascism. The academic and journalism world claims that the USSR(Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was communist, but those who knew exactly what it was, as Eastman was given unlimited access to Soviet documentation and unlimited travel around Russian by Lenin, said the USSR was socialist. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were all Marxists. Chairman Mao was a dedicated Marxist. Fidel Castro was a dedicated Marxist. And Karl Marx is the author of modern day socialism. So to try to pretend that there are significant differences between communism and socialism is just intellectually dishonest in my book. And when Stalinism was nothing more than fascism on steroids there is no real difference between fascism and socialism either. This is far more than just having a few parallels between all three ideologies.

            All three are known as collectivism. That means they can all be classified under the same banner, which means there is very little difference between the three of them. And all three are totalitarian in nature. When government tells business what to produce, when to produce it, how much of it to produce, where to distribute those goods, what to charge for them, etc... what difference does it make if the government owns the business outright or there is a titular owner? In any of these ideologies if private ownership is allowed the owners become, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than middle managers for they make no decisions as to the direction of the company or what it is to produce, the pricing structure, or distribution channels. They, for all intents and purposes, have no say in their own business.

            Just for your info, I've read Hitler, Marx, Engels, Keynes, and many of the other proponents of Marx. Not a one of them make a lick of sense.
            “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
            ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

            “One and God make a majority.”
            ― Frederick Douglass

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
              Joe Biden's kids have also done billions of dollars worth of business with China that Joe had a hand in creating through his political connections and power. He is compromised there and in the Ukraine situations.
              Joe Biden's kid is a liar and a crook, just like his hair sniffing dad, a chip off the old block

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                Max Eastman, who was the first editor-in-chief of the rag The Masses, was invited by a guy by the name of Lenin to Russia just after their revolution. Max Eastman was the leading socialist activist in the US during the time period. He wrote almost all the articles that appeared in The Masses. Just in case you forgot about the following quote from The Road to Serfdom I'll quote it again for you.



                I'm not sure if the paging from my pdf copy of one of the earlier versions of the book is the same as the current version but the chapter alone should suffice to make it easy to find.

                Notice that socialism, communism, and fascism are basically interchangable ideologies. Both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists to begin with and easily slid over into fascism. The academic and journalism world claims that the USSR(Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was communist, but those who knew exactly what it was, as Eastman was given unlimited access to Soviet documentation and unlimited travel around Russian by Lenin, said the USSR was socialist. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were all Marxists. Chairman Mao was a dedicated Marxist. Fidel Castro was a dedicated Marxist. And Karl Marx is the author of modern day socialism. So to try to pretend that there are significant differences between communism and socialism is just intellectually dishonest in my book. And when Stalinism was nothing more than fascism on steroids there is no real difference between fascism and socialism either. This is far more than just having a few parallels between all three ideologies.

                All three are known as collectivism. That means they can all be classified under the same banner, which means there is very little difference between the three of them. And all three are totalitarian in nature. When government tells business what to produce, when to produce it, how much of it to produce, where to distribute those goods, what to charge for them, etc... what difference does it make if the government owns the business outright or there is a titular owner? In any of these ideologies if private ownership is allowed the owners become, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than middle managers for they make no decisions as to the direction of the company or what it is to produce, the pricing structure, or distribution channels. They, for all intents and purposes, have no say in their own business.

                Just for your info, I've read Hitler, Marx, Engels, Keynes, and many of the other proponents of Marx. Not a one of them make a lick of sense.

                Amazing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
                  Amazing.
                  What is amazing? You don't say enough to give your context as to what you find amazing.... If you hadn't thanked me for the post I might have thought your amazing could be negative....
                  “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                  ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                  “One and God make a majority.”
                  ― Frederick Douglass

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                    What is amazing? You don't say enough to give your context as to what you find amazing.... If you hadn't thanked me for the post I might have thought your amazing could be negative....
                    Oh no, your post was great. I appreciate all your posts here.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X