Fascism is a violent and non-humanistic sub-set of Socialism

[Karen Kraft]

Trou, I assume you're an avowed Marxist. Though I disagree with your ideoligies, I give you credit for being fair in your assessments.

And unlike your fellow moon bats, you refrain from excessive insults.

Good for you....... You're about the only moon bat that I appreciate.

Ummmm..... except that he jumped on both the "Karen is a guy" band wagon and the "Karen stole the post" bandwagon rather quickly. He's a lightweight and leaves any thread when challenged beyond his abilities. Not worth the time.

 

[Karen Kraft]

I don't know that there's much discussion here, more like talking past people. There's a reason they say not to bring up politics or religion Though perhaps we could just be like DCL and claim that fascism and socialism don't exist.

From what I can tell, in the US anyway, conservatives use the "socialist" or "communist" label to denigrate attempts by liberals to make others think the way they do, or at least behave they way they want them to.

Whereas liberals use the "fascist" label to denigrate attempts by conservatives to try to avoid constraints on their behavior or freedom of action. This works better for those at the top of the political food chain, of course.

Neither attempt is very successful, probably because the inference is strained at best, and illusory at worst. But it's funny to read "definitions" of socialism or fascism or whatever designed to prove the point that one's political opponents are indeed of that persuasion.

In the end, most of the bad aspects of both conservative and liberal thought have mirror images in the other major viewpoint. (Some) conversatives don't like gay marriage; (some) liberals want quotas for elected officlals and voting districts to match. Conservatives don't want to be taxed, liberals don't want to be wiretapped. Each side sees their viewpoint as the only one that's at all sensible.

To your point that fascism is like socialism, I tend to agree that what they have in common is a desire to change existing western society by extremist tactics, and that's appealing to people who have little stake in the status quo. Both philosophies devolve to totalitarian, top-down societies, where the difference is in the details of who gets to win and who has to lose.

Thank you, Sweetie.

Well said. I appreciate your contribution.

 

[Sayyid]

I haven't heard him say it, so my assumption may be wrong....

Careful. You don't want to go around attributing positions to people that you don't actually know they have. This is an informal fallacy known as a strawman.

Well, yes, of course. The labour theory of value, however, provides a rationale for the hostility expressed by at least Marxist socialists toward capital, which was the discussion as I recall. The theory being tested is this: That fascism is a ugly and deformed bastard child of socialism. We see some historical references by fascists, wherein they profess to be socialists and sometimes use socialist rhetoric in their speeches and writings. From this we attempt to see if the history of 20th Century European fascism and fascist expression emanates from the socialist tradition or that of the bourgeoisie, or in some contexts, the emerging middle class.

It does, but I don't see the LTV as the reasoning that fascists used in their hostility towards finance capital (and they were definitely not hostile towards private business at all, as evidenced by their corporatist policies). In fact, I don't see much in common between fascism and most forms of socialism at all, at least from an ideological standpoint. As far as I know, their hostility towards usury was populist in origin. When in a crisis, blame the bankers. We see echoes of these attitudes even today.

We see plenty of harsh anti-socialist rhetoric as well from the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. My personal opinion? Fascists were opportunists, perfectly willing to pander to the masses and gain their support by telling them what they wanted to hear; and what they wanted to hear was tradition, full employment and a restoration of national pride. These are deeply conservative goals for the most part. In practice fascism was a state-centered form of capitalism with some elements of socialism, or what we'd now term a mixed economy. Hardly a free market, but decidedly not socialist either.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Can we please stop this trolling and flaming. I came here to have an intelligent discussion about something that interests me. Yes, parts of her post appear to be plagiarized but I'm not here to criticize her for that. Her only fault is not citing her sources.

Plagiarized?

Then I retract my comments.

I have no idea what any of this means.

It's much too complicated for me.

By the way, this is not a term paper. Ideas come from here and there and people do not feel compelled to cite at every juncture.

The fact that you think my thoughts here are born of plagiarized materials has been duly noted.

I sure wish I could write like the man who wrote all that neat stuff. Gosh.

Carry on alone if you wish.

 

[Karen Kraft]

I suggest the age-old Internet adage: Don't feed the trolls.

I suggest you continue the conversation with yourself.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It would be a mistake to underestimate Karen's knowledge and ability to write.

"Ability to write"? "Knowledge"?

She routinely passes off the works of others as her own, and displays at best a rudimentary understanding of both history and world affairs.

 

[Sayyid]

I suggest you continue the conversation with yourself.

If you like, but I was enjoying it myself.

Plagiarized?

One poster brought up a link to material that appears in your post. I just said that I don't care if it's plagiarized or not. I came here to discuss the topic, not speculate on where it came from.

 

[Karen Kraft]

If you like, but I was enjoying it myself.
One poster brought up a link to material that appears in your post. I just said that I don't care if it's plagiarized or not. I came here to discuss the topic, not speculate on where it came from.

whatever

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sayyid]

whatever

So are you going to continue with me? You don't have to if you don't want to, but surely an intelligent discussion with someone who knows what they're talking about is a lot better than the idiot trolls in here.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Nazi movement was many things, as we all know. But among them, I think we can agree, it was one of the very first middle class movements.

"One of the very first"? By no means. The English Civil War was primarily a middle-class movement. The American Revolution was, at least in part, a middle-class movement. The French Revolution at least started out as a middle-class movement (the original delegates of the Third Estate, the ones who swore the Tennis Court Oath, were practically all of middle-class origin).

 

[romeothethird]

As one begins to analyze the underpinnings of fascist thought, one learns that this is a group highly anti-capitalist people. One would be hard pressed to find a Bolshevik or a Social Democrat more vehement in his or her renunciation of traditional capitalism. For example in the 1930s, George Orwell (1984 and others) lamented that the struggle leaving so many dead and wounded is, essentially, between fascists and socialists since, at the end of the day (inside joke – disregard) “We are all the same.”

Indeed, in 1932, Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party campaigned against both the Marxists and the Capitalists, urging the folks to believe that the nazi system will take the best of both the other systems and create “a new socialist man.”

In his, The Coming American Fascism, 1936, Lawrence Dennis—noted American economist and anti-Semite—boasted that classic liberalism—that is, 18th-century Americanism—would soon become a laughing stock, and that, liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights, would be replaced by fascism, that is, the enterprises of public welfare and social control. And, Dennis stated further...
[Fascism] does not accept the liberal dogmas as to the sovereignty of the consumer or trader in the free market.... Least of all does it consider that market freedom, and the opportunity to make competitive profits, are rights of the individual. Such decisions should be made by a 'dominant class', an 'elite'.

See, for example, Lawrence Dennis’ work, The Coming American Fascism (1936), in which he author asserts that 18th Century Americanism, with its foolish notions of liberal norms of law and constitutional guarantees will be replaced by the more efficient fascist system, in which enterprises of public welfare and social control replace greedy and anti-social (read: Jewish) individual economic endeavors which only lead to a capitalist elite class. Gaetano Mosca’s The Ruling Class (1923), restate these notions. Mosca was, as I’m sure y’all know, an Italian Fascist.

Mosca was critical of parliamentary government in his early work, but later, especially in the material added to the 1923 edition of the Elementi, he spoke strongly of its merits; he saw it as the one form of organization able "to utilize almost all human values in the political and administrative departments of government, … [in which] the door has been left open to all elements in the governed classes to make their way into the ruling classes" (The Ruling Class, p. 389). Thus, although Mosca thought that recognition of the inevitable existence of the ruling class in any society was sufficient to destroy the illusions of democratic ideologies, his conclusions are not easy to distinguish from the standard doctrines of socialist political philosophy.

But let’s move on to Spain. I love Spain this time of year. Don’t you? Of course you do! Let’s take a look at the 1936 speech made to the Cortes by the fascist Calvo Sotelo: “I am proposing the integrated state, which will bring economic justice, and which will say with due authority: no more strikes, no more lock-outs, no more usury, no more starvation wages, no more criminal conspiracies against full production, no more capitalist abuses.” The purest socialist state is the fascist state, “If this be the Fascist State, then I proudly declare myself a Fascist!” Of course, Sotelo was assassinated by a Republican (no, not the one Lincoln was in) Army conspiracy working in tandem with the Spanish Socialist-Communist Your League). That’s how the Spanish Civil War got its trolley under way.

Why, even the Bambino, Il Duce, [aka: His Excellency Benito Mussolini, Head of Government, Duce of Fascism, and Founder of the Empire] helps us see that fascism is merely a sect or sub-section of socialism and socialist philosophy: [In reference to the communists’ viewpoints] “In the whole negative part, we are alike. We and the Russians are against the liberals, against democrats, against parliament”. – Mussolini 1932.

What is now considered to be “socialist” philosophy arose under the combined influence of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. The common theme history was telling us was that the uncontrolled concentration of wealth and unbridled competition would lead to increased suffering by the common man and one socio-economic crisis after another. The idea was to create a system that would organize the means of production so as to do away with poverty and oppression. You with me, camera guy, I can’t do this all day.

Besides the ideals of equality, social programs, and the abolition of private ownership and control over the means of production, both socialist theory and fascist theory were in agreement. It is a common mistake to regard the Nazi movement simply as a revolt against reason, an irrational spasm without intellectual background. Were that the case, National Socialism would have been far less dangerous! Indeed, the doctrines of National Socialism are the culmination of a long evolution of thought, a process in which historic contributors had had substantial influence far beyond the borders of Germany.

Like a monster born with hidden but hideous birth defect, the logic of National Socialism, once its initial premise is accepted, flows smoothly and naturally as a nearly perfect socialist system: essential collectivism, but one in which progress is no longer fettered by inconvenient notions of individualism. Thus, fascism is the exact antithesis of individualism, is the antichrist of capitalist thought, substituting a nation-state based socialist social and economic system for a capitalist or state-capitalist (“Communist”) system and, lacking all sense of individualism, becomes the more brutal section of the socialist movement.

So here we are! “But master, I was taught in school that the Nazi movement was a capitalist knee-jerk over-reaction to the onset of European socialism, blended with a beer and sausage aroma of exaggerated nationalism!”

Not quite, Grasshopper! The support which brought National Socialism to power in Germany came precisely from the socialist camp. The engine of National Socialism came not from an overly strong bourgeoisie, but from its absence!

As we all can figure, political philosophy is not lineal but circular. If you go far enough to the right, you end up on the left, and vice versa. The socialists on the far left drift around the circle like the condiment lazy susan over at Dan Rather’s house, until they become “little Hitlers” as people here on the GB like to say, for whatever reason. It was the fusion of radical and conservative socialism that killed off liberal notions of individual rights in Germany.

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

I know that many of you have the attention span of a snail darter with attention deficit disorder, so I will give you the CLIFF NOTES carry-in-your purse-or-wallet cheat-sheet Easy-Target-Rule-Of-Thumb card which, for your amusement, has some generalizations salted here and there so you can pick on those when your failure to grasp the earlier parts of this post frustrate you. Here we go now…..
How am I to be able to tell that fascists are socialists, Coach?

Well, the Nazis called themselves The National Socialist German Workers Party, not, The National Capitalist German Plutocrats Party, and the National Socialists boasted that Hitler had created in Germany, the most modern socialist state in the world.
Also, Ernst Roehm, a dedicated socialist, leader of the SA, second only to Hitler in power in the National Socialist Party, in a letter to a friend, observed how often his street thugs switched back and forth between Roehm's National Socialist gangs and the Communist gangs, uncertain on whose side they rightly belonged.


While you are thinking about it, consider that in Mussolini's early days, before his rise to power, many of his Marxist critics viewed his fascism as a curiosity and recognized it as more of a heresy from, rather than a mortal challenge to revolutionary Marxism. (See Agursky's, The Third Rome, 1963.)


Beginners stop. Advanced may continue:


During the 1920s and 30s, because such little practical difference existed between fascists and Bolsheviks, critics of Hitler's National Socialism routinely called it, National Bolshevism. Needless to say the Bolshevists got all pouty and pissed off to have to share the same bed with the fascists and invented their very own “agency theory” of fascism. (Any of you eve take this stuff in school? No? Okay, let’s continue. So the Comintern established the 1930s version of “inherited from Bush;” “end of the day” mantra that fascism must immediately and forever more be associated with capitalism and thereby, per formal Stalinist/Leninist dogma, fascism became the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist, and most imperialist elements of finance capital. That dumb tune played over and over and over again and is still popular with the left today! Imagine that! Although there is nothing to suggest it is true, leftists insist (via snark and ad hominem fallacy, of course) that fascism is a necessary component of capitalism. Needless to say the critics of the socialist gospel get tagged as fascists through this little joke for half-wits.


In his book, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich August von Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974), Hayek remarks that, during the 1930s, the propagandists of both parties recognized the relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa and how university professors in the U.S. and Britain noticed that students returning from study in Germany could not decide whether they were Marxists or fascists, but were certain only that they hated, Western Civilization. But I guess that’s one of those Nobel Prize LOL moments. What does Hayek know, right? If he’s so smart, why’s he dead, right? RIGHT?

But what do I know? I bet I can find an online dictionary that proves me wrong in some sort of really cool WIKI-WAY (not to be confused with Mikey Way…)

Mussolini considered fascism as a "middle road" between socialism and capitalism, where the economy was controlled, but people still could have private property (at the whim of the powerful).

What has been promoted by Bush/Cheney neo-con right wing, has a lot of the characteristics of Nazi/Italian fascism (paranoia, suppression of opposition, selective use of government for special crony interests), but America has really become more of an oligarchy and a bankocracy. Look who determines policy: Banks, Large corporations, defense contractors, pharmaceutical corporations, etc., and with the result that they become ever more wealthy and powerful, while the average american has the illusion of freedom because they have 150 channels of hi-def they can veg out in front of every night. Which they need to get used to, because that's all they'll be able to afford when they retire.

 

[ksmybuttons]

In his, The Coming American Fascism, 1936, Lawrence Dennis—noted American economist and anti-Semite—boasted that classic liberalism—that is, 18th-century Americanism—would[/I][/B] soon become a laughing stock, and that, liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights, would be replaced by fascism, that is, the enterprises of public welfare and social control. And, Dennis stated further...

Do you always plagiarize without giving credit? Of course, I only put in one paragraph. I'm sure you actually have many people to site.

Roots of fascism
By Bernard Switalski, 18 April 2004
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/075.html

 

[KingOrfeo]

The labour theory of value . . .

. . . was first formulated by John Locke, on whose theories American government and ideology are (primarily) based.

 

[The_Trouvere]

We have spent time criticizing the actions of the Republican majority as well, they spent a lot of time violating conservative political principles, I predicted they would be punished by the voters, we didn't spend all of our time absolving the Democrats of any blame however.

The Republicans were punished in the last too elections because most Americans did not benefit from the Bush economy, and because Bush started two wars he could not win.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Trou, I assume you're an avowed Marxist. Though I disagree with your ideoligies, I give you credit for being fair in your assessments.

And unlike your fellow moon bats, you refrain from excessive insults.

Good for you....... You're about the only moon bat that I appreciate.

I have said on several occasions that I am not a Marxist. I read any political thinker for insight, rather than doctrine. Marx's central mistake was in believing that among blue collar workers loyalties of class are stronger than loyalties of nation, race, and ethnicity. It should be obvious that the opposite is usually the truth.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Ummmm..... except that he jumped on both the "Karen is a guy" band wagon and the "Karen stole the post" bandwagon rather quickly. He's a lightweight and leaves any thread when challenged beyond his abilities. Not worth the time.

When I proved you wrong about socialism and fascism you put me on ignore.

I usually prefer to ignore insults directed at me. I have never successfully been challenged on a factual assertion.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Do you always plagiarize without giving credit? Of course, I only put in one paragraph. I'm sure you actually have many people to site.

Roots of fascism
By Bernard Switalski, 18 April 2004
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/075.html

Which I duly noted in post #59. She "borrowed" from two essays this time.

Interestingly, the same parts of this essay were also "borrowed" by an extremist Pajamas Media columnist named Michael Ledeen. I'm thinking that Karen the Plagiarist "borrowed" this material from Michael the Plagiarist.

 

[Karen Kraft]

. . . was first formulated by John Locke, on whose theories American government and ideology are (primarily) based.

Oh yeah. That's right.

The entire U.S. economy is based on the Labor Theory of Value.

Where did they teach you that? Hmmm?

 

[Karen Kraft]

"Ability to write"? "Knowledge"?

She routinely passes off the works of others as her own, and displays at best a rudimentary understanding of both history and world affairs.

I see you have decided to ignore the cease and desist regarding my copyrighted image.

You won't like how this ends, fat boy.

Trust me.

Just don't take it out on the little boy chained in your basement.

 

[where]

Nope.

Wrong again.

yo did what you did. just because it's on a forum makes no difference

Check this out, whore: This is a discussion board. I am not getting paid, nor am I being graded on what I post here. Unlike most people, I respect copyright, and unless something is PD, I cite to the author, composer, etc. no... you didn't cite. not in this instance, that was my point. normally you do which is why my lighthearted chastisement of you was meant as a joke. you, went nuclear on it. which makes me think it's not the first time you've been caught.

I can see that you are a very poor teacher when you find "plagiarism" in anything that is not "original thought." See, that's the product of the generation of students who major in "feelings": pathetic, even by your standards of personal attack style.

I feel that Nazis were, like, bad because you know, there like the guys in the westerns with the black hats who hurt people. The Nazis hurt people so they are bad. Germany was pissed about WWI and some treaty of whatever and so they followed this crazy guy first with shovels and then with rifles who killed Jews and such, which I also feel is bad because I feel that they deserve to live as much as the next person.

What is clear is that my post through you for a loop. You had no way of addressing it, so you did what your kind always does: bitch about the form. no. I KNOW that you are just doing the usual bullshit about socialism and fascism being the same because you would like it to be so. I knew you would come out with long passages in support of your views as well.

I could do the same, but 1) can't be arsed 2) you won't actually take any notice. It has been pointed out to you the fundamental differences between fascism and socialism but you dismiss them as a side issue because it suits your demonising of socialism. that's fair enough. you are an out and proud right winger so good on you, but that does not mean that you are right.

Because you do not agree with me, you hold my posting to a different standard than you do for others with whom you agree. That, cunt, is dishonest. see my first post to richard daily.I am not your student; I am under no obligation to produce term-paper-quality posts and, were I to do so, you would bitch about the spelling. You are the type of "teacher" that can only damage society by producing factually bankrupt students who, like yourself, will major in "feelings" and wonder why it is that they can't pronounce their doctor's last name. Hint: it's because their doctor got an off-shore education where facts were taught and "feelings" were entertained later. You do not teach, you stupid fuck, you preach. Yours is a ministry of vacant minds bereft of facts and full of fervor.this is the perfect description of just about every single one of your posts. you are like some acolyte of Himmler's screaming your 'intellectual' justifications. go get a uniform, girlie.

In short, you are a public menace.you have no idea what I teach, how I teach. I'm seriously hoping you do NOT move into the teaching profession and stick with something that is more suited to your intractable closed mind. Mybe you should go into producing political propaganda.

Put me on Ignore. Get the fuck off my discussion board.

Your discussion board? you really are getting up there with le jerk in terms of being delusional, aren't you?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

As one begins to analyze the underpinnings of fascist thought, one learns that this is a group highly anti-capitalist people. One would be hard pressed to find a Bolshevik or a Social Democrat more vehement in his or her renunciation of traditional capitalism. For example in the 1930s, George Orwell (1984 and others) lamented that the struggle leaving so many dead and wounded is, essentially, between fascists and socialists since, at the end of the day (inside joke – disregard) “We are all the same.”

Indeed, in 1932, Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party campaigned against both the Marxists and the Capitalists, urging the folks to believe that the nazi system will take the best of both the other systems and create “a new socialist man.”

In his, The Coming American Fascism, 1936, Lawrence Dennis—noted American economist and anti-Semite—boasted that classic liberalism—that is, 18th-century Americanism—would soon become a laughing stock, and that, liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights, would be replaced by fascism, that is, the enterprises of public welfare and social control. And, Dennis stated further...
[Fascism] does not accept the liberal dogmas as to the sovereignty of the consumer or trader in the free market.... Least of all does it consider that market freedom, and the opportunity to make competitive profits, are rights of the individual. Such decisions should be made by a 'dominant class', an 'elite'.

See, for example, Lawrence Dennis’ work, The Coming American Fascism (1936), in which he author asserts that 18th Century Americanism, with its foolish notions of liberal norms of law and constitutional guarantees will be replaced by the more efficient fascist system, in which enterprises of public welfare and social control replace greedy and anti-social (read: Jewish) individual economic endeavors which only lead to a capitalist elite class. Gaetano Mosca’s The Ruling Class (1923), restate these notions. Mosca was, as I’m sure y’all know, an Italian Fascist.

Mosca was critical of parliamentary government in his early work, but later, especially in the material added to the 1923 edition of the Elementi, he spoke strongly of its merits; he saw it as the one form of organization able "to utilize almost all human values in the political and administrative departments of government, … [in which] the door has been left open to all elements in the governed classes to make their way into the ruling classes" (The Ruling Class, p. 389). Thus, although Mosca thought that recognition of the inevitable existence of the ruling class in any society was sufficient to destroy the illusions of democratic ideologies, his conclusions are not easy to distinguish from the standard doctrines of socialist political philosophy.

But let’s move on to Spain. I love Spain this time of year. Don’t you? Of course you do! Let’s take a look at the 1936 speech made to the Cortes by the fascist Calvo Sotelo: “I am proposing the integrated state, which will bring economic justice, and which will say with due authority: no more strikes, no more lock-outs, no more usury, no more starvation wages, no more criminal conspiracies against full production, no more capitalist abuses.” The purest socialist state is the fascist state, “If this be the Fascist State, then I proudly declare myself a Fascist!” Of course, Sotelo was assassinated by a Republican (no, not the one Lincoln was in) Army conspiracy working in tandem with the Spanish Socialist-Communist Your League). That’s how the Spanish Civil War got its trolley under way.

Why, even the Bambino, Il Duce, [aka: His Excellency Benito Mussolini, Head of Government, Duce of Fascism, and Founder of the Empire] helps us see that fascism is merely a sect or sub-section of socialism and socialist philosophy: [In reference to the communists’ viewpoints] “In the whole negative part, we are alike. We and the Russians are against the liberals, against democrats, against parliament”. – Mussolini 1932.

What is now considered to be “socialist” philosophy arose under the combined influence of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. The common theme history was telling us was that the uncontrolled concentration of wealth and unbridled competition would lead to increased suffering by the common man and one socio-economic crisis after another. The idea was to create a system that would organize the means of production so as to do away with poverty and oppression. You with me, camera guy, I can’t do this all day.

Besides the ideals of equality, social programs, and the abolition of private ownership and control over the means of production, both socialist theory and fascist theory were in agreement. It is a common mistake to regard the Nazi movement simply as a revolt against reason, an irrational spasm without intellectual background. Were that the case, National Socialism would have been far less dangerous! Indeed, the doctrines of National Socialism are the culmination of a long evolution of thought, a process in which historic contributors had had substantial influence far beyond the borders of Germany.

Like a monster born with hidden but hideous birth defect, the logic of National Socialism, once its initial premise is accepted, flows smoothly and naturally as a nearly perfect socialist system: essential collectivism, but one in which progress is no longer fettered by inconvenient notions of individualism. Thus, fascism is the exact antithesis of individualism, is the antichrist of capitalist thought, substituting a nation-state based socialist social and economic system for a capitalist or state-capitalist (“Communist”) system and, lacking all sense of individualism, becomes the more brutal section of the socialist movement.

So here we are! “But master, I was taught in school that the Nazi movement was a capitalist knee-jerk over-reaction to the onset of European socialism, blended with a beer and sausage aroma of exaggerated nationalism!”

Not quite, Grasshopper! The support which brought National Socialism to power in Germany came precisely from the socialist camp. The engine of National Socialism came not from an overly strong bourgeoisie, but from its absence!

As we all can figure, political philosophy is not lineal but circular. If you go far enough to the right, you end up on the left, and vice versa. The socialists on the far left drift around the circle like the condiment lazy susan over at Dan Rather’s house, until they become “little Hitlers” as people here on the GB like to say, for whatever reason. It was the fusion of radical and conservative socialism that killed off liberal notions of individual rights in Germany.

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

I know that many of you have the attention span of a snail darter with attention deficit disorder, so I will give you the CLIFF NOTES carry-in-your purse-or-wallet cheat-sheet Easy-Target-Rule-Of-Thumb card which, for your amusement, has some generalizations salted here and there so you can pick on those when your failure to grasp the earlier parts of this post frustrate you. Here we go now…..
How am I to be able to tell that fascists are socialists, Coach?

Well, the Nazis called themselves The National Socialist German Workers Party, not, The National Capitalist German Plutocrats Party, and the National Socialists boasted that Hitler had created in Germany, the most modern socialist state in the world.
Also, Ernst Roehm, a dedicated socialist, leader of the SA, second only to Hitler in power in the National Socialist Party, in a letter to a friend, observed how often his street thugs switched back and forth between Roehm's National Socialist gangs and the Communist gangs, uncertain on whose side they rightly belonged.


While you are thinking about it, consider that in Mussolini's early days, before his rise to power, many of his Marxist critics viewed his fascism as a curiosity and recognized it as more of a heresy from, rather than a mortal challenge to revolutionary Marxism. (See Agursky's, The Third Rome, 1963.)


Beginners stop. Advanced may continue:


During the 1920s and 30s, because such little practical difference existed between fascists and Bolsheviks, critics of Hitler's National Socialism routinely called it, National Bolshevism. Needless to say the Bolshevists got all pouty and pissed off to have to share the same bed with the fascists and invented their very own “agency theory” of fascism. (Any of you eve take this stuff in school? No? Okay, let’s continue. So the Comintern established the 1930s version of “inherited from Bush;” “end of the day” mantra that fascism must immediately and forever more be associated with capitalism and thereby, per formal Stalinist/Leninist dogma, fascism became the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist, and most imperialist elements of finance capital. That dumb tune played over and over and over again and is still popular with the left today! Imagine that! Although there is nothing to suggest it is true, leftists insist (via snark and ad hominem fallacy, of course) that fascism is a necessary component of capitalism. Needless to say the critics of the socialist gospel get tagged as fascists through this little joke for half-wits.


In his book, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich August von Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974), Hayek remarks that, during the 1930s, the propagandists of both parties recognized the relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa and how university professors in the U.S. and Britain noticed that students returning from study in Germany could not decide whether they were Marxists or fascists, but were certain only that they hated, Western Civilization. But I guess that’s one of those Nobel Prize LOL moments. What does Hayek know, right? If he’s so smart, why’s he dead, right? RIGHT?

But what do I know? I bet I can find an online dictionary that proves me wrong in some sort of really cool WIKI-WAY (not to be confused with Mikey Way…)

Like Machiavelli said, there are only three types of government, Republic, Tyranny of the Elites and the Strong Man. All the "isms" are just bait'n switch for government number two. To that list you can add the Pelosi/Reid/Obama Democratic Party in the United Sates.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Like Machiavelli said, there are only three types of government, Republic, Tyranny of the Elites and the Strong Man. All the "isms" are just bait'n switch for government number two. To that list you can add the Pelosi/Reid/Obama Democratic Party in the United Sates.

The Prince is a very small book. Atlas Shrugged is a very worthless book. What else have you read.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I see you have decided to ignore the cease and desist regarding my copyrighted image.

You won't like how this ends, fat boy.

Trust me.

Just don't take it out on the little boy chained in your basement.

What are you gonna do, "Karen"?

Gonna try and "friend" my kids on Facebook again? That didn't work out so well for you, did it? Hmmm?

Gonna create another alt and post my kids pictures here again?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Prince is a very small book. Atlas Shrugged is a very worthless book. What else have you read.

That's ad Hominem.

Try to teach Throb the difference between that and trolling.

Try some von Humboldt, although I'm sure a scholar such as yourself as read it three, maybe four times long before you read Hayek...

I've read Alexis too...

Federalist...

Your moronic postings in favor of elitist tyranny...