"Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

[Lisa]

Nope. Hitler (and Mussolini, who deserves the credit for developing the actual ideology more than Hitler does) was actually a Socialist. That's why the National Socialist Party's pursued (among other things) fairly left wing economic policies


The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party

Some of these are real interesting:

...7. 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....

...9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, 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.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores that 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 with death, regardless of creed or race. ​

that ain't exactly capitalism

That was the propaganda that Hitler sold the people to get into power because of the depression caused by the defeat in WW1 and the economic crash of 1929. How much of that actually happened?

 

[Lisa]

That was not my point. My question was: is it your belief that socialism, i.e. the belief in the collective ownership of the means of production, is incompatible with racism or nationalism? That a people cannot believe in social economic control and social justice, but only for members of their racial group and within their nation's borders? Because I would argue that socialism and nationalism, if not outright racism, go hand in hand. People are far more inclined to cooperate and share with other members of their tribe, ethnic or national group who share a common language, history and culture than they are with people who they consider aliens and outsiders.

And this is not merely theoretical. Whether you are talking about Armenian Dashnaks, Arab Baathists, or the Chinese Kumonintang, there is nothing that stops socialists from being nationalists or racists (or both) and having that imbued in their ideology.

No, it is not incompatible.

 

[cpwill]

Hitler did not support socialist economic policies

Ironically, I laid out a list of examples for you in the post directly above this one

Nazi Germany was a great place to be for capitalists such as Krupp, Seimens, Audi, Steyr-Damlier, Heinkel, Thyssen, BASF, Bayer, and Messerschmitt.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao clkaimed to be commuinists but they were also brutal dictators.

AH. So, is this the No-True-Socialist Socialism where We Can't Say Socialism Doesn't Work Because It's Never Been Tried, or is it the Special Pleading Socialism where Socialism Is Only Socialism When It's Done By Country's Whose Actions I Happen To Approve Of?

 

[cpwill]

That was the propaganda that Hitler sold the people to get into power because of the depression caused by the defeat in WW1 and the economic crash of 1929. How much of that actually happened?

.....wait. So:

A) you think it was their party platform, though they didn't actually mean it, but
B) you don't actually if they actually meant it partially because you don't know if they put any of it into practice or didn't, and
C) you think the economic crash of 1929 is part of what drove the National Socialists under Hitler's leadership to come up with those arguments in 1920.

?


Also

E) how man National-Socialist movements and thus-ruled countries are you aware of, outside of Nazi Germany?

 

[Lisa]

.....wait. So:

A) you think it was their party platform, though they didn't actually mean it, but
B) you don't actually if they actually meant it partially because you don't know if they put any of it into practice or didn't, and
C) you think the economic crash of 1929 is part of what drove the National Socialists under Hitler's leadership to come up with those arguments in 1920.

?


Also

E) how man National-Socialist movements and thus-ruled countries are you aware of, outside of Nazi Germany?

Of course, it was. They knew what would resonate with the people who were suffering and they told them exactly what they wanted to hear. The end of WW1 had Germany in a very deep depression and at an emotional low point because of the terms of the treaty of Versailles.

 

[cpwill]

Of course, it was. They knew what would resonate with the people who were suffering and they told them exactly what they wanted to hear. The end of WW1 had Germany in a very deep depression and at an emotional low point because of the terms of the treaty of Versailles.

No. National Socialism is an actual ideology, not a front

And, respectfully, if you didn't know what their economic program was, what their party platform was, or even when National Socialism began to coalesce as a movement... you may want to be cautious in making those kinds of very specific and bold historical claims, which you seem to have just made up as an attempt to avoid dealing with the points I outlined for you.

 

[Vadinho]

Nope. Hitler (and Mussolini, who deserves the credit for developing the actual ideology more than Hitler does) was actually a Socialist. That's why the National Socialist Party's pursued (among other things) fairly left wing economic policies


The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party

Some of these are real interesting:

...7. 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....

...9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, 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.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 with death, regardless of creed or race. ​

that ain't exactly capitalism

That actually sounds pretty good to me. Your definition of capitalism seems to be Hobbesian in nature, an unfettered version of capitalism with no regard for anyone or anything but profit. Very few nations follow that form of capitalism so you are kind of picking at nits here with Lisa. She seems to know her history quite well. On the other hand, you seem hell bent to paint as broad a brush as possible across the spectrum of nations that have elements of socialism. What exactly is your main point in your posts on this thread, maybe I am reading you incorrectly.

