Is it true that Nazism was a form of Socialism?

[iceaura]

As far as Nazis and Socialism, most information given concerns war, holocaust, and politics. I do know that they pulled themselves out of economic chaos. Whether that was due to socialism or some other economic policies, I'm not certain.

Well fucking look it up - it's all in the historical record.

The large industries that supported the Nazi war effort - which began building up as soon as Hitler took power - were private, corporate, capitalist, profit-making concerns. That was the basis of the German economy under Nazi government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben

The German Nazi government did not even own its central bank - the Reichsbank was a privately owned, for -profit, capitalist entity. You can't get much less socialistic than a capitalist owned for-profit central bank.

Look: German industry was not just an example of corporate capitalism at the time, it was the world's premier example - as of 1938, when Hitler launched the European phase of WWII, those were some of the largest, oldest, most profitable, best established industrial corporate capitalist entities on the planet. The current attempt to present the Nazis, and fascism in general, as "leftwing" or "socialist", is one of the most bizarre features of the current Republican propaganda operations - just the strangest thing.

The Big Lie is very real.

 

[logansandres]

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party.

I just find it curious that, being a populist, socialist movement, there was so much contempt for their Communist neighbor. In my mind there isn't much of a divide between socialism and communism, but maybe there are finer details that I'm not considering.

Well, the turth is that communism never was really reached! It is a utopia to be achieved, where socialsim is a transition stage. which never was passed by any country really. Marks said, that bulding Communism in one separate country is impossible, because it has to be a new worldwide system

 

[joepistole]

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party.

I just find it curious that, being a populist, socialist movement, there was so much contempt for their Communist neighbor. In my mind there isn't much of a divide between socialism and communism, but maybe there are finer details that I'm not considering.

Do you now? There is a big divide between socialism and communism. So if what you wrote were true, you believe there isn't much difference between the US and every advanced economy in the world had communist states like the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China. Think about that for a while. Does that make sense to you?

Additionally, you are confusing political systems with economic systems. There is a difference, and it's a significant difference. The National Socialist Party was a fascist party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Ironically, it's exactly the path Trump and his merry Republicans have taken.

 

[Oystein]

"Is it true that Nazism was a form of Socialism?"

Sure just as an apple is just a variety of orange.

 

[joepistole]

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party.

I just find it curious that, being a populist, socialist movement, there was so much contempt for their Communist neighbor. In my mind there isn't much of a divide between socialism and communism, but maybe there are finer details that I'm not considering.

Basically, you are unable to discern the difference between advanced modern societies and the Soviet Union, communist China, and Cuba.

 

[river]

Of course we all know that Nazi Germany was funded by Western Banks .

Further , Germany at that time also produced its own money , independent of the world monetary system . Which was unacceptable to the World .

Also the civil war in America was also based , manipulated , by Europe , so as to divide the US . Because the US was producing its own currency . Based on its self .

 

[joepistole]

Of course we all know that Nazi Germany was funded by Western Banks .

Given Nazi Germany was a Western power, who should have funded Nazi Germany? Do you think there is something nefarious about the Nazi government borrowing from Nazi controlled banks?

Further , Germany at that time also produced its own money , independent of the world monetary system . Which was unacceptable to the World .

Virtually every country at that time produced it's own currency. Why is that important? Why is it relevant? It isn't.

Also the civil war in America was also based , manipulated , by Europe , so as to divide the US . Because the US was producing its own currency . Based on its self .

That's pure unmitigated nonsense. If you have any evidence to back your assertion up, now is the time to show it.

 

[river]

http://rense.com/general78/brudt.htm

 

[joepistole]

http://rense.com/general78/brudt.htm

If you have something to say, say it.

 

[river]

If you have something to say, say it.

We have been manipulated from behind the scenes , by some of those who have extrodinary power of money .

Not for the benefit of Humanity but for the benefit of themselves .

 

[joepistole]

We have been manipulated from behind the scenes , by some of those who have extrodinary power of money .

Not for the benefit of Humanity but for the benefit of themselves .

Well, yeah, that's what advertisement is all about. Billions are spent each year on advertising in an attempt to manipulate people, to get them to do something. That's not news. You can argue about the merits of commercial and political advertising. Personally, I hate it. It's ubiquitous, because it works.

With the rise of right wing entertainment and the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, political manipulation has risen dramatically and to the detriment of the nation and the world, because it is deeply rooted in and dependent upon misinformation. That's how we get someone like The Donald who is the consummate right wing entertainer.

 

[wellwisher]

Well, yeah, that's what advertisement is all about. Billions are spent each year on advertising in an attempt to manipulate people, to get them to do something. That's not news. You can argue about the merits of commercial and political advertising. Personally, I hate it. It's ubiquitous, because it works.

With the rise of right wing entertainment and the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, political manipulation has risen dramatically and to the detriment of the nation and the world, because it is deeply rooted in and dependent upon misinformation. That's how we get someone like The Donald who is the consummate right wing entertainer.

The fairness doctrine was not based on fairness, in a free society, where everyone plays by the same rules, and victory goes to the champions. The fairness doctrine was government creating two sets of rules, so the second string left can pretend to be first string, and first string gets to be assigned second string. That is called fair, only by the left, as though calling a snail a cheetah will makes it run faster.

The Fairness Doctrine was originally geared toward talk radio; Rush Limbaugh, because the left can't compete in that medium. They needed a way to cheat. The radio programming on the left tends to get boring to where even their base you stop listening. Talk Radio works best when there is hard data and logic. TV is better suited to the left, since one can compensate the lack thereof, with visual gimmicks and emotional appeal to distract.

For example, if you were listening to a female voice on the radio, you may listen to what she says since this is the only sense being used. If you then saw her on TV, and she was wearing sexy clothes, many people would be distracted and will no longer listen to her to the same degree. This distraction benefits the left. The right does well on radio because the audience wants to hear nuance, and not be distracted by video feed and body language. The fairness doctrine was a way to force people to listen to the left. They would become an annoying commercial, that would make the radio experience boring, so there is only TV left.

 

[joepistole]

The fairness doctrine was not based on fairness, in a free society, where everyone plays by the same rules, and victory goes to the champions. The fairness doctrine was government creating two sets of rules, so the second string left can pretend to be first string, and first string gets to be assigned second string. That is called fair, only by the left, as though calling a snail a cheetah will makes it run faster.

LOL....

Have you been hitting the hooch Wellwisher?

Where are these 2 sets of rules you assert were created by the Fairness Doctrine? Please do be specific and lay off the cheetahs.

The fact is the Fairness Doctrine did no such thing. It created one set of rules for everyone to play by, and it had nothing to do with victors, champions or cheetahs.

For your edification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, which it was believed to have been under pressure to do from Ronald Reagan, then President of the United States, and in August of 2011, the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]" Wikipedia

The Fairness Doctrine was originally geared toward talk radio; Rush Limbaugh, because the left can't compete in that medium. They needed a way to cheat. The radio programming on the left tends to get boring to where even their base you stop listening. Talk Radio works best when there is hard data and logic. TV is better suited to the left, since one can compensate the lack thereof, with visual gimmicks and emotional appeal to distract.

For example, if you were listening to a female voice on the radio, you may listen to what she says since this is the only sense being used. If you then saw her on TV, and she was wearing sexy clothes, many people would be distracted and will no longer listen to her to the same degree. This distraction benefits the left. The right does well on radio because the audience wants to hear nuance, and not be distracted by video feed and body language. The fairness doctrine was a way to force people to listen to the left. They would become an annoying commercial, that would make the radio experience boring, so there is only TV left.

Sorry Wellwisher, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense to one who knows anything about recent history. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land long before the rise of right wing radio. The Rush Limbaugh show began in 1988. The Fairness Doctrine began in 1949 and ended in 1987.

Unfortunately for you and your right wing cohorts, i.e. Republicans, facts do matter.

On must wonder why is it right wingers like you are so afraid of an honest and fair discussion of important national issues. The answer is quite simple. Your worst fear is a well informed voter base, because if voters were well and accurately informed, they wouldn't be right wingers. That's why right wingers vehemently oppose the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Your ideology is deeply rooted in deception and dishonesty. It cannot withstand the light of truth. That's the bottom line here.

 

[river]

Well, yeah, that's what advertisement is all about. Billions are spent each year on advertising in an attempt to manipulate people, to get them to do something. That's not news. You can argue about the merits of commercial and political advertising. Personally, I hate it. It's ubiquitous, because it works.

With the rise of right wing entertainment and the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, political manipulation has risen dramatically and to the detriment of the nation and the world, because it is deeply rooted in and dependent upon misinformation. That's how we get someone like The Donald who is the consummate right wing entertainer.

Time will tell .

Does he have the Freedom to do what he likes ?

Well shall , observe .

 

[wellwisher]

LOL....

Have you been hitting the hooch Wellwisher?

Where are these 2 sets of rules you assert were created by the Fairness Doctrine? Please do be specific and lay off the cheetahs.

The fact is the Fairness Doctrine did no such thing. It created one set of rules for everyone to play by, and it had nothing to do with victors, champions or cheetahs.

For your edification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, which it was believed to have been under pressure to do from Ronald Reagan, then President of the United States, and in August of 2011, the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]" Wikipedia

Sorry Wellwisher, but that doesn't make the least bit of sense to one who knows anything about recent history. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land long before the rise of right wing radio. The Rush Limbaugh show began in 1988. The Fairness Doctrine began in 1949 and ended in 1987.

Unfortunately for you and your right wing cohorts, i.e. Republicans, facts do matter.

On must wonder why is it right wingers like you are so afraid of an honest and fair discussion of important national issues. The answer is quite simple. Your worst fear is a well informed voter base, because if voters were well and accurately informed, they wouldn't be right wingers. That's why right wingers vehemently oppose the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Your ideology is deeply rooted in deception and dishonesty. It cannot withstand the light of truth. That's the bottom line here.

What you need to understand about the left, are they play word games to confuse the issues. The Affordable Care act was never affordable, but was predictively expensive. The word affordable was there to create an illusion. It may be affordable to mostly left leaning people who will get free health care. Crossing the isle for the Democrats means Republicans agreeing with the Democrat agenda. In the last budget cycle the Right gave Obama everything he wanted. It has nothing to do with the Democrats now crossing the isle to agree with Trump or the Republicans. When you hear fairness doctrine, it is not designed to be fair in the literal sense of fair. Those are words used to scam. Fair means free market, but to the left it means controlled by the government so the left gains an advantage.

There are more left leaning media outlets than right leaning. Hollywood tends to slant left and controls an entire area of the cultural media. Most discussion forums, the present included, slant to the left. I have yet to see left leaning opinion get suspended by the staff, for an opinion lacking science authentication. If you attack a conservative you will not be suspended. That is the fairness doctrine. This is why they got rid of it.

People like Rush Limbaugh are very effective became of logic and data. There is now no regulatory way to censor him, other than the left trying to kill the messenger to neutralize his message. Over the years, the left has attempted bring him down with fake outrage and news, but Limbaugh survived and got larger. Now they want a law to do him in.

Trump spent hundreds of hours listening to Limbaugh, and learned how to deal with left leaning fairness standards, which are based on dual standards. How about asking the NY times to criticize the left every other story? How about every other week, all the national networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, do only pro-Trump stories. How about Hollywood be required to make half the movies favor conservative values? That would not be fair to the left.

 

[joepistole]

What you need to understand about the left, are they play word games to confuse the issues.

What you need to understand is, that is exactly what the right wing does. Both sides are guilty of playing word games, but right wingers more so than the left. That is why right wingers are so vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine.

Affordable Care act was never affordable, but was predictively expensive.

Except that is patently untrue. It's difficult to get more affordable than free, and for many Americans it provided free healthcare. For many others it provided healthcare for less than market, because it was subsidized by the federal government. You are reciting a right wing campaign propaganda.

Healthcare has for decades been expensive and with each passing year it has become more expensive. The ACA has slowed the growth in healthcare expenses. That's a good thing unless you are a right winger.

If you weren't paying for healthcare insurance or weren't purchasing adequate healthcare insurance, yeah, you are paying more for healthcare insurance, because before Obamacare you were gaming the system. Under Obamacare you are required to pay your fair share. Under Obamacare you aren't allowed to be a deadbeat.

The word affordable was there to create an illusion. It may be affordable to mostly left leaning people who will get free health care. Crossing the isle for the Democrats means Republicans agreeing with the Democrat agenda. In the last budget cycle the Right gave Obama everything he wanted. It has nothing to do with the Democrats now crossing the isle to agree with Trump or the Republicans. When you hear fairness doctrine, it is not designed to be fair in the literal sense of fair. Those are words used to scam. Fair means free market, but to the left it means controlled by the government so the left gains an advantage.

No it wasn't. The affordable care act wasn't an illusion. It was and is a reality for millions of Americans. Don't look now Wellwisher, you have just contradicted yourself again. In your first sentence you assert the Affordable Healthcare Act wasn't affordable, and in the next sentence you write it "may be affordable to mostly left leaning people who will get free healthcare". Either it is affordable or it isn't, and clearly for millions of people it is affordable. It's difficult to be more affordable than free.

Your angst seems to be that some "left leaning" people get free healthcare under Obamacare. You don't seem to mind all the right wing leaning people who get free or reduced cost healthcare insurance under the ACA. Well, that speaks volumes; doesn't it? And you are angered because all the deadbeats in our healthcare system, the people who could afford healthcare but weren't purchasing healthcare or purchasing inadequate healthcare, are no longer allowed to abuse the healthcare system? And you think that is good?

In the last budget cycle the "right gave Obama everything he wanted"? You have been hitting the hooch again or listening to too much right wing entertainment. They both have similar effects on right wingers. On the night of Obama's inauguration right wingers conspired to oppose everything Obama did, even if they were once for it. And that's exactly what Republicans, i.e. right wingers have done for the last 8 years: even to the point where Senate Democrats were forced to changed the filibuster rules in order to keep government functioning. Republicans took the filibuster to unprecedented levels.






http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/03/The-Conspiracy-to-Commit-Legislative-Constipation

Once again Wellwisher, the facts are just not consistent with your posts.

Contrary to your assertion, the Fairness Doctrine is just what it says. It requires media outlets to provide a fair and honest discussion of issues of national importance. It's not complicated, and it worked well for decades. But Republicans have vehemently opposed it, and Republicans killed it. Why are Republicans so afraid of honest and fair discussions? I think the answer is obvious. If we had honest and fair discussions few would follow the Republican ideology.

By the way, Wellwisher, free and honest discussions have nothing to do with free markets. That's unmitigated nonsense. The bottom line here is Republicans are heavily reliant upon deception and manipulation. That's why Republicans fear the Fairness Doctrine and vehemently oppose it. Their party would be burned by daylight. That's why Republicans fear the Fairness Doctrine.

There are more left leaning media outlets than right leaning. Hollywood tends to slant left and controls an entire area of the cultural media. Most discussion forums, the present included, slant to the left. I have yet to see left leaning opinion get suspended by the staff, for an opinion lacking science authentication. If you attack a conservative you will not be suspended. That is the fairness doctrine. This is why they got rid of it.

That's hogwash. Do you really believe that? Just because a media outlet isn't a Fox News, One America, or right wing rabid drooling media outlet, it doesn't mean they are "left". There is something in this country called the mainstream media where fact and reason matter, and fortunately that is the bulk of American media. They are equal opportunity. The report the news in a fair and balanced manner. They take their jobs as journalists seriously.

Republicans got rid of the Fairness Doctrine because they didn't want a fair and honest discussion of the facts, because their ideology is heavily dependent upon deception and dishonesty.

People like Rush Limbaugh are very effective became of logic and data. There is now no regulatory way to censor him, other than the left trying to kill the messenger to neutralize his message. Over the years, the left has attempted bring him down with fake outrage and news, but Limbaugh survived and got larger. Now they want a law to do him in.

