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

Skip to comments.

Socialism = NAZI (Hitler was a socialist)
THE OMINOUS PARALLELS ^ | Leonard Peikoff

Posted on 06/22/2002 10:38:56 AM PDT by freeforall

Socialism = NAZI or...

Hitler was a socialist.

The nasty little secret they don't want you to know!

THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff...

A Veritas News Service Book Review - "A magnificent work... it should be required reading for all Americans. This book reveals socialisms nasty little secret." William Cooper

Excerpt from Chapter One.

The Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany -- an educated, industrialized, CIVILIZED Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its intellectual and cultural achievements. By reason of its long line of famous artists and thinkers, Germany has been called "the land of poets and philosophers."

But its education offered the country no protection against the Sergeant Molls in its ranks. The German university students were among the earliest groups to back Hitler. The intellectuals were among his regime's most ardent supporters. Professors with distinguished academic credentials, eager to pronounce their benediction on the Fuhrer's cause, put their scholarship to work full time; they turned out a library of admiring volumes, adorned with obscure allusions and learned references.

The Nazis did not gain power against the country's wishes. In this respect there was no gulf between the intellectuals and the people. The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37% of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country's legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44% of the total.

The voters were aware of the Nazi ideology. Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the future, papered the country during the last years of the Weimar Republic. "Mein Kampf" alone sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932. The essence of the political system which Hitler intended to establish in Germany was clear.

In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain.

The system which Hitler established -- the social reality which so many Germans were so eager to embrace or so willing to endure -- the politics which began in a theory and ended in Auschwitz -- was: the "total state". The term, from which the adjective "totalitarian" derives, was coined by Hitler's mentor, Mussolini.

The state must have absolute power over every man and over every sphere of human activity, the Nazis declared. "The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited," said Ernst Huber, an official party spokesman, in 1933.

"The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich," said Huber to a country which listened, and nodded. "There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state... The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual."

If the term "statism" designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism -- the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies -- which has characterized most of human history.

In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. Although previous dictators (and many today; e.g., in Latin America) often preached the unlimited power of the state, they were on the whole unable to enforce such power. As a rule, citizens of such countries had a kind of partial "freedom", not a freedom-on-principle, but at least a freedom-by-default.

Even the latter was effectively absent in Nazi Germany. The efficiency of the government in dominating its subjects, the all-encompassing character of its coercion, the complete mass regimentation on a scale involving millions of men -- and, one might add, the enormity of the slaughter, the planned, systematic mass slaughter, in peacetime, initiated by a government against its own citizens -- these are the insignia of twentieth-century totalitarianism (Nazi AND communist), which are without parallel in recorded history. In the totalitarian regimes, as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler's rule, every detail of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction between private matters and public matters. "There are to be no more private Germans," said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in his service." "The only person who is still a private individual in Germany," boasted Robert Ley, a member of the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, "is somebody who is asleep."

In place of the despised "private individuals," the Germans heard daily or hourly about a different kind of entity, a supreme entity, whose will, it was said, is what determines the course and actions of the state: the nation, the whole, the GROUP. Over and over, the Germans heard the idea that underlies the advocacy of omnipotent government, the idea that totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification of their total states: COLLECTIVISM.

Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective -- society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc. -- is THE UNIT OF REALITY AND THE STANDARD OF VALUE. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it -- or its representative, the state -- deems this desirable.

Fascism, said one of its leading spokesmen, Alfredo Rocco, stresses:

...the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, on behalf of society... For Liberalism (i.e., individualism), the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole," said Hitler in a 1933 speech, "must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Men, echoed the Nazis, have to "realize that the State is more important than the individual, that individuals must be willing and ready to sacrifice themselves for Nation and Fuhrer." The people, said the Nazis, "form a true organism," a "living unity", whose cells are individual persons. In reality, therefore -- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is no such thing as an "isolated individual" or an autonomous man.

Just as the individual is to be regarded merely as a fragment of the group, the Nazis said, so his possessions are to be regarded as a fragment of the group's wealth.

"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economy order was a reversal of the true concept of property [wrote Huber]. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the general interests... German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.

During the Hitler years -- in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures -- every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities -- where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).

But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.

Excerpted from Chapter 1 of THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff... most probably the most important book written in modern times. Buy it... read it... study it.


TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: america; calgov2002; fascist; germany; goebbels; hitler; leftist; nazi; nazism; nsdap; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-244 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
So are you an Ayn Rand fan or did you just like this column by Leonard Peikoff?
101 posted on 06/22/2002 11:02:55 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
I don't believe that using Stalin as an example of a good Socialist is very accurate or fair. The man was a racist psychopath. He was transporting the USSR's Jews to the Gulags when he died. Lenin and Trotsky didn't have his pathological hatred for Jews, or for the other ethnic groups he persecuted.

Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism, in order to advance his nationalistic schemes. Hitler's ambition was for the Aryan race to become all powerful and for other races, like the Jews, Slavs etc to be enslaved. That's why the NAZI party described itself as 'National Socialist'. It used a perverted form of Socialism, one that only benefited the Aryan Germans (the untermenschen were just the slave labour and fertiliser), for the benefit of German nationalism. Don't confuse the NAZI party's slippery use of the term Socialism, with real Socialism.

To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist, unfortunately, it also requires collectivism and statism. Hitler accepted the last two, but rejected the first two, in favour of racism and nationalism. The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society.

102 posted on 06/22/2002 11:52:18 PM PDT by David_H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
I don't recall ever using profanity. I've also had problems with posts that were supposed to be to you actually being from me to me. Something's not adding up here. I have Zone Alarm on the Zip Drive and it looks like I'm late getting it installed. I don't use profanity on line, I have a Secret clearance to protect.


From ReaganIsRight | 2002-06-22 20:44:34 replied
I never posted to you. If you have more than one logon 
name, both should be deleted. I don't advocate censorship, 
but I don't like stupid people. You have been DEFINED! P.S. 
You're screwing up my posts, and JR will get you, a-hole. 

Looks like profanity to me...
103 posted on 06/22/2002 11:58:51 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
The author nowhere states that they were "left-wing socialists."

Try reading the first sentence.
104 posted on 06/23/2002 12:01:07 AM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
A lefties shooting a man with opposing views, after all the politicians brainwashed people Fortuyn was evil, is that free speech too?

Did the Socialist Party order him to assassinate the politician?

Also very interesting is that the PvdA refuses to leave the offices they are required to leave. The LPF is entitled to that office space. But those democratic socialists won't leave, trying to fence off the LPF from being an effective party.

When does their term of office expire?

Did I mention they still are using the national tv to cause as much damage to the LPF as they possibly can?

And American politicans do not use public funded resources to attack their opponents.

Right...and I have a bridge I would like to sell you...

PS Knowingly spreading lies is slander, not free speech.

Political campaign rhetoric as slander. Oh, that is too much. You really don't know a lot about politics.

105 posted on 06/23/2002 12:04:55 AM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
Sorry, I missed a couple of letters. We type too fast online to be perfect. The message is still the same.

Misspelling stupid while trying to call someone stupid -- not to bright...

106 posted on 06/23/2002 12:06:25 AM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
Still waiting for an example of a European Socialist party that seized power illegally or refused to surrender power after losing an election...
107 posted on 06/23/2002 12:07:29 AM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Grampa dave has been trying to make a point with regards to Gov Davis being a fascist on the calpowercrisis and Calgov2002 threads and I thought the followers of those threads might be interested in this thread.

I like much of what I know about objectivism except for its dismissal of Traditional Religion. And I do find the article interesting. But Left and Right are directional statements applicable only to the one dimensional number line and no longer useful when discussing things that are more than one dimensional which political philosophies surely are!

108 posted on 06/23/2002 12:18:16 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: lmandrake
Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance...

And just why is racism a right wing attribute? Especially when the leftists these days basically say "If you are black, you're inferior, so you need affirmative action and other government handouts to keep up with whites." Interesting how we're always the "racists" for wanting to judge people on their merits rather than their skin color.
109 posted on 06/23/2002 12:23:04 AM PDT by mn12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Nazism was, as the name implies, a synthesis of nationalism, socialism and racialism. It didn't fit the standard pigeonholes of that time or of ours. Nazism became associated with the right because of Hitler's fight against the Communists and the rightwing support it brought him. International Communism being "left" the tendency was to put national socialism on the "right." But it would be hard to conceive of Nazism had there been no Bolshevik revolution.

The truth is that there are characteristics that link Nazism to the left and to the right, and the mixture can't quite be characterized as either. Part of the problem is also that since Hitler and Stalin, both the right and the left want to appear less amenable to state control and domination of industry and society than they were in the Europe of Hitler's day. Similarly, one would find racial and eugenic ideas much more popular across the Western political spectrum in 1932 than in 2002.

