Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Little Secret About the Nazis (They were left-wing socialists like the modern left of today)
russp ^ | 1/2002 | Richard Poe

Posted on 02/18/2002 2:19:04 PM PST by TLBSHOW

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-162 next last
To: Asclepius
We explain the tenacity of the Jew not by his religion, but, on the contrary, by the human basis of his religion -- practical need, egoism.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "the human basis of his religion" is. What does that phrase mean? If "the human basis" of the Jewish religion is corrupt, isn't that the same thing as saying Judaism is corrupt?

51 posted on 02/18/2002 3:28:14 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
and clinton went to a conference of christians and said to them in a provocative way that hitler was a christian, that was extremely offensive for a president of the US to do that.
52 posted on 02/18/2002 3:29:01 PM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Dear xm177e2... I was wondering if you've ever read a rather large tome, difficult to get ahold of in the US for obvious reasons, called The Black Book of Communism.?

It's a compendium of scholarly essays by a dozen or more French scholars, a few of them Jewish, recounting in lengthy, scholarly, and nauseating detail the triumph of Bolschevism during the Twentieth Century and its murder, by one means or another (not counting combat casualties, either) of over 100 million people.

In it, the extended role, (out of all proportion to their numerical presence in Russian society), of Jews in the Russian revolution and the following decades, is recounted.

It should not be considered by a rational person as anti-Semitic to note these data, since all of them, or nearly all of them, come from the essays by Jewish scholars themselves.

But it is mentioned more than once how the post-WWII European and American Left were at huge pains to paint German Naziism and Italian Fascism as phenomena of the RIGHT, whatever that might actually be, and to associate them closely with Republican Oibertarianism, or Liberal Democracy, or however you care to designate the political beliefs and practices of the American Founding Fathers.

This book should be required reading in all American universities, and yet you will not find it in more than a tenth or less, of our academic libraries.

It's huge, detailed, and its references along account for a probably a quarter or more of its volume.

If you can find it, read it. I haven't checked Amazon yet since I ordered it from England via Barnes & Noble.

Received it from the hands of an elderly British Lefty crone, who could not disguise her contempt for the idea of listing Leftist crimes.

"Perhaps we should have a Black Book of Capitalism?" she sneered when I expressed my eagerness to get started on it.

English Lefties are far far more obnoxious than our brand, since they don't stop short going all the way.

But the Fiction of "Right-Wing Totalitarianism" persists, and God only knows when this straight-jacket for the mind will finally be shed.

All the best,

Maturin

53 posted on 02/18/2002 3:29:31 PM PST by maturin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
War is coming...
We're already at war. As for the relationship between fascism and the political left, I need no convincing. I agree with you. I've read FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Hannah Arendt's Totalitarianism and Eatwell's Fascism; A History and Laquer's Fascism, Past, Present, and Future etc. and I agree with them. Well, most of them.

The issue I referred to was the author's misreading of Marx's On the Jewish Question.
54 posted on 02/18/2002 3:30:00 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism -- huckstering and its preconditions -- the Jew will have become impossible

Again, what is "the empirical essence of Judaism?" How can Marx say "the empirical essence of Judaism" is "huckstering," and not be attacking Judaism?

55 posted on 02/18/2002 3:30:20 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: maturin
difficult to get ahold of in the US for obvious reasons

I've seen it in bookstores before. You can get any newly published hard-to-find book at Amazon.com (or Borders.com, or Barnes and Noble.com, etc.). And if you don't want to order over the internet, you can go into any bookstore, and have them place an order for you, they're happy to do it.

56 posted on 02/18/2002 3:32:36 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "the human basis of his religion" is. What does that phrase mean? If "the human basis" of the Jewish religion is corrupt, isn't that the same thing as saying Judaism is corrupt?
Here is what you don't understand. Marx at this point in his development based most of his thinking about religion on Feuerbach, another left Hegelian. One of Feuerbach's principal theses was simply that every statement we made about God was really an inverted claim about our own social lives--religion was not about heaven, but an expression of the human condition (or "human basis"). Yes. Marx believed Judaism was corrupt; but he believed all religion was corrupt. He never advocated the liquidation of the Jews.
57 posted on 02/18/2002 3:34:28 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
It has been said that Nazism is not a philosophy but a passion for destruction. Destruction, however, cannot be achieved with the Nazi consistency or on the Nazi scale, except by means of a certain philosophy and as an expression of it. It has been said that the Nazis are not ideologists, but power lusters. In fact, they are power lusters whose power depends on a specific ideology. It has been said that the Nazis are not thinkers but criminals. The truth is that they are criminals spawned by thinkers, i.e., philosophically produced criminals – which is what gave them the kind of world-historical role denied to any plain criminal.