 

[cpwill]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

That actually sounds pretty good to me.

That is not surprising.

Your definition of capitalism seems to be Hobbesian in nature, an unfettered version of capitalism with no regard for anyone or anything but profit. Very few nations follow that form of capitalism so

You appear to have little understanding of what I advocate for, and would perhaps benefit from not making poor assumptions.

you are kind of picking at nits here with Lisa. She seems to know her history quite well

Evidently she didn't know this part very well, since she was unfamiliar with the Nazi party platform, and thought that it was written in reaction to events that happened almost a decade after it was announced.

On the other hand, you seem hell bent to paint as broad a brush as possible across the spectrum of nations that have elements of socialism. What exactly is your main point in your posts on this thread,

That National Socialism was firmly within the broad left-wing-intellectual-movement of it's time, as evidenced by it's arguments, history, platforms, and policies. As a single example, the Nazi party platform which, as you point out, included quite a few elements you found attractive indeed.

maybe I am reading you incorrectly.

That is likely.

 

[bomberfox]

Don't be stupid, of course you can. Mussolini was both a devote socialist leftist and the creator of fascism. Mussolini defined fascism as "all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." It doesn't get any more leftist than that.

It is you who are ignorant of the term. Fascism was created by leftists and can only be employed by leftists. The right-wing can be dictators, but only the left-wing can be fascist. Learn the difference.

Psst anarchy is originally a leftist position. Europe doesnt define its left and right wings on that silly basis.

 

[bomberfox]

I personally would have thought Freedom of association would have given that right. Why should one be forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with? I never understood why someone would want to do business with someone that would discriminate against them in the first place.

Problem came from nearly the entire society conspiring to keep certain people out of participating in it. Its why civil rights had to come with anti discrimination laws. MLK also knew the effect of being second class citizens regardless of legality was unacceptable and wanted black americans to be able to participate in society.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

So all the conscientious objectors to war and killing people should have no right to object and not serve in combat. This means they can go to jail.

 

[bomberfox]

and hopefully that sort of nonsense will be struck down as being beyond legitimate government powers

Its simply saying if you have a public business you have to serve the public.

 

[Integrityrespec]

When you go into a bakery and ask for a baker to create a specialty cake or pastry, you are employing him/her to work for you. In this country we can't force anyone to work for someone else, that's called slavery. These bakers refuse to create specialty pieces but they do not refuse to sale cakes that are on sale on the shelves or in their pasty counters.

 

[bomberfox]

Isn't that a "No True Scotsman" fallacy? That is, a true socialist (however one chooses to define that) cannot be an avowed racist or a nationalist? Or that socialism is incompatible with nationalism or racism?

Well one can say full stop that Hitler was just not a socialist at all. True or not true scotsman doesnt even need to be invoked . Nazis tend to lie a ton. There was an attempt to make a Prussian socialism but the idea is incredibly incoherent as it would exempt a socialist worker movement that strikes in industries that the state deems to be necessary to the social order from being a socialist.

 

[Nap]

Problem came from nearly the entire society conspiring to keep certain people out of participating in it. Its why civil rights had to come with anti discrimination laws. MLK also knew the effect of being second class citizens regardless of legality was unacceptable and wanted black americans to be able to participate in society.

The problem is that anti discrimination laws weren't needed, they merely needed to do away with the discrimination laws and the market would have solved itself. The one color every business loves is green. There will always be bigots that will discriminate in some way, I personally would rather they simply had a sign out front that clearly stated who they won't serve so I will not to be a patron of that establishment.

 

[Vadinho]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

That is not surprising.



You appear to have little understanding of what I advocate for, and would perhaps benefit from not making poor assumptions.



Evidently she didn't know this part very well, since she was unfamiliar with the Nazi party platform, and thought that it was written in reaction to events that happened almost a decade after it was announced.




That National Socialism was firmly within the broad left-wing-intellectual-movement of it's time, as evidenced by it's arguments, history, platforms, and policies. As a single example, the Nazi party platform which, as you point out, included quite a few elements you found attractive indeed.



That is likely.

Are you claiming that the NAZI party was not a product of the effects of Versailles upon the German people? I doubt that very much, his rise to fame came about during years of economic hardship and massive repayments to France and England. He promptly exited the agreement and Germany started to rebound. As for his leftist views, he was an ardent hater of Bolshevism which was the far left at that time. Are you claiming he was just a moderate communist? Or maybe the term socialist meant about as much to him as democracy means to the USA, nothing but a slogan.

 

[cpwill]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

Are you claiming that the NAZI party was not a product of the effects of Versailles upon the German people?

No?

1. The Nazi Party is hardly the whole of the National Socialist movement.

2. While the Treaty of Versailles and its effects were a major cause of the Nazi party and its political success, it was hardly the only parent in the room.

As for his leftist views, he was an ardent hater of Bolshevism which was the far left at that time. Are you claiming he was just a moderate communist?

What, you mean like the Mensheviks, who were then engaged in a civil war with the Bolsheviks?

"Hitler Couldn't Have Been A Leftist, He Put Communists In Concentration Camps And Got Rid Of Unions.... Just Like.... Those Right Wingers... Lenin.... And Mao.........."

:lol:

Or maybe the term socialist meant about as much to him as democracy means to the USA, nothing but a slogan.

Hitler himself was a bit more of a populist by nature, meaning he was there for the movement, but as interested in the deep ideological effort - that was more Mussolini's bag. But, again, "Hitler Was A National Socialist" =/= "Hitler = National Socialism".

 

[Vadinho]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

No?

1. The Nazi Party is hardly the whole of the National Socialist movement.

2. While the Treaty of Versailles and its effects were a major cause of the Nazi party and its political success, it was hardly the only parent in the room.




What, you mean like the Mensheviks, who were then engaged in a civil war with the Bolsheviks?

"Hitler Couldn't Have Been A Leftist, He Put Communists In Concentration Camps And Got Rid Of Unions.... Just Like.... Those Right Wingers... Lenin.... And Mao.........."

:lol:




Hitler himself was a bit more of a populist by nature, meaning he was there for the movement, but as interested in the deep ideological effort - that was more Mussolini's bag. But, again, "Hitler Was A National Socialist" =/= "Hitler = National Socialism".

Ok, I will buy that but at the core of your point here and throughout is the attempt to make him into a socialist because he claims he was a socialist. Fine, he called himself anything he wanted and no one argued much with him and lived. So now what is the real reason for your attempts to label him a socialist? I find that under most ardent supporters of this line of thought is to use Hitler to attack socialism today. Is that your end game here? Remember that at the time, the term itself had many different meanings to different people, it was a rather new political concept and there was not much conformity on what it meant.

 

[cpwill]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

Ok, I will buy that but at the core of your point here and throughout is the attempt to make him into a socialist because he claims he was a socialist.

No. The core of my argument here is that National Socialism was a branch of Socialism, and a part of the broad left-wing ideological trend of the time. As a National Socialist, Hitler would be an example of an individual who believed what National Socialists believed, which included quite a lot of things that you yourself - self identified Very Liberal - find quite appealing, because what National Socialists believed was part of the broad left-wing ideological trend of the time.

I find that under most ardent supporters of this line of thought is to use Hitler to attack socialism today.

I mean, if someone wants to have a conversation about the dangers that come along with the Totalitarianism inherent in that level of State Control of our lives, I think that the brutal dictatorships that have arisen under such a system are pretty fair game, but, that's not really my intent here, no.

I've already told you what my point here is. Post 383:

What exactly is your main point in your posts on this thread,

That National Socialism was firmly within the broad left-wing-intellectual-movement of it's time, as evidenced by it's arguments, history, platforms, and policies.

 

[Vadinho]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

No. The core of my argument here is that National Socialism was a branch of Socialism, and a part of the broad left-wing ideological trend of the time. As a National Socialist, Hitler would be an example of an individual who believed what National Socialists believed, which included quite a lot of things that you yourself - self identified Very Liberal - find quite appealing, because what National Socialists believed was part of the broad left-wing ideological trend of the time.



I mean, if someone wants to have a conversation about the dangers that come along with the Totalitarianism inherent in that level of State Control of our lives, I think that the brutal dictatorships that have arisen under such a system are pretty fair game, but, that's not really my intent here, no.

I've already told you what my point here is. Post 383:

You reveal yourself by linking what I believe with what Hitler believed in a bizarre twist of logic that connects the dots between dissimilar things over minor agreements. For instance, I bet both you and I share common agreement with Jeffrey Dahmer, maybe all three of us like fried chicken hence all three of us like to eat people. His ideas about how to create a more just economy and system were fine, the problem with your argument is that he is Hitler and did all sorts of other things besides put a sausage in every pot. Do I believe that profits of corporations should be shared with employees? Yes. Does that make me some sort of totalitarian dictator capable of exterminating all conservatives if I gained power? no.

 

[cpwill]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

You reveal yourself by linking what I believe with what Hitler believed in a bizarre twist of logic that connects the dots between dissimilar things over minor agreements. For instance, I bet both you and I share common agreement with Jeffrey Dahmer, maybe all three of us like fried chicken hence all three of us like to eat people. His ideas about how to create a more just economy and system were fine, the problem with your argument is that he is Hitler and did all sorts of other things besides put a sausage in every pot. Do I believe that profits of corporations should be shared with employees? Yes. Does that make me some sort of totalitarian dictator capable of exterminating all conservatives if I gained power? no.

You are making the same error in definition that I pointed out to you earlier. That all squares are rectangles does not make all rectangles squares. That Hitler was a National Socialist does not make anyone who believes in or supports tenets of National Socialism into Hitler.

In our hyperpartisan, tribal, rage-monkey time, this is sometimes easy to forget, but, things in history existed in and of themselves, and were not - actually - defined by the extent to which one side or another in late 20th/early 21st century U.S. politics found them convenient or not.

 

[Lisa]

Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

There is a nearly 50-year-old legal precedent that states that we do not have the right to discriminate against others in a public accommodation business because of our religious beliefs.

A racist BBQ joint owner in South Carolina also claimed that his religious beliefs forbid him from race-mixing, so he did not have to serve black and interracial people equally with whites, despite the public accommodation protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The SCOTUS voted 9-0 in opposition.
Newman v. Piggie Park.

 

[Vadinho]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

You are making the same error in definition that I pointed out to you earlier. That all squares are rectangles does not make all rectangles squares. That Hitler was a National Socialist does not make anyone who believes in or supports tenets of National Socialism into Hitler.

In our hyperpartisan, tribal, rage-monkey time, this is sometimes easy to forget, but, things in history existed in and of themselves, and were not - actually - defined by the extent to which one side or another in late 20th/early 21st century U.S. politics found them convenient or not.

OK, so your posts here were about socialism as it existed in the 1930s. Fine with me. But something about your fervor about this tells me something else about you. Come on, you know you want to paint me and all liberals with the same brush. Admit it.

 

[cpwill]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

OK, so your posts here were about socialism as it existed in the 1930s. Fine with me.

...and 1920's, but okedoke.

But something about your fervor about this tells me something else about you. Come on, you know you want to paint me and all liberals with the same brush. Admit it.

? Why would I do that? Modern Leftism has a variety of strains, as does modern Conservatism. I have friends who are leftists, family members who are left-leaning; my father, whom I respect deeply and whose guidance I seek regularly, is a left-of-center fellow, politically speaking.

If the only way one knows how to debate politics is the "Everyone I Don't Agree With Is Hitler/Racist/Sexist/UnWoke/Not-A-Real-American/Fascist/Communist/Anarchist/etc."..... then one is a fool, and should be kept as far away from decision-making as possible.

 

[Vadinho]

Re: "Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

...and 1920's, but okedoke.



? Why would I do that? Modern Leftism has a variety of strains, as does modern Conservatism. I have friends who are leftists, family members who are left-leaning; my father, whom I respect deeply and whose guidance I seek regularly, is a left-of-center fellow, politically speaking.

If the only way one knows how to debate politics is the "Everyone I Don't Agree With Is Hitler/Racist/Sexist/UnWoke/Not-A-Real-American/Fascist/Communist/Anarchist/etc."..... then one is a fool, and should be kept as far away from decision-making as possible.

Ok, fine with me. Not sure exactly how this sentiment resonates with your posts here but if this is your true intent, I am good with that.