More interesting would be a discussion of Peikoff. Randian individualist by trade and conviction, yet he does manage to be very collectivist about things that concern him deeply, like the Middle East. Don't Randianism and other extreme forms of libertarianism tend to break down in this way when issues of real concern to people are addressed?

110 posted on 06/23/2002 12:43:36 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Post it to the DU? Naaaaaaaa...Print up the quotes from prominent NAZI's like Goebels on a huge banner, roll it up, hang it behind a podium unnoticable like, and invite Hitlery to come speak before a rally before you let it roll down!
111 posted on 06/23/2002 12:59:09 AM PDT by Wondervixen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: David_H
George Watson, a professor at Cambridge University, has traced the racial and eugenic ideas of the Fabians and other socialists. It's the fashion today to ascribe racialist ideas solely to the right. In fact, in the days of Marx, Shaw, Wells and the Webbs, you would find such ideas among socialist elites as well. Not a pretty chapter of their history, but not something one can or should ignore. That doesn't mean that we put racism on the left, rather than the right, just that the idea was associated more with the age, rather than with leftism or rightism.

The argument that Nazism was inegalitarian, and therefore on the right, is also something that doesn't stand greater scrutiny. Among Germans, there was a feeling that they had never been so equal as they were under Hitler. There were similar feelings in France and Russia during the revolutions. Revolutionary leftism may make professions of universal equality, but the practice is passionate opposition to some external or internal enemy. This common cause creates subjective feelings of equality, which may or may not be true. In general, money and wealth are taken out of the calculation, but differences in power remain and may even increase. There are similarities in this regard between Nazism and revolutionary leftist regimes.

The distinction would be that the Nazism aimed at creating a permanent slave class, rather than exploiting a temporary one. Fair enough, I suppose, but this wasn't true of all those who supported Hitler, and looks more like a technical or theoretical difference than a real one.

I don't believe that Nazism can be simply and baldly described as left-wing socialism. The Nazis courted the traditionalist, nationalist and anti-communist right too much for such a label to apply. But the self-characterizations of leftists and socialists often don't hold water.

112 posted on 06/23/2002 1:06:58 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

I don't believe that using Stalin as an example of a good Socialist is very accurate or fair.

No, he is an example of a bad socialist.

The man was a racist psychopath.

True. He was also a socialist. You think they are mutually exclusive or something? Why?

Socialists can only be nice wonderful beautiful people, right?

Lenin and Trotsky didn't have his pathological hatred for Jews, or for the other ethnic groups he persecuted.

No, those two psychos had pathological hatred for groups of people based on slightly different criteria.

Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism,

He "wasn't a socialist", he just acted like one. Got it.

I don't know why this is supposed to be an important distinction.

That's why the NAZI party described itself as 'National Socialist'. It used a perverted form of Socialism, one that only benefited the Aryan Germans

Agreed! Whereas, similarly, the Bolsheviks in USSR used their own (also perverted) form of socialism, one that only benefitted... well... them, really.

What's your point?

Don't confuse the NAZI party's slippery use of the term Socialism, with real Socialism.

What is "real Socialism"? Is that the same thing as the utopian imaginary socialism of the other guy arguing with me? Let me guess... if it's bad, it's not socialism. If a guy says he is socialist, advocates socialist things, has socialist supporters, and rises to power, we're allowed to call him a socialist. But the moment he does something bad he's no longer "really" a socialist. Do I have that about right?

To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist

Very well. Then no nation has ever been "Orthodox Socialist", which makes it a pretty useless definition for our purposes. Like other arguers, you insist that Hitler "wasn't really a socialist", but apparently the only way you can get away with doing this is by defining "socialism" so narrowly that no human being in any government is or could even conceivably be socialist!

You're right: if socialism is defined so purely that no one's "really" a socialist, then neither was Hitler. But what exactly do you think you're proving? I mean, in a similar way, if you define the word "fruit" narrowly enough then apples aren't "really" fruits, either. But what does this have to do with reality, in particular, the necessary and useful exercise of drawing comparisons between two sets of ideas (in this case "Bolshevism" and "Nazism") and deciding whether they are more similar than different?

Is this anything other than a stubborn word game?

The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society.

Right - you're admitting my above point that your entire argument rests on defining "socialist" so narrowly that it will never actually be found in the real world.