The intellectuals of the West today (as at the time as Hitler) are a product of the same philosophical trend. Most of them, still reflecting some remnant of a better past, condemn the actions of Hitler, while advocating the same basic ideas that he did (though in different variants). Such men are helpless to understand Nazism or to explain its emergence or to fight it. They purport to find the roots of Nazism in anything – in any practical crisis or any crackpot ideologue buried in the interstices of German history – in anything except fundamental philosophical ideas, the ones openly championed all around us, the ones they themselves share. Then they are forced to admit that by their account the rise of Nazism is inexplicable.

One such scholar, after presenting Nazism as an outlandish version of a narrow 19th century political theory (Social Darwinism), concludes as follows: “But that such a collection of ideas could capture the allegiance of millions of rational men and women will perhaps remain always something of a mystery.” If his account of the Nazi ideology were true, the success of Nazism would be more than “something of a mystery.” – it would be wholly unintelligible.

No weird cultural aberration produced Nazism. No intellectual lunatic fringe miraculously overwhelmed a civilized country. It is modern philosophy – not some peripheral aspect of it, but the most central of its mainstreams – which turned the Germans into a nation of killers.

The land of poets and philosophers was brought down by its poets and philosophers.

Twice in our century Germany fought to rule and impose its culture on the rest of the world. It lost both wars. But on a deeper level it is achieving its goal nevertheless. It is on the verge of winning the philosophical war against the West, with everything this implies.

The ideas of German philosophy have long since jumped national borders and become the trend of the West. Half the countries of Europe are already enslaved by such ideas. The rest of the continent, under similar guidance, is on the point of collapse.

There is only one country that, though paralyzed at present, is still able to resist the German takeover. In all history, it is the least likely candidate for such a takeover, if it can regain its own ideas and its self-esteem in time. The last great battle of the war of the century is now taking place – in the last of the great, unconquered nations left on earth.

Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, pp 97-99

And we're losing the battle, folks, in every area that really counts. The war is yet to be fought.
58 posted on 02/18/2002 3:34:30 PM PST by Noumenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
State control, re-distribution of wealth, socialism with the state as the controller in all things, is ALWAYS leftist. The nazi's were the extreme leftists of the era, who capitalized on tough times by energizing the laborers (hitler started the laborers/workers party union) in gatherings at local pubs, reintroducing local/ patriotic songs, and slowly building up a base of those who agreed that a purer, tightly held GE was the answer.

The nazi's are the left wings dream team. Total state control-cradle to grave.

I know that if anyone were to ask hillary clinton if she thought a national work force uniform would be a good idea, she would probably laugh it off with some difficulty because I know, as sure as I know this woman is a marxist thru and thru, that she would LOVE to see this nation in a standard uniform, happy little worker bees dancing for their queen (oh yeah....yeah baby....for sure!).

Hillary, ya know, likes things, ya know, equal. Ya know. Like, REALLY EQUAL. Ya know, except, ya know, well, when it comes to, ya know, herself. Then stealing state items is ok because, ya know, she is, ya know, WORTH IT! Ya know?

59 posted on 02/18/2002 3:36:34 PM PST by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Again, what is "the empirical essence of Judaism?" How can Marx say "the empirical essence of Judaism" is "huckstering," and not be attacking Judaism?
You changed your position. And I never said Marx wasn't attacking Judaism. (He attacks every religion!) The empirical essense of Judiasm for Marx were the objective-material conditions of exploitation and suffering that made any religion necessary. That sort of thing. Marx never advocates liquidating the Jews.
60 posted on 02/18/2002 3:37:20 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Yes. Marx believed Judaism was corrupt; but he believed all religion was corrupt. He never advocated the liquidation of the Jews.

He said eliminating Judaism was more important than eliminating Christianity. Hitler merely took it one step further, and eliminated Judaism by wiping out everyone who was of the ethnic group associated with Judaism. He did so for the same reasons--he believed Jews were oppressors, and that they would poison society, just as Marx believed. He just took a more drastic approach to eliminating Judiasm.

61 posted on 02/18/2002 3:39:39 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Well that's good news anyway. I ordered it back within a month of its original publication, when none of these stores had any plans at all to carry it, and said so.

