"Totalitarian instincts" of the Left are exposed

[EatTheRich]

Because Nazis and fascists are not one and the same - otherwise we wouldn't need the two different words.

Nope. Nazis just needed a new name because fascism had given “fascist” a bad name ... and they called themselves “socialist” because capitalism had given capitalism a bad name while meanwhile socialism had earned an excellent reputation. It’s much the same way fascists and Nazis pretend not to be fascists and Nazis today.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Nope. Nazis just needed a new name because fascism had given “fascist” a bad name ... and they called themselves “socialist” because capitalism had given capitalism a bad name while meanwhile socialism had earned an excellent reputation. It’s much the same way fascists and Nazis pretend not to be fascists and Nazis today.

That sounds ridiculous. Hitler and Mussolini both spent their early careers working for socialist organizations. They may have perverted socialism into a fascist construct, but they most certainly were not capitalists.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Nothing like a link to fascist propaganda to prove your point, hmm?

Seems to me they aren't really talking up fascism there. Maybe they just aren't very good at propagandizing, hmm?

 

[EatTheRich]

That sounds ridiculous. Hitler and Mussolini both spent their early careers working for socialist organizations. They may have perverted socialism into a fascist construct, but they most certainly were not capitalists.

What socialist organization did Hitler work for? If they weren’t capitalist politicians, why did the capitalist class bankroll them?

 

[EatTheRich]

Seems to me they aren't really talking up fascism there. Maybe they just aren't very good at propagandizing, hmm?

Defending fascist leaders with the claim that Stalin was “more fascist” ... because he emulated Mussolini when he made war against the communist (“Trotskyist”) left ... is talking up fascism.

 

[reason10]

I agree with it. I believe trump supporters are anti-American. Many are racist, many are selfish. Many are hateful, bigoted and ugly. I don’t condone any violence, but if boycotting many bad people is something they want to do, more power to them.

Trump supporters (who are the most intelligent people on the planet) pay taxes so you don't have to.

Every time you edited lose an argument, you trot out the race card. Don't you get tired of looking like an edited all the time?

 

[reason10]

What socialist organization did Hitler work for? If they weren’t capitalist politicians, why did the capitalist class bankroll them?

Uh, Hitler was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST.

You edited walk into that every time.

 

[EatTheRich]

Uh, Hitler was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST.

You edited walk into that every time.

“We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left.”-Adolf Hitler

Interesting that you think ending unemployment is a “progressive” thing. It is an absolute lie to say that Hitler got religion out of politics.

 

[Colorforms]

“Fascist” does not mean anyone who disagrees with you.

I know that better than you do, Apparently.

That is just your way of suppressing disagreement.

Advocating for the violent suppression of dissent is part of why these people and groups are fascists.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Defending fascist leaders with the claim that Stalin was “more fascist” ... because he emulated Mussolini when he made war against the communist (“Trotskyist”) left ... is talking up fascism.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Merriam Webster obviously has no political agenda and rightly describes it in non-left/right terms.

Those sources that "define" it as "far right wing" are making a political editorial rather than a definitional effort. Do you suppose M-W just "forgot" that it is a "far right wing" ideology? Purposefully left it out? What?

That, of course, is absurd. If such an apolitical definition could not exist, then you might have a point. As it is, all you have is (as usual) propaganda.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

What socialist organization did Hitler work for? If they weren’t capitalist politicians, why did the capitalist class bankroll them?

Why, the Nazi Party, for crying out loud:

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of thesubstantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

 

[EatTheRich]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Merriam Webster obviously has no political agenda and rightly describes it in non-left/right terms.

Those sources that "define" it as "far right wing" are making a political editorial rather than a definitional effort. Do you suppose M-W jjust "forgot" that it is a "far right wing" ideology? Purposefully left it out? What?

That, of course, is absurd. If such an apolitical definition could not exist, then you might have a point. As it is, all you have is (as usual) propaganda.

It is implied by the M-W definition, just not made explicit. Nationalism and racism are right-wing philosophies, therefore political programs centered on nationalism and racism are right-wing. Individualism (in the true sense, not in the sense of the abstract exaltation of the generalized-in-theory, bourgeois-in-practice individual that is extremely compatible with fascism) is left-wing, therefore a political program based on hostility to individualism is right-wing.

 

[EatTheRich]

Why, the Nazi Party, for crying out loud:

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of thesubstantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Mises was, of course, a fascist collaborator. The “substance” of private ownership of the means of production is private wealth garnered through exploitation of the masses ... which happened in Nazi Germany. That the state also gave the capitalist market what it wanted by relieving the capitalists of the expense and responsibility of management was just icing on the cake.

Nixon imposed wage and price controls ... was he a socialist too?

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

Two actors who are best known for a television sitcom that aired more than a decade ago have found a new lease on life — exposing for all of us of the totalitarian instincts of liberals.

Eric McCormack and Debra Messing of the 1990s TV series “Will and Grace” decided it would be a really good idea to use social media to call for a blacklist of conservatives in Hollywood. Being oh so clever, and knowing exactly what it was they were doing, they opted to couch their fascist instinct as a personal inquiry so that they would know who not to work with.....

Americans don't want to work with the hate and death coming from the Republican parties MAGA Cult ...

Nothing wrong with that

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Mises was, of course, a fascist collaborator. The “substance” of private ownership of the means of production is private wealth garnered through exploitation of the masses ... which happened in Nazi Germany. That the state also gave the capitalist market what it wanted by relieving the capitalists of the expense and responsibility of management was just icing on the cake.

Nixon imposed wage and price controls ... was he a socialist too?

That, of course, is hogwash. Just another example of the radical leftists trying to look "moderate" by demonizing anyone who doesn't agree that socialism is a "moderate" approach to politics.

The same freaking thing happened under Soviet era "communist" leadership (and, frankly, every other communist system) - the workers were/are exploited by the party elites, who live like potentates while the common folks line up to buy toilet paper. Capitalism