Conservatives: What did Hitler get wrong?

Wow, just wow.

It is called "Fascist" because that is the name that the founder of the movement picked.

Fascist, after the Fascis. An ancient Etruscan and later Roman symbol, an axe surrounded by sticks, meant to show strength through unity.



This long predates both Der Paper Hanger and Il Lamp Ornament. And it was a perfect symbol for a National Socialist movement.

And while you and others are going on and on about it is all about "racial/national groups", consider the simple fact that of all the "Fascist - National Socialist" governments in the last 100 years, Nazi Germany is the only one that took it into a racial genocidal area.

China, England, Czechoslovakia, India, Italy, all had "National Socialist" movements and parties, all predating that of Germany. And none of them became genocidal, nor placed race, religion, or any of that coprolite as part of their founding beliefs in any way.

Do not confuse Fascism or anything else with the actions of Germany. That was very much an exception to the political philosophy.

And Fascism is only "Right Wing", when compared to the more commonly accepted "Socialism" (Communism) that it was the arch-opponent of. Kind of like if you look at an Anarchist organization, the Democratic Party is "Right Wing".

And to an absolutist dictatorship, the Republicans would be "Left Wing".

 

Trump demonstrates "ignorance and lack of investigative interest" because he retweeted something? Oh come on, get over yourself. The poorer candidate lost to the better candidate.

 

He underestimated the American People, something The Trumpster will never do. But since you brought up the Germans, Der Spiegel wonders, Has political correctness backfired on the America Left?
~
Now, two months after the election, those looking for clues as to how Trump’s victory became possible quickly arrive at the refusal of many Trump detractors — including members of Hillary Clinton’s own campaign team — to confront the uncomfortable fact that there are legions of Trump fans all across the country. It’s almost as if, in the face of Trump, liberal America collectively retreated to a “safe space.” And when they finally resurfaced after the election, Trump had won!
~
They want to return to the same unreality that resulted in their stunning across-the-board loss in November, a disconnect from mainstream America that has almost reached satirical heights as Der Spiegel points out:
~
In the last decade, the obsession with minorities and their victimhood may have gone overboard. In the New York Times last month, Mark Lilla, a professor at Columbia University, argued that American liberalism in recent years has been seized by hysteria regarding race, gender and sexual identity. Lilla says it was a strategic error on the part of Hillary Clinton to focus her campaign so heavily on African-Americans, Latinos, the LGBT community and women. “The fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups,” he wrote.

Even as the white working class and lower class flocked to Trump in droves, students at Oberlin were busy organizing a protest against the food served at the Afrikan Heritage House. A few students had pointed out that the dishes there were at most Westernized interpretations of the original recipes, a state of affairs which showed a lack of respect toward African traditions. This offense, too, has a term: “cultural appropriation.”
~
http://www.spiegel.de/international...l-correctness-helped-trump-win-a-1125725.html

Campus-related political correctness is easier to spot — but it only accounts for part of the progressive disconnect, and the frustration of Middle Americans. Still, this focus is important not just because Academia is the wellspring of obsessive political correctness, but also the presumed source for America’s future. Oehmke asks a particularly good question after noting several examples of special-snowflake eruptions:
~
What was going on? Where, if not here, did young men and women have the opportunity to mature into citizens, into people who could also confront unpleasant views?
~
Increasingly, that place has become the private-sector or military worlds, which is why so many of those in Academia resist joining either. Consider how a magazine in Germany could have such clarity of vision about the perils of political correctness in America, and so few in our mainstream media have managed to achieve it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/06/der-spiegel-has-political-correctness-backfired-in-america/

 

That which is commonly placed on "the right" has nothing in common except opposing the left. What could people like milton friedman and hitler have in common? They could not be further apart. You must understand that "the right" is not a rigourosly defined term. It depends on context. As i have said, the only thing in common they have is that they are not the left. Trying to associate conservatives with nazism is like saying a cat is like an apple because neither is a table. Its nonsense.

If spending money on community made a government socialist, literally every government in history would be socialist. Dont you realise what a ridiculous definition you are using??

 

Never claimed he did; your distinction does not negate my point.

- - - Updated - - -

Was this policy enacted and then discontinued after 1934?
No.
Thus, its inclusion does not meet the needs of the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Ideologically, the mainstream GOP is now where the Democrats were in, say 1980.
To cliam the country is moving to the right denotes a certain ignorance of history.

 

No. Try digesting my post and its meaning. Comprehension is everything.

 

Nice dance there! It's settled. Mussolini defined fascism and Hitler was a fascist.

 

Is it that you don't think the US social state qualifies as a socialist effort? All of that healthcare, foodstamps and welfare spending? I think it's an honest definition that forces people to look at the extent that these systems are mixed rather than monoliths. Look at 'socialist' Sweden. This is a considerably capitalistic country, even though there are social programs and an ethos of socialism.

 

I think Franco did a lot to specifically define who spanish people were, what religion they had and language they could speak. I thought this was the game that India had as well, battling sikhs and muslims. Hitler Mugabe and Papa Doc were fascists who savored the race hate. Mussolini didn't have an anti-semitic race dictate? He didn't campaign in Africa to root out 'mongrels'?

It's hard to take your vision of fascism seriously.

 

He got too big for his boots and made a truckload of mistakes, but after Pearl Harbor he made the grandaddy of them all by declaring war on America to show his solidarity with the Japs. Bad call-

 

Comprehension of nonsense really isn't anything at all.

 

No duh hitler was a fascist. Good thinking there, but whats your point? It doesnt seem to have anything to do with my post

I would say there is a difference between socialist and socialistic. There are socialistic elements to the usa and sweden, but neither are socialist countries. For it to be a socialist country, the laws of socialism, de jure or de facto, would have to rule, which importantly includes common ownership of means of production. Socialism is more than a welfare state, a fact which many seem to forget... also, while socialism entails a welfare state, a welfare state does not entail socialism.

 

Right/left wing are terms are in the context of specific political environments. In Mussolini's Italy there were Republicans and commies taking up right and left wings, then the fascists presented a heavy-handed state that was to the right of the commies.

My point about socialism in countries that don't declare themselves socialist is that these systems can exist within governments to a significant extent, even though they're not ethics that the government is pursuing. Look, again, at the US social services systems or China's capitalist/merchantilist systems. These are the worlds biggest examples of each, but in governments rhetorically opposed to their existence.

 

With the means of production purposed for profit, doesn't tax and spend proportionately constitute a claim of communal ownership? In the US, we have income tax and democracy. Does the 1/3 of my income being collected and spent at the behest of the public mean that this 1/3 - by law - is commonly owned? I'm ok with socialistic, and I won't actually call the US socialist.

 

I understand your argument here, but again, following this logic would mean that any democratic system with taxation would qualify as socialist, but that would make the definition so broad as to be meaningless. Basically, the premise leads to nonsense, so i conclude the premise is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: also, taxation isnt really control of the means of production, but the fruits of it. A small difference.

 

But we do find that modern democracies have all onboarded not only tax and spend, but social spending. The broadness of meaning is to classify the occasional churchgoer as a religious adherent, even though they're not a priest. Similarly, a democracy that hasn't drawn a line against socialism will have ardent advocates of unmistakable socialism, while others may not be so extreme. So much is presumed to follow Marx' revolutionary impetus that the creep of social spending and programming in democracies can be overlooked.

Indeed it's that nuance like control vs demand of the fruits that offers it shelter. Regulation vs control. Turn up the volume on social programs, tax or regulation, and it becomes glaring. With these matters muted relative to capitalist interests, does it mean that they're not there, moreover dominant to many modern democracies? Turning down the volume by way of austerity certainly gets a lot of attention from these social compacts.

 

Yeah, forget Russia, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Commonwealth forces and Free French and despite the fact that you were two years late; America won WW2 all by herself and you prove it with a posed photo. You also win the World Series at Rounder’s.
What would we all do without you??

 

You talking to me mate? I'm British in case you hadn't noticed, we and our commonwealth and european allies stood alone against Adolf for over 2 years until America joined the party in Dec 41 to help finish him off.
For example we were busting SS 'Death's Head' Division ass in France in 1940, then later that same year we duffed up the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain..

BRITS PANIC SS-TOTENKOPF DIVISION, France 1940
Gen. Heinz Guderian quote from his book 'Panzer Leader', page 114-
"On the 21st of May a noteworthy event occurred to the north of us: English tanks attempted to break through in the direction of Paris.
At Arras they came up against the SS Division Totenkopf which had not been in action before and which showed signs of panic"

 

The Germans and Japanese would have won WW2 if not for US involvement.

 

Indeed, and the exact same thing can be said about the uk, and of the ussr.

Uk+ussr+us was stronger than ita+ger+jap. Take away any of them, and the axis would be stronger.

 

And interesting that most of what you tried to bring up had nothing to do with Fascism at all. Is this your norm, throw around a bunch of crap, and hope that some of it sticks?

François Duvalier was in no way a National Socialist. He was simply a Nationalist Dictator who did anything he could to remain in power (including courting the Church and military).

Sikhs and Muslims, what in the frack does that have to do with the topic? Nothing that I can see, especially since the groups behind the movements are neither Sheikh nor Muslims.

I guess that in your world, a "Fascist" is anybody you do not like. Kinda like the "Nixon is a Fascist - Reagan is a Fascist - Bush is a Fascist - Trump is a Fascist" crowd. Myself, I live in reality and not what I wish things would be.

 

Questionable.

Japan simply bit off more than she could chew, in trying to occupy China let alone the rest of the SEACPS. I am betting that they could have been embroiled in a 3 sided war in China to this day if the US had never gotten involved.

And remember, that Germany was never planning on becoming a gigantic monolithic nation. Their actual goal was occupation, replacing the government, then moving out. Their goal was never like the USSR with a "Communist Empire", but in having friendly National-Socialist nations all around them, all looking primarily towards their own matters.

Kind of like how Italy - Spain - Germany largely left each other alone during WWII. One of the real downfalls of the Axis powers was that simply they never seriously worked together. Each was basically their own nation, following their own goals, only calling for help (and given help) on rare occasions.

Unlike all of the various "Independent SSR Republics", which all just so happened to jump exactly as their masters in Moscow told them to.

 

I mostly know of the Euro Fascists. I did mention them. I mention the sikh pogroms because that's all that I know about india's fascist movement. Originally you mentioned India and I associated it with the 20s or 30s over there when they went all hindu-nationalist. Muslims and Sikhs are minorities in India. I still think this common thread of a dominant religiously or ethnically defined majority is strong with the fascists.

Maybe you can break down more on fascism in India or in some other places which you don't think this character exists.

I think to be fascist you have to be a dictator... It's even more fundamental than the nation/race/religion component I'm on. It's a stretch to say US presidents can really be fascist. Completely hypothetical.

 

Since you don't appear to be able to post without spurious ad homs your posts on this topic will be ignored.

FTR the fact Hitler callously murdered the leading socialists in the Nazi party exposes the fallacy that he was a socialist. He also imprisoned all of the members of the German Socialist party in the Reichstag. Everything that you alleged was socialism was actually just his seizing of power for his own dictatorship. Hitler sent out his brownshirt thugs to attack both the socialist and communist party supporters. Hitler was not a socialist and his vision for Germany was not a socialist vision.

 

And yet, he did not roll back the socialist policies of Weimar/Nazi Germany - in fact, in certain areas, it expanded.

You mistake his liquidation of certain socialists as a action against socialism, when in fact it was an action against the people themselves, taken to consolidate his power.