Just wondering if you'd read it...

62 posted on 02/18/2002 3:42:18 PM PST by maturin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
... He just took a more drastic approach to eliminating Judiasm ...
It always astonishes me what some people can read into a text.
63 posted on 02/18/2002 3:43:13 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
I never said Marx wasn't attacking Judaism. (He attacks every religion!)

But all religions weren't equally bad to him. He attacks Judaism as being the religion of the oppressors, it's much worse to him than Christianity (although all religions would have to be eliminated eventually).

64 posted on 02/18/2002 3:44:31 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Hi Asclepius
I agree with you
Didn't Marx say ''religion is the opiate of the masses''
I think he did not believe in spiritual reality at all
65 posted on 02/18/2002 3:45:33 PM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The extreme right wing is distrustful of all forms of government, even that of a constitutional republic. Some of this ilk have been called anarchists. Others are just plain kooks. Many would claim the military dictatorships of South and Central America are classic right wing governments, but I think not. I can't think of any who have ascended to the helm of government. Perhaps others can submit nominations for consideration.
66 posted on 02/18/2002 3:51:28 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
But all religions weren't equally bad to him.
Yes. They were.

Marx singles out Judaism as a special case because the Jews of his era were suffering miserably and Marx wanted to save them! Read the essay again; it's filled with compassion. Marx felt--rightly or wrongly--that the Judaism of the Jews was a manifestation of their oppression, their alabi for their sufferings, the reason they wouldn't rise up against their exploiters and tormentors.

You cannot misread a text any more violently then you have misread this one.
67 posted on 02/18/2002 3:51:52 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Excellent thoughtful discussion on an important subject.

Your identity is consistent to your contribution at FR; I feel honored to be traveling with such good company.

Best wishes on the new books!

BTW, I've enjoyed "SLAP Hillary" immensely!

68 posted on 02/18/2002 3:52:40 PM PST by Sandmansleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: maturin
The role of homosexuality in their birth

Not really homosexuals in general but, rather a particular variety of homosexuals-super macho S&M- a perversion within a perversion.

69 posted on 02/18/2002 3:53:22 PM PST by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Hitler DID want to destroy Judaism and Christianity, and all other religions, except HIS religion, neo-pagan Hitler worship.

Not to be nit-picky, but the religion Hitler tried to impose on Germany was neo-pagan STATE worship. He wanted the Third Reich to thrive long after his death. Thus, he discouraged worship of himself.

70 posted on 02/18/2002 3:56:18 PM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
The Nazis were leftists and socialists: a point that should be made again and again, and which has been made most consistently and forcefully by Germanic men of the right like Hayek---in fact, it was a point Hayek repeatedly made in "Road to Serfdom," written and published in the midst of the war against Nazi Germany.
71 posted on 02/18/2002 3:56:29 PM PST by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Amazon has it for sale at a 30 percent discount here
72 posted on 02/18/2002 3:59:28 PM PST by L_Von_Mises
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The whole reason that "left wing" and "right wing" entered into our vocabulary was to differentiate between the various flavors of Socialism (e.g. Communists on one side and Fascists on the other).

Only if you consider the old feudal order of Europe socialist. "Right wing" and "left wing" come from the French revolution.

73 posted on 02/18/2002 4:00:21 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.
A generation ago the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal published a translation of a speech by Benito Mussolini (of a generation earllier, of course). There was nothing in it for a conservative American to like, nor anything for a "sixties" radical to dislike.

That "third way" line is a rich irony, of course; the true "third way"--between stultifying "socialism" on the one hand and "rapacious capitalism" as described by Marx on the other is real, existing capitalism regulated by the government of a democratic republic.

"Socialism" belongs in quotes because it is deceptive labeling in the sense that a free economy is the truly social process--"socialism" would more truthfully be styled "governmentism." Let whoso doubts that challenge the socialist who says "society should" how the meaning of the word "society" differs in his usage from the word "government." The truthful answer will be, "not at all."

The "socialist" would subsume society into government--instant tyranny, you don't even have to add water.

74 posted on 02/18/2002 4:00:48 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"Capitalism" and "Communism" are economic terms. "Fascism" and "Nationalism" are political. They may generally be related, but it is my opinion that Hitler did not understand economics but did understand politics -- especially politics of power.

He saw the Jews as both, the blood-sucking capitalists and as the movers behind the evil communism which wanted to rob the Germans of their national identity. Having identified an enemy and demonized them, it was easier to garner -- in the name of remedying the situation -- the power he lusted for.