So you will understand my posts, and the original article, then, if you globally replace the word "socialist" by the phrase "like the USSR, China, and Cuba". Whatever kind of "ist" Hitler was, it not much different an "ism" than whatever kind of "ism" you will allow us to say that USSR, China, and Cuba is or was. If those countries were/are "foo-ist", then Hitler was also very close to being a foo-ist, and certainly not an anti-foo-ist and not on the "opposite side of the spectrum" from foo-ism at all, as the self-proclaimed foo-ists often like to claim.

You see, that was the actual point of the article, and of my posts, your (and others') annoyingly purist word games notwithstanding.

113 posted on 06/23/2002 1:30:43 AM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism,

He "wasn't a socialist", he just acted like one. Got it.

The problem is that all totalitarian oligarchies use these methods to some degree. Totalitarinism and statism obviously go together, when a government has a war to prepare for then collectivism will surely follow. This allows the government to spend more on the military. Just because NAZI Germany used these methods too doesn't mean that their underlying politics was the same as the USSR's or China's.

Agreed! Whereas, similarly, the Bolsheviks in USSR used their own (also perverted) form of socialism, one that only benefitted... well... them, really.

That's precisely the point, Socialism is supposed to benefit the whole population, not just one group.

Is that the same thing as the utopian imaginary socialism of the other guy arguing with me?

No, actually I am a libertarian Republican! I don't like the way Socialism relies entirely on the government, its fundamentally flawed.

If a guy says he is socialist, advocates socialist things, has socialist supporters, and rises to power, we're allowed to call him a socialist...

Hitler also had powerful capitalist supporters like Henry Ford and he was supported by other large corporations. If he were really a Socialist would these people have backed him? They certainly didn't back the USSR.

Right - you're admitting my above point that your entire argument rests on defining "socialist" so narrowly that it will never actually be found in the real world.

The brand of Socialism I am describing was that which was sought in Britain since the end of WW II. George Orwell was its main advocate. He also wanted it to go hand in hand with a democratic political system.

Whatever kind of "ist" Hitler was, it not much different an "ism" than whatever kind of "ism" you will allow us to say that USSR, China, and Cuba is or was.

Yes, the thing they had in common was totalitarianism, not Socialism. Hitler certainly didn't have leftism in common with the others, as many Republicans want to believe.

114 posted on 06/23/2002 3:37:16 AM PDT by David_H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #115 Removed by Moderator

To: x
"Don't Randianism and other extreme forms of libertarianism tend to break down in this way when issues of real concern to people are addressed?"

I am not sure what you mean.To me Rand was only one writer among many.On the issue of real concern to people; I think the market does a better job than government and freedom is good for all.

"Nazism was, as the name implies, a synthesis of nationalism, socialism and racialism. It didn't fit the standard pigeonholes of that time or of ours. Nazism became associated with the right because of Hitler's fight against the Communists and the rightwing support it brought him. International Communism being "left" the tendency was to put national socialism on the "right." But it would be hard to conceive of Nazism had there been no Bolshevik revolution. "

Yes it was a synthesis but I think the ideas were fodder for power.I do not think they were really the opposite of the communists on the issue of nationalism since both sides agreed on competeing for world domination.The nationalism of the nazis was really the creation of a "new world order" under their thumb.The national socialism of Germany would be the world itself.

116 posted on 06/23/2002 6:32:09 AM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: stryker
"Only someone without any knowledge of political philosophy could make such a claim."

Thanks a logical argument their.

"The Nazis lay on the far right of the traditional political spectrum,"

Perhaps the traditional spectrum is misleading especially if they only include socialists.How pray tell did the nazis raise the traditional institutions of the dominant culture to a level of worship when you arrest and imprison the people running them.

"On the contrary, socialism lay at the far left of the traditional spectrum, where the traditional institutions of the dominant culture are intentionally weakened in an effort to strike against institutionalized racism and sexism"

I think you are talking policy differences not General principles.They both believe in the subordination of the individual to the state.Whether you call it the proletariat the nation the state the german people it is still collectivism.Perhaps some defintions are in order

Main Entry: Na·zism Pronunciation: 'nät-"si-z&m, 'nat- Variant(s): or Na·zi·ism /-sE-"i-z&m/ Function: noun Etymology: Nazi + -ism Date: 1934 : the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer.

Main Entry: fas·cism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m Function: noun Date: 1837 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m Function: noun Date: 1857 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

They are competing gangs for control of the state with minor policy differences.If theses political ideas were opposites one be for and one against control.

117 posted on 06/23/2002 7:20:46 AM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
They think Noam Choamsky is a Libertarian.
118 posted on 06/23/2002 7:43:43 AM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
When does their term of office expire?