People like Rush Limbaugh aren't honest. They are very effective demagogues, but they are not honest. No one is arguing that Limbaugh should be censored. That's a right wing straw man. What they are arguing is that listeners be provided with a fair and honest discussion of issues so as to produce a better informed voter which is crucial for a democracy. That's not what Limbaugh or any of his colleagues do.

Trump spent hundreds of hours listening to Limbaugh, and learned how to deal with left leaning fairness standards, which are based on dual standards. How about asking the NY times to criticize the left every other story? How about every other week, all the national networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, do only pro-Trump stories. How about Hollywood be required to make half the movies favor conservative values? That would not be fair to the left.

Trump is the epitome of a right wing demagogue. He is the ideal Republican entertainer. He makes things up as needed. He lies. He is a serial liar.

It's not the job of the New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any other media outlet to enforce a false equivalence. Their job is to honestly and fairly report the news and provide a platform for fair and honest discussion. It isn't their job to ensure the Republican Party receives only favorable coverage and Democrats receive only unfavorable coverage. It isn't their job to balance the scales. It's their job to honestly report the facts. It's not their fault if Republicans end up on the wrong end of the facts.

Republicans now control the government. They are going to get a lot of coverage, and it isn't going to all be favorable. We don't live in Russia.

 

[Bowser]

What you need to understand about the left, are they play word games to confuse the issues. The Affordable Care act was never affordable, but was predictively expensive. The word affordable was there to create an illusion. It may be affordable to mostly left leaning people who will get free health care. Crossing the isle for the Democrats means Republicans agreeing with the Democrat agenda. In the last budget cycle the Right gave Obama everything he wanted. It has nothing to do with the Democrats now crossing the isle to agree with Trump or the Republicans. When you hear fairness doctrine, it is not designed to be fair in the literal sense of fair. Those are words used to scam. Fair means free market, but to the left it means controlled by the government so the left gains an advantage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

There are more left leaning media outlets than right leaning. Hollywood tends to slant left and controls an entire area of the cultural media. Most discussion forums, the present included, slant to the left. I have yet to see left leaning opinion get suspended by the staff, for an opinion lacking science authentication. If you attack a conservative you will not be suspended. That is the fairness doctrine. This is why they got rid of it.

People like Rush Limbaugh are very effective became of logic and data. There is now no regulatory way to censor him, other than the left trying to kill the messenger to neutralize his message. Over the years, the left has attempted bring him down with fake outrage and news, but Limbaugh survived and got larger. Now they want a law to do him in.

Trump spent hundreds of hours listening to Limbaugh, and learned how to deal with left leaning fairness standards, which are based on dual standards. How about asking the NY times to criticize the left every other story? How about every other week, all the national networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, do only pro-Trump stories. How about Hollywood be required to make half the movies favor conservative values? That would not be fair to the left.

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm not certain the subjectivity can be forced out of journalism, or that it is possible to give two opposing views equal footing. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea.

 

[joepistole]

The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land for many decades and it worked well. Why is it Republicans are so afraid of a fair and honest discussion? It's not a matter of subjectivity. It's a matter of a free and honest discussion. No one is expecting Rush Limbaugh to be unbiased. That's not what the Fairness Doctrine does. I merely requires a fair and honest airing of the issues.

 

[Bowser]

No one is expecting Rush Limbaugh to be unbiased. That's not what the Fairness Doctrine does. I merely requires a fair and honest airing of the issues.

The question would be, can you have a fair on honest airing of the issue when the commentator is bias? In principle I agree with the idea.

 

[joepistole]

The question would be, can you have a fair on honest airing of the issue when the commentator is bias? In principle I agree with the idea.

Sure you can. It happens everyday in courtrooms across the land. We are all biased. But that doesn't mean we cannot have fair and honest discussions. Any human with a functional brain is biased. It's how human brains are constructed. Biases are short cuts in our thinking processes. Our brains are full of short cuts. But that doesn't mean we cannot manage them. It doesn't mean we cannot have fair and honest discussions.

It happens everyday in our courtrooms, and for nearly a half century it happened on our airwaves everyday and on every news program.