Fascism is the political structure which concentrates power into one branch of government. Hitler and Mussolini did this, and so did Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro -- and all dictators of the "Left" and "Right."

The Left likes to pretend this is a right-wing thing, because it makes the unthinking believe that they are opposed it. As the article points out, they are actually one and the same: not in the economic form they profess, but in the political power they assume over it.

75 posted on 02/18/2002 4:05:39 PM PST by LantzALot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
BUMP
76 posted on 02/18/2002 4:23:50 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

To: Slyfox
I didn't know that about Jimmy Buffet. Makes you kinda wonder what all Bill and Hillary learned from Hitler.

Kinda took the wind out of my sails after I heard that. ;-)And I got that info from a wife of a former band member (Coral Reefer). She was horrified when she saw he was touting the book while riding their tour bus after one of their shows.

It wouldn't suprise me how many copies of Mein Kampf is sitting in liberal libraries, including Bil and Hil's, ect...

Needless to say, I've sworn off Corona Beer and margaritas for a while....they leave kind of a bad taste in my mouth! ;-)

78 posted on 02/18/2002 4:31:44 PM PST by kstewskis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage

I'm merely referring to the "how and why" that those terms entered into common American useage.

It was to differentiate between the various wings of socialism: fascism and Communism.

79 posted on 02/18/2002 4:33:28 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator

To: maturin
Great post, maturin. Where's Aubrey?
81 posted on 02/18/2002 4:42:18 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

Comment #83 Removed by Moderator

To: TLBSHOW, Asclepius
Great discussion of a very important subject. It's a good article, but I don't buy everything in it. Asclepius is correct that the claim that Marx's On The Jewish Question inspired the death camps does not stand up to scrutiny. I have read a fair amount of historical sources about the Nazis, and I have some trouble with this assertion of Poe's:

They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.

OK, they denounced Christians as right-wing dupes and fanatics all right, and they clashed with Christians over euthanasia (part of the Nazi agenda that leftists are pushing hard today), but I'm unaware of them "encouraging pornograhy, illegitimacy, and abortion". Can anyone enlighten me on this?

84 posted on 02/18/2002 4:54:47 PM PST by TheMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW, Asclepius
Great discussion of a very important subject. It's a good article, but I don't buy everything in it. Asclepius is correct that the claim that Marx's On The Jewish Question inspired the death camps does not stand up to scrutiny. I have read a fair amount of historical sources about the Nazis, and I have some trouble with this assertion of Poe's:

They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.

OK, they denounced Christians as right-wing dupes and fanatics all right, and they clashed with Christians over euthanasia (part of the Nazi agenda that leftists are pushing hard today), but I'm unaware of them "encouraging pornograhy, illegitimacy, and abortion". Can anyone enlighten me on this?

85 posted on 02/18/2002 4:55:13 PM PST by TheMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: BoPepper
One may disagree with certain policies dealing with race, such as affirmative action, promoted by liberals. However, one can hardly equate affirmative action with the Final Solution.

One can, however, equate the liberal idea of justice with the Nazi court system. Even in civil cases, German courts at the time judged guilt and assigned the degree of punishment based on 1.Race 2. Class 3. Gender.

All liberals add to that mix is sexual orientation.

87 posted on 02/18/2002 5:25:40 PM PST by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: LantzALot
Left and Right are an illusion.

The true living political spectrum is "command and control" on one side and anarchy on the other side.

Liberty and Freedom are just to one side of anarchy - definitely closer than most of us are comfortable with.

The struggle of control-freaks vs. those who would rule themselves is recorded throughout history.

Of course one needs a viable internal "moral code" to survive in Liberty. "Bad" people need to be ruled or...our old friend chaos arrives.

88 posted on 02/18/2002 5:34:00 PM PST by martian_22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.

Interesting post, but you go a bit overboard. The NAZIs were less pornographic than the Weimar Republic they replaced. The NAZIs were usually nominally Christian, though their real religion was NAZIism.

89 posted on 02/18/2002 5:40:39 PM PST by Hagrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #90 Removed by Moderator

To: TLBSHOW
If the mainstream media won't tell the truth the newest force which is the internet conservative news sites will and when more people get logged on the more people will wake up

The principle of the First Amendment is that we are entitled to our own opinions--and to publish those opinions on our own dime. The principle of "journalistic ethics" is that journalism on the high-speed printing press is too powerful to fall into the wrong hands, that it must be not someone's opinioon but objective. Sounds woonderful--we're entitled to the truth, so it claims--but the corrolary is that we are not entitled to publish because we might be wrong.