It did, they were aksed to leave, but they just didn't.

They also illegaly appointed a lot of high ranking officials to limit the power of the LPF.

Although there are no cases where socialists parties refused to give in power, maybe you would like to look at what those nice socialists did in Prague to 'limit the opposition'.

And if I wanted to see just how nice and democratic those socialists are, I would join the DU.

119 posted on 06/23/2002 7:55:24 AM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: David_H
So Stalin isn't really a socialist?But of course socialists would persecute business people, steal their propety put them in gulags etc.That is Socialism.

"Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism"

That is what a socialist is; collectivism and statism.The minor policy differences hardly makes them opposite.Coke and Pepsi are different brands but they are still colas.

"To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist, unfortunately, it also requires collectivism and statism. Hitler accepted the last two, but rejected the first two, in favour of racism and nationalism. The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society."

That is because the theory of socialism in all it's variants is wrong.If the theory doesn't work it is badly flawed.

120 posted on 06/23/2002 8:02:27 AM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Agreed. The Nazis and Communists were competitors rather than opposites. Their intense rivalry was read by outsiders as putting them at opposite ideological extremes, rather than as a simple struggle for power. I'd still be wary of characterizing Nazism as "left" or "right" though.
121 posted on 06/23/2002 9:51:49 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Meaghan
Your attack on Rand's personal life and her dishonorable behavior have nothing to do with the topic of this post.

While Rand was flawed in many areas it does not mean all her ideas should be chucked.

As far as family goes IMHO objectivists are wrong about social grouping and bonding.I do not consider myself a dupe because I have a certain distance to the Randriods.

122 posted on 06/23/2002 9:53:34 AM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: x
I agree, the problem is the left has monopolized the political spectrum leaving out non socialist elements as much as possible.Mention John Locke and they will blank out.At least that is my experience.I do see a great danger in a linear political scale as it leaves very little room to manoeuvre.
123 posted on 06/23/2002 10:00:17 AM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
"Try reading the first sentence."

I'll post the first paragraph instead.

"The Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany -- an educated, industrialized, CIVILIZED Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its intellectual and cultural achievements. By reason of its long line of famous artists and thinkers, Germany has been called "the land of poets and philosophers."

See left-wing socialist anywhere?

Or how about this, which isn't a part of what the author wrote himself.

"Hitler was a socialist."

See left-wing anywhere? Are will still imagining words and concepts when they patently are not evinced or even insinuated?

I thought so.

124 posted on 06/23/2002 10:17:06 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: lmandrake
I am just pointing out that nazism is more closely associated to the FAAAAAR RIGHT

Oh for CRYING OUT LOUD!

IT IS NOT!!!!!

The "circular" model of political positioning taught in American Universities (socialist indoctrination centers) is just a sales tool to make Marxism look moderate, and is a European concept, not applicable in American thinking.

The only thing to the right of the "right wing" (who should be referred to as Constitutional Conservatives, beliving in maximizing equal individual rights and responsibilities, freedom and liberty) are the anarchists, who believe in total freedom, absence of government (as an extreme opposite to total repression or totalitarianism.)

This "straight line" concept puts all opponents of freedom at the same LEFT end of the scale (monarchy, communism, fascism etc.)and incrementaly increasing proponants of freedom, by degrees, towards the right.

I think the facts speak for them selves

Yes, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, the RATs....all lefties, liars and oppressors.

a totalitarian regime is evil no matter what they call themselves.

What they call THEMSELVES is irrelevant as I stated above, Right wing American Constitutionalist Conservatives are not Nazis, and the Nazis had no affinity for the US Constitution. The USA is not an oppressive power that conquers and plunders, we certainly could be if that was our agenda.

I think us americans better start watching our OWN boyz, ie. the PATRIOT ACT :puke:

Puke is right, I notice you didn't capitalize American. Slight oversight? I doubt it.

The antiamerican American left has taken control of the entertainment, news reporting and educational facitities, nothing new to the average Freeper, but you seem to be unaware of the constant erosion of American values.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (W.)

I think the facts speak for them selves.

So do I.

125 posted on 06/23/2002 10:33:03 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Meaghan
Good point about Rand. She's one of the great charlatans of the age. But I'm not sure I agree with you about Rand and "the tribe." She's creating a ideological basis for a capitalist or individualist or objectivist or Randian tribe, a cult of "independent minds."

Randians have not objected to war to spread their ideas, and there's a real contradiction between their individualistic ideology and some of their actual political views. When one gets Manichean as the Randians, one can swallow a lot of extreme views. Like the other figures discussed on this thread, Rand came out of apocalyptic age of the Russian Revolution, and this colors her views with ideas of struggle, the enemy, righteousness versus depravity that really belong more to religion or myth than to politics.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about sociobiology and evolutionary psychology and "the tribe" either. The America of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln with it's mixture of individual freedom and strong families and communities strikes me as preferable to the tribalism of Lebanon or the amoral familialism of Sicily, or the clannishness of Scotland and Ireland. So much of what we value is in culture or ideas and has no "objective" value at the genetic level.

Sticking with family is far better than abandoning it, but sometimes, if one sticks too closely one may regret not having developed one's own individuality and personal visions and preferences. The survival and continuity of the group have to be taken into account. Letting them dominate may not always be a good idea.

Sometimes, group survival and continuity can weigh very heavily indeed upon individuals, crushing some of their best qualities. The confusions and rebellions of adolescence can make real trouble for many of us, but if we survive them, we can see them as a time of testing to see what is living and what is dead in what has been given to us, what we wish to pass on to the next generation and what we would better let die.

126 posted on 06/23/2002 10:34:25 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
It hardly matters if Hitler were on the extreme Right (Fascist) or the extreme Left (Socialist). He was a monster who needed to be eradicated, and was. Whether the state, the people, or the biggest entrepreneurs owned the means of production is hardly even note-worthy.

The parallels that do support the idea that Hitler is similar "their side" are not found in his economic principles, but the fact that he saw the State as the final arbiter of every issue, and allowed little Freedom without his guiding hand. This is the only political point worth noting, and its similarity to the Liberals' dependence on the government for their plans and solutions is obvious to anyone who loves Liberty.

127 posted on 06/23/2002 10:43:34 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
I don't know what you reading, but the thread I linked to says this:

"They were left-wing socialists."

Wanna try again? Here's the thread again.
128 posted on 06/23/2002 10:52:23 AM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

Comment #129 Removed by Moderator

To: stryker
And the only difference is in the marketing.
130 posted on 06/23/2002 11:17:29 AM PDT by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: David_H
Just because NAZI Germany used these methods too doesn't mean that their underlying politics was the same as the USSR's or China's.

What are "underlying politics"? Words, you mean? I'm talking about what a government actually does, in practice.

That's precisely the point, Socialism is supposed to benefit the whole population, not just one group.

That seems to be the rhetoric, yes. Somehow it never works out that way, though. This was not only true of Hitler, but of all other socialists as well. What's your point? That socialism doesn't live up to its lofty rhetoric? Tell me something I don't know.

Hitler also had powerful capitalist supporters like Henry Ford and he was supported by other large corporations. If he were really a Socialist would these people have backed him?

Sure they would; he was viewed as the lesser of two evils, and less extreme. The "capitalists" had a point. If I were a greedy "capitalist" I just might wanna partner with a sell-out "socialist" myself. He will order the workers around and all that.

This doesn't mean Hitler was on the opposite side of the spectrum from socialists, just that his flavor of socialism had more appeal to bigwigs who wanted to keep control of their businesses (as opposed to handing it over to Party members at gunpoint). Yeah, so?

Yes, the thing they had in common was totalitarianism, not Socialism.

Again, you speak as if these things are mutually exclusive. In fact it could be argued that the latter requires the former.

131 posted on 06/23/2002 11:17:34 AM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: rudeboy666
As you say, Heidegger is not himself a progenitor of Nazi thought, even though he endorsed the movement wholeheartedly. Existentialism and Nazism are siblings, offspring of the counter-Enlightenment initiated by Rousseau and Kant. This development, which is most fundamentally characterized by the resurrection of Idealism, found its most fertile soil in Germany. It is this anti-Aristotelean, Romanticist tradition which ultimately explains the rise of Nazism, as Peikoff demonstrates in The Ominous Parallels. The opposite pole is represented by the United States, the quintessential product of Enlightenment thought. Peikoff warns us that the United States is importing counter-Enlightenment ideas from Europe via its intelligentsia; over historical time this development, if unchecked, will have tragic consequences.
132 posted on 06/23/2002 11:18:57 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Nazies worshiped their own form of government and socialist mandates indeed. THey also worshiped white man as sinless. Nowadays we are worshiping humans in general as sinless, with the same consequences of arbitrary rules on what is a punishable crime or not.

Representing Arizona for the last time as she approaches the end of her term in office, Gov. Jane Hull reiterated the need for guest workers but also went further, noting she'd like to see the formal border disappear within two decades.

"Borders have a way of blocking our vision," she said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704639/posts#22

It's coming to AMerica... The Lord help us in this battle against the dominating self-worshiping morons who vote for such people.

133 posted on 06/23/2002 11:25:44 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
Misspelling stupid while trying to call someone stupid -- not to bright...

WOULD YUO PEOPAL STOP THAT ALRAEDY!

134 posted on 06/23/2002 11:30:17 AM PDT by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: rudeboy666
Hayek makes the case that all of these collectivist ideas are based in an atavistic longing for the conditions that our anestors lived in for hundreds of thousands of years: small tribes of fewer than a few hundred. In those conditions we can all more or less know each other and share means and ends, and our benefits are directly and obviously related. What is good for me is good for my tribe and vice versa.

The extended order of the market is a new phenomenon created by learned morals and customs, such as private property, that are contrary to emotional responses selected by most of our evolutionary history.

In their marketing campaigns, socialists sometimes claimed to be scientific and futuristic, as opposed to "the right"'s backward looking conservatism. But they're all stuck in the caves.

135 posted on 06/23/2002 11:46:43 AM PDT by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
"In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice, they're different."
136 posted on 06/23/2002 11:58:25 AM PDT by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317; BillyBoy
I agree with many of your points.It is also true that the communists practiced the same means but perhaps to a diffrent end.The point is they agreed that the individual is meaningless.I would argue that this idea came from Hegel who influenced Marx(Communism and Socialism) and Heidegger.The general Principles are Statism and Collectivism as ststed by the nazis(thanks BillyBoy):

We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood...

All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. [the first sign of liberalism is demanding "equality" but then discriminating and opressing the "rich" and "priviliged]

All personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished...

We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

All of the above are socialistic positive rights oriented.

Now see below the bill of rights the opposite of the above.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

====================================================

137 posted on 06/23/2002 12:01:00 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: jodorowsky
Facts don't matter only opinion.As we all know no country that ever called itself socialist or communist was ever really that.
138 posted on 06/23/2002 12:09:00 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
thanks great thread.

" They were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist ``exploitation'' by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it."

139 posted on 06/23/2002 12:53:47 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: freeforall; All
Bill of Rights (England, 1689) An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight* present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight,* in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration.

And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.

And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvelous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquillity and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entituled, An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation be non obstante of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

* The date according to the calendar in use at the time.

140 posted on 06/23/2002 1:09:30 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: x
I think I will respectfully disagree about Rand while she is not the most important thinker she has contributed to freedom.

"She's creating a ideological basis for a capitalist or individualist or objectivist or Randian tribe, a cult of "independent minds."

Perhaps for the weak minded.But in the right context Capitalism,Individualism and Independence are good for everyone.

141 posted on 06/23/2002 1:22:39 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: jodorowsky
In the end, the people are slaves, one way or the other. Only a new found love of liberty can save us from that fate, but both parties have their pet nanny programs designed to steal our most basic rights. We have to come to terms with trusting individuals to make decisions for themselves regarding guns, drugs, motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, etc., and let them pay the price if they misuse these items. The items themselves though should in no way be illegal or mandatory under any circumstances. Only their use to commit crime should be punishable by the criminal law, or the failure to use certain items should be a bar to recovery in tort. I do not see many Americans who wish to be free, however. Most seem happily snuggled within mother America's loving arms freely trading the liberties born of a thousands years of struggle for the temporary illusion of security.
142 posted on 06/23/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
To paraphrase Goebbels. This needs to be repeated again and again and again.
143 posted on 06/23/2002 3:56:42 PM PDT by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
How about something like this:

Nazis versus Liberals
Hitler and the Nazis Liberals and Democrats
Preached class warfare Preach class warfare
Demonized capitalists as exploiters of the working class Demonize capitalists as exploiters of the working class
Supported nationalization of education Support nationalization of education
Supported nationalization of health care Support nationalization of health care
Supported nationalization of transportation Support nationalization of transportation
Instituted strict gun control regimen Support strict gun control
Encouraged pornography Encourage pornography
Encouraged illegitimacy Encourage illegitimacy
Encouraged abortion Encourage abortion
Demonized Christians as right-wing fanatics Demonize Christians as right-wing fanatics
Employed the "Big Lie" to further their goals Employ the "Big Lie" to further their goals
Sought to rule every activity and need of the individual Seek to rule every activity and need of the individual
Believed the Collective had primacy over the Individual Believe the Collective has primacy over the Individual

144 posted on 06/23/2002 4:07:54 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
The ultimate aim of socialism is the abolition of the state by reaching the stage of communism, when the state withers away to a mere administrative body, there being so much surplus production and so little class distinction that no organized force is necessary and therefore no state in the classical sense. Fascism on the other hand, raises the state, as the epitome of the character of its' people to the level of a God, to be worshipped, as was Hitler in his role as the Fuhrer, or leader. The state is associated with various religious symbols that take on mystical proportions such as the swastika and the devil’s head of the SS. Class distinctions are not only maintained, but are emphasized to the point of open classism and racism. To understand the difference you must go back to the writings of Edmund Burke and start with an understanding of the difference between classical conservativism and classical liberalism (Locke and Rousseau). You can argue all you want, but walk into any university in the United States and ask any professor of political philosophy whether German national socialism was in any way socialism and leftist and you will hear the same answer I am giving you.

As an aside, I do not think the traditional left/right political spectrum has much use in the modern world since no country has ever passed from socialism into communism to see the state dissolve, but rather we have found that both ends of the political spectrum end in human enslavement. I therefore find myself a libertarian, struggling against the drug warriors on the right and the politically correct nanny state advocates on the other.

145 posted on 06/23/2002 4:10:18 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: jodorowsky
ProudAmerican2 member since 6/20/02. Just another disruptor, probably not too long until he's banned.
146 posted on 06/23/2002 5:29:19 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Again you give me superficial differences.The principle of socialism or nazism is collective sacrifice to the goals of those in charge.The Nazis defined themselves as socialists.Goebbels said "To be a good socialist,is to submit the I to the thou:socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole"

Not so different than this by Ludwig Von Mises in 1922 the book "Socialism"

CHAPTER 9 The Position of the Individual Under Socialism 1 Selection of Personnel and Choice of Occupation The Socialist Community is a great authoritarian association in which orders are issued and obeyed. This is what is implied by the words "planned economy" and the "abolition of the anarchy of production." The inner structure of a socialist community is best understood if we compare it with the inner structure of an army. Many socialists indeed prefer to speak of the "army of labour." As in an army, so under Socialism, everything depends on the orders of the supreme authority. Everyone has a place to which he is appointed. Everyone has to remain in his place until he is moved to another. It follows that men become pawns of official action. They rise only when they are promoted. They sink only when they are degraded. It would be waste of time to describe such conditions. They are the common knowledge of every citizen of a bureaucratic state.

II.9.1 It is obvious that, in a state of this sort, all appointments should be based upon personal capacity. Each position should be held by the individual best fitted to hold it—always provided that he is not required for more important work elsewhere. Such is the fundamental principle of all systematically ordered authoritarian organizations—of the Chinese Mandarinate equally with modern bureaucracies.

II.9.2 In giving effect to this principle the first problem that arises is the appointment of the supreme authority. There are two ways to the solution of this problem, the oligarchical-monarchical and the democratic, but there can be only one solution—the charismatic solution. The supreme rulers (or ruler) are chosen in virtue of the grace with which they are endowed by divine dispensation. They have superhuman powers and capacities lifting them above the other mortals.

Obviously Von Mises saw what would be the results of Socialism.Whether it be so called Left or Right.Yes I agree their is a difference between classic Liberalism and Conservatism.Locke is perhaps IMHO the most important political philosipher.

"As an aside, I do not think the traditional left/right political spectrum has much use in the modern world since no country has ever passed from socialism into communism to see the state dissolve, but rather we have found that both ends of the political spectrum end in human enslavement. I therefore find myself a libertarian, struggling against the drug warriors on the right and the politically correct nanny state advocates on the other."

I also call myself a friend of liberty.

147 posted on 06/23/2002 5:32:54 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
ProudAmerican2 member since 6/20/02. Just another disruptor, probably not too long until he's banned.

Gee, can't you get banned for sending private messages containing profanity?

148 posted on 06/23/2002 5:49:49 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
ProudAmerican2 member since 6/20/02. Just another disruptor, probably not too long until he's banned.

A disruptor because I don't agree with you on this issue... hardly.

149 posted on 06/23/2002 5:51:57 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: stryker
100% agree.
150 posted on 06/23/2002 5:55:34 PM PDT by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-244 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