mokwit

A bit rich coming from the person who wrote this, no? You are defining the terms to suit your low level of understanding. Again, there is the washing over of facts in order to present one argument as the right one. All of this idiotic arguing over left and right. Hitler insisted that his form of National Socialism was neither left nor right wing. One thing they were all united against was what some would call "economic anti-semitism". But other than that, they various factions had different views, including on racism. Putting everyone either on the left or the right would be a gross oversimplification. But the dummies who like to frame everything as for us or against us, can do nothing else. You are defining the terms to suit your low level of understanding, which you laughably obviously think is a higher one 🤣.

Where are you getting this idea you are so smart. I haven't seen anything smart from you, rather you come across as someone who is overestimating his understanding of things to the point where you think everyone else is a 'moron'.

Yes yes, 'morons on the Right, try to paint the Nazis as being on the Left' everyone else is a moron and you are smart despite an utter nonsense posts. Got it.

So why did you post this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/ It is nothing other than a washing over of facts to present one argument as the right one - in this case that the Nazis were not Socialists. A gross oversimplification which you endorsed by posting it. The two authors I posted are not talking about what Hitler said about whether the Nazis were Socialist they are looking at how the Nazis controlled the means of production from the standpoint of people who were actually there. Everyone else is a dummy, and you are the smart one, got it. What does this: ' they were all united against was what some would call "economic anti-semitism' They were united against economic ant semitism? so they were united against anybody being economically anti semetic? what does that even mean? I thought they were against Jewish business interests, not 'against economic ant semitism'

Is this violence, I mean has he actually got his chopper out and done it? As for "rip your face off" that just donates an extremely unpleasant experience. In financial markets if you/someone takes a big loss you say: "I/he got my/his face ripped off" No actual ripping of the face off is involved. The exception to this is Mexican drug Cartels where they actually do just this to people.. These are just metaphors.

No I didn't, I said that an Oxford professor had stated that Marx had written that a section of society had to be eliminated. I never posted: "Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

Yes, it is probably just coincidence that Communist takeovers are followed by mass murder.

So if there is no link to something it can't be true. What year were you born in, 2000? Other people on this board can make a judgement for themselves as to my reliability regarding information.

US forces did it in WW2 with their Sherman tanks. Likewise here when the Army took back Lumpini they had wooden pallets on their Armoured Personell carriers. They do it in the mistaken hope of providing enough standoff so that if a hollow charge warhead hits the jet of molten metal it produces will have its energy sufficiently dissipated by the wood that it won't penetrate the armour.

The barriers around Parliament aren't called 'diversity barriers' they are called 'indigenous population barriers'.

Someone posted previously that you have to search under your surname only.

That's one interpretation by a US Army Lecturer deemed fit for publication by WP. I couldn't access your link as it is behind a paywall but have read it previously. He does machinations and backflips to try and distance Nazism from Socialism. The header says the Nazis hated Socialists, actually they hated what the regarded as Jewish Bolshevik Internationalists who sought to gain control via Marxism. Here is just one alternative take. Please note this was written by people who were there. Anything coming from MSM or Universities has to be viewed as possibly being tainted by postwar propaganda/bias. 'National Socialism’s Anti-Capitalism and “Socialism” But what about National Socialist economics? Let us look at Gustav Stolper’s German Economy, 1870-1940 (1940). Stolper was the long-time editor of a German economic magazine oriented toward a classical liberal viewpoint. He was forced to leave Germany with Hitler’s rise to power due to his politics and his Jewish family background, and found refuge in the United States. Stolper explained some of the socialist aspects to Nazi ideology and policy: “The National Socialist party was from the outset an anti-capitalist party. As such it was fighting and in competition with Marxism . . . National Socialism wooed the masses [from three angles]. The first angle was the moral principle, the second the financial system, the third the issue of ownership. The moral principle was ‘the commonwealth before self-interest.’ The financial promise was ‘breaking the bondage of interest slavery’. The industrial program was ‘nationalization of all big incorporated business [trusts]’. “By accepting the principle ‘the commonwealth before self-interest,’ National Socialism simply emphasizes its antagonism to the spirit of a competitive society as represented supposedly by democratic capitalism . . . But to the Nazis this principle means also the complete subordination of the individual to the exigencies of the state. And in this sense National Socialism is unquestionably a Socialist system . . . “The nationalization of big industry was never attempted after the Nazis came to power. But this was by no means a ‘betrayal’ of their program, as has been alleged by some of their opponents. The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.” (pp. 232-233; 239-240) German Businessmen Reduced to Enterprise Managers Guenter Reimann, in The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism (1939), highlighted that while most of the means of production had not been nationalized, they had nonetheless been politicized and collectivized under an intricate web of Nazi planning targets, price and wage regulations, production rules and quotas, and strict limits and restraints on the action and decisions of those who remained; nominally, the owners of private enterprises throughout the country. Every German businessman knew that his conduct was prescribed and positioned within the wider planning goals of the National Socialist regime. Not much differently than the state factory managers in the Soviet Union, even at that time under Stalin, the German owners of private enterprises were given wide discretion in the day-to-day management of the enterprises that nominally remained in their possession. But Nazi planning agencies set output targets, determined input supplies and allocations, determined wage and work condition rules, and dictated the availability of investment funds and the rates of interest at which they could be obtained through the banking system, along with strict central control and direction of all import and export trade.' https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/why-hayek-was-right-about-nazis-being-socialists/ Doesn't sound like capitalists controlling the Nazis so they could start wars to profit by. they got their contracts for sure, but everything was costed to the last Reichsmark, and profit was determined by the state.

Saw it on TV in an interview of an Oxford Professor of Politics. Marx was writing in some journal/newspaper. Of course if there is no link it must be untrue, right?

Marx actually states this in his writings (not in Kapital). Source: Oxford Professor.

He is a career politician. He has spent his entire career in disgrace.

My initial post was not clear as to what I meant. Correction: 'most efficient means of CONSUMPTION yet devised' types

In fairness I was mixing my timescales by a few hundred years. the Point I was making in saying that prior to large scale capitalism the only way to dramatically increase a country's wealth was territorial expansion, and here comes the missing factor, often at the behest of an absolute Monarch seeking to increase wealth and influence (Hitler was a de facto absolute Monarch). I am not suggesting it was an absolute or that there were no other factors, but most of Europe's pre 20th century wars seem to have been driven by Monarchist expansion. Yes, I know the UK continued to be expansionist long after industrialisation and Victoria (or Albert) don't seem to have personally been the drivers of this. It was the need for securing raw materials for industry, just as China is doing now via economic colonialism. Germany's expansion into Africa was also resource driven, but with the Kaiser more in the driving seat. The buildup of the German naval fleet to near match UK was a major factor in the lead up to ww1 in my opinion. I have seen it stated that the NSDAP was a party of the middle class, rather than of workers and also that Nazism was created/driven by big business. The first to distance National Socialism from Socialism and the latter to try and create the impression that Capitalism deliberately leads to war ('most efficient means of production yet devised' types). Hitlers National "Socialism" blueprint was a Nationalism focused social movement across society/classes with a common Nationalism focused purpose, not the Socialism of Marx and Engels as some claim but its power base was serving the masses, not Industry, which it subjugated to the state, along with the population. The Nazis were opposed to what they saw as Jewish Bolshevik internationalism. I think few understand the social contract with the Nazis, which was we agree to hand over authority to you as the party that will fix things. At Nuremberg Hitler said that absolute obedience was required all the way from the very bottom to the very top, and this was effectively what the populace agreed to do. It was handed to him/the party more than it was top down enforced on them. They agreed to subjugate themselves to the state for the common good in peacetime, before war was on the horizon..

Yes, absolutely was the case during the war in US and UK, but the Nazis did it on assuming power as a matter of ideology. Industry must serve the state. Hitler met with the leaders of Industry on his first or second day in office to assure them of his intentions (i.e. not state takeover) but it was them coming cap in hand to him, not as the fable goes, the industrial leaders being behind the rise of the Nazis as they saw war profits ahead. Donations to the Nazi party were a matter of pragmatism and against Communism. arguments as to whether the NSDAP was Left or Right really depends on your definitions.Socialist as defined by intellectuals, it was not, it was however a grassroots working class nationalist party that also attracted the middle classes, as much/more as a bulwark against communism than even Nationalist ideology. The Left will go out of their way to deny that the NSDAP was a party of the masses or use a definition of Socialism that suits. Anything to carry on the myth that it was supported by big business with war profits in mind and thus that the Right as supposedly the party of Capitalism/big business creates war. Large scale organised capitalism actually reduced wars as economies wealth could be expanded without conquering territory.

You have to ask just whose puppet Starmer is. Political appointee to the head of the CPS despite his background being in Yuuman Rights cases, not criminal law, then parachuted into a safe seat and then leader of The Labour Party. Ability seems not to have come into it.

I don't think this is what the transgenderism argument is about. You are describing medical conditions that are separate from transgenderism, although a decision might be made as to the sex of a child, this is not the same as transgenderism in children.

Now do The Labour Party.

So the fable goes. So they didn't dictate what could be produced and what level of profit could be made i.e. control the means of production.?

Now do The Labour Party. (wait for it: wahtaboutery, that's not the topic of this discussion etc).

The call for unity followed by persecution. Nothing can be done with people who call for peace and then wage war.

The Left Gaslihghting again.