Thus the ethic of "objectivity" is directly at odds with the First Amendment. The distinction was somewhat academic before the advent of the FCC--but the FCC exists to censor out all but the few licensed broadcasters, and in principle to censor them (in that their licenses expire and require renewal "in the public interest" as judged by the FCC. The FCC created the broadcast bands by defining them and thereby defining the receiver characteristics which would pick up broadcasts.

The Internet breaks out of the mold of few-to-many defined by the FCC's licensing relatively few, relatively high-power stations instead of many, many low-powered ones. The Internet essentially gives all aspiring publishers a level playing field, and elitists have no great advantage. Like talk radio, the Internet is well suited to conservative commentary.

91 posted on 02/18/2002 5:55:25 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: kstewskis
I've sworn off Corona Beer and margaritas for a while...

Do it for Lent. Not for Jimmy. He ain't worth it.
You haven't sworn off cheeseburgers have ya?

93 posted on 02/18/2002 6:09:27 PM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
The radicals themselves are control freaks. Every means to divide and destroy American culture is utilized as a tool - including the promotion of anarchy.

Don't get me wrong. Control freaks have their uses in functioning civilizations. I would just like the frustrated, powerless types to be more abundant.

94 posted on 02/18/2002 6:22:45 PM PST by martian_22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
Sorry, but I don't believe that. Marx wrote that passage without the knowledge of what was to come. He could have easily been in support of a violent period of despotism against the bourgeousie. But that's a far cry from saying he would have supported the mass starvations, deportations, executions, and system of paranoia and terror that resulted. What came about terrorized the people he was trying to help.

Who knows how many people died because of that very passage and others like it.

95 posted on 02/18/2002 7:49:42 PM PST by ValenB4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW; thucydides; martian_22; A.J.Armitage; Goldhammer
A.J. Armitage (reply #73) is correct on the French Revolution origins of the right/left political axis: literally from the different sides of the isle of the assembly. Nevertheless, fascist and socialist have come to describe opposing politics, and we cannot here change this, the cries of Hayek, Vazsonyi and others, aside.

We are better off pointing to the distinctions in order to conclude upon the similarities, rather than the other way around which will be rejected off-hand. The similarities have been well described here. Some distinctions:

- Nazism/fascism maintains private property;
- Nazism/fascism is nationalism whereas socialism / communism pretends [emphasis important here] to be borderless;
- Socialism/communism is a means whereas Nazism/fascism is an end.

We unfairly discredit our detractors and get no where with them if we ignore these distinctions. Rather than saying they are one in the same, I prefer to get the left itchy on its similarities to fascism by pointing to those aspects of the modern left which are more fascist than communist. It's easy for the left to deny being communists; they're not, no matter how much they are, for they haven't the power to be. However, they have undeniably approached the fascist state: nationalism.

The nationalist wants a public/private partnership. This is best expressed in Latin American dictatorships where business is an adjunct of government, just as it was under Hitler in Nazi Germany (Mercedes-Benz was a prime example). The Americans approached this earlier, in fact, during the progressive era, when Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" had the country headed towards a government-business partnership that would have yielded permanent monopoly status to the likes of Standard Oil and U.S. Steel.

Socialism/communism wanted the same thing but with public ownership. The progressives/nazis/nationalists allowed for private ownership, but under government guidance. We are far closer to nationalism than communism.

96 posted on 02/18/2002 7:58:04 PM PST by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

Comment #97 Removed by Moderator

To: DallasDeb
correction; the extreme right is -- ananchy!
that means - no government! -no capitalism! - no control!
98 posted on 02/18/2002 8:26:21 PM PST by jwatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
You obviously have not read Marx's essay. Karl Marx completely bought into the stereotype of the greedy, heartless Jew money-lender -- the very personification of the "vampiric forces of dead capital sucking the life blood of the workers" which featured in his life's work. Actually, Marx was an habitual debtor, and his ramshackle philosophy is a pretentious, pseudo-scientific amalgam of Hegelian mysticism and displaced personal resentment. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals includes an amusingly sardonic psychological portrait of the old fraud.
99 posted on 02/18/2002 9:31:39 PM PST by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
You are quite deluded.
Perhaps. But unlike you, I know how to read.
100 posted on 02/18/2002 11:19:24 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-162 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson