[quote]Well Hitler was a National Socialist wasn't he?[/quote]
Doh! Except socialism is about a fairer distribution of wealth and power (equality) while National Socialism was about distributing power and wealth amongst a single 'master' race (inequality). Yeah.............really similar........!hmmm!
Did Jeremy Clarkson tell you Socialism and National Socialism were one and the same?
Gabrielle Giffords attack
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
[quote]Old-style Soviet Communism and National Socialism have much in common: One-party dictatorship, "strongman" leader, total subservience of the individual to the state, mobilisation of "the masses" on behalf of the state, aggressive militarism, state control of production, persecution of certain groups (Jews, intellectuals, certain ethnic minorities and religious groups), labour camps and the imprisonment / murder of people perceived as a threat to the state, the banning of "subversive" literature etc. etc.[/quote]
I think this tells us more about how alike Hitler and Stalin were more than the political ideals that drove them.
I think this tells us more about how alike Hitler and Stalin were more than the political ideals that drove them.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
Sam Slater wrote:
> I think this tells us more about how alike Hitler and Stalin
> were more than the political ideals that drove them.
It seems there is a substantiated effort by the political right in America to disassociate the Nazis with the political right, simply to purge the words "right" and "extreme right" from negative political connotations - which is not entirely unlike socialists disowning Stalin.
> I think this tells us more about how alike Hitler and Stalin
> were more than the political ideals that drove them.
It seems there is a substantiated effort by the political right in America to disassociate the Nazis with the political right, simply to purge the words "right" and "extreme right" from negative political connotations - which is not entirely unlike socialists disowning Stalin.
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
beutelwolf wrote:
> Totalitarianism is right-wing, because it is the modern
> version of 18th century absolutism - and the supporters of it
> were the supporters of the absolute power of the king and sat
> on the right.
Sorry, but I think that's tosh. Where some folk may have sat in 18th century France is of no relevance today surely?
If free market capitalism is "right wing", how can totalitariansm be "right wing", when it does not believe in free markets, or indeed free anything? Was Stalin right wing? He thought he was a communist.
The whole left/right thing is tired. I prefer to look at political parties in terms of how authoritarian they are. The last Labour government ended up too far down the authoritatian line for me. Did that make them right wing?
> Totalitarianism is right-wing, because it is the modern
> version of 18th century absolutism - and the supporters of it
> were the supporters of the absolute power of the king and sat
> on the right.
Sorry, but I think that's tosh. Where some folk may have sat in 18th century France is of no relevance today surely?
If free market capitalism is "right wing", how can totalitariansm be "right wing", when it does not believe in free markets, or indeed free anything? Was Stalin right wing? He thought he was a communist.
The whole left/right thing is tired. I prefer to look at political parties in terms of how authoritarian they are. The last Labour government ended up too far down the authoritatian line for me. Did that make them right wing?
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
Gotta stick up for you David.
A cuntry such as Americy has a large proportion of its population who would easily interpret the stupid Palin woman as telling them to go and shoot what ever the cross hairs are on. In Americy cross hairs mean one thing and one fucking thing only. Shoot the target in the cross hairs. Cross hairs aren't on anything else in that gun smitten land.
I do think she was sublimely telling her followers to go and shoot someone. Someone did. A deranged bastard, a true follower of the Palin woman.
I doubt that she knows what sublimely means. It stands to reason, she knows fuckall anyway.
A cuntry such as Americy has a large proportion of its population who would easily interpret the stupid Palin woman as telling them to go and shoot what ever the cross hairs are on. In Americy cross hairs mean one thing and one fucking thing only. Shoot the target in the cross hairs. Cross hairs aren't on anything else in that gun smitten land.
I do think she was sublimely telling her followers to go and shoot someone. Someone did. A deranged bastard, a true follower of the Palin woman.
I doubt that she knows what sublimely means. It stands to reason, she knows fuckall anyway.
RoddersUK
Re: Eric
Object, direct object, indirect object, no object, object glass, object lesson, objector, objection, objectionable, objectionably, objective, objectively, objective case.
Can't find objectify or objectifying in the Oxford Dictionary. Have they been added since 1984 when my copy was printed?
I understand what you mean though.
Can't find objectify or objectifying in the Oxford Dictionary. Have they been added since 1984 when my copy was printed?
I understand what you mean though.
RoddersUK
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
We all should be worried about the fucking place and it's inhabitants. I am.
RoddersUK
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
Jesus Christ, Robches. Political ideals cover more than just basic freedoms and the rights of citizens. You have to take into account economics, laws and to a certain extent culture and religion.
Your political ideology could be to the far right, where you clamp down on individual freedoms, speech, expression etc, but still have a far left economic doctrine. Stalinism, or Maoism is a good example of this. You can have the same far right political stance when it comes to freedom and also have a far right economic doctrine too, as in Italian and Chilean fascism. They'll allow a free and open market as long as they think it serves the national interest (or an oligarchy/certain class/certain race).
Leaders use economics to help achieve a certain goal. Hitler used a far left economic system because he thought this would make Germany stronger, as did Stalin. Certain fascist/military juntas like Pinochet encouraged a free market because they too thought that was in the national interest. That's why it's simplistic to look at Hitler and say he's to the left, or right. He was both. For me, though, I think the killing and enslaving of certain races, as well as the inability to have Hitler voted out as being more important, or dangerous, than than what type of economic philosophy he implemented. So, to me, Hitler is a far right dictator. He used a far left economic system to strengthen and help enforce a far right political ideal.
Stalin, though, is a little different. By my previous logic you would conclude that I think Stalin a far right dictator too. And I suppose this would sit well with many of my leftist comrades. Unfortunately it's obvious that Stalin and Hitler, while both authoritarian and having far left economies, their motives were different. Hitler used a socialised economy to enrich, and enforce his grip on power, so he could complete his goal of creating a master race. For Stalin he created an authoritarian regime so he could enforce a far left political system on the people. The authoritarian bit I find more dangerous, obviously, but the ultimate goal was Communism and so we lefties can't so easily label him 'right-wing'. He was a far right dictator with a far left agenda. Weird. It's a bit simpler with Hitler. He was a far right dictator with a far right agenda.
Your political ideology could be to the far right, where you clamp down on individual freedoms, speech, expression etc, but still have a far left economic doctrine. Stalinism, or Maoism is a good example of this. You can have the same far right political stance when it comes to freedom and also have a far right economic doctrine too, as in Italian and Chilean fascism. They'll allow a free and open market as long as they think it serves the national interest (or an oligarchy/certain class/certain race).
Leaders use economics to help achieve a certain goal. Hitler used a far left economic system because he thought this would make Germany stronger, as did Stalin. Certain fascist/military juntas like Pinochet encouraged a free market because they too thought that was in the national interest. That's why it's simplistic to look at Hitler and say he's to the left, or right. He was both. For me, though, I think the killing and enslaving of certain races, as well as the inability to have Hitler voted out as being more important, or dangerous, than than what type of economic philosophy he implemented. So, to me, Hitler is a far right dictator. He used a far left economic system to strengthen and help enforce a far right political ideal.
Stalin, though, is a little different. By my previous logic you would conclude that I think Stalin a far right dictator too. And I suppose this would sit well with many of my leftist comrades. Unfortunately it's obvious that Stalin and Hitler, while both authoritarian and having far left economies, their motives were different. Hitler used a socialised economy to enrich, and enforce his grip on power, so he could complete his goal of creating a master race. For Stalin he created an authoritarian regime so he could enforce a far left political system on the people. The authoritarian bit I find more dangerous, obviously, but the ultimate goal was Communism and so we lefties can't so easily label him 'right-wing'. He was a far right dictator with a far left agenda. Weird. It's a bit simpler with Hitler. He was a far right dictator with a far right agenda.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
I thought Left and Right in British Politics is where the parties sit in relation to the Speaker. The government is on his right and the kopposition are on his left. I would hardly call the last Labour fuckups Rightists.
RoddersUK
Re: Gabrielle Giffords attack
RoddersUK wrote:
> Gotta stick up for you David.
>
> A cuntry such as Americy has a large proportion of its
> population who would easily interpret the stupid Palin woman as
> telling them to go and shoot what ever the cross hairs are on.
> In Americy cross hairs mean one thing and one fucking thing
> only. Shoot the target in the cross hairs. Cross hairs aren't
> on anything else in that gun smitten land.
> I do think she was sublimely telling her followers to go and
> shoot someone. Someone did. A deranged bastard, a true follower
> of the Palin woman.
> I doubt that she knows what sublimely means. It stands to
> reason, she knows fuckall anyway.
>
>
The only problem is that the shooter had no relationship or interest with Sarah Palin or the Tea Party at all, he had a completely irrational hatred of the congresswoman dating back to 2007. So you are wrong.
> Gotta stick up for you David.
>
> A cuntry such as Americy has a large proportion of its
> population who would easily interpret the stupid Palin woman as
> telling them to go and shoot what ever the cross hairs are on.
> In Americy cross hairs mean one thing and one fucking thing
> only. Shoot the target in the cross hairs. Cross hairs aren't
> on anything else in that gun smitten land.
> I do think she was sublimely telling her followers to go and
> shoot someone. Someone did. A deranged bastard, a true follower
> of the Palin woman.
> I doubt that she knows what sublimely means. It stands to
> reason, she knows fuckall anyway.
>
>
The only problem is that the shooter had no relationship or interest with Sarah Palin or the Tea Party at all, he had a completely irrational hatred of the congresswoman dating back to 2007. So you are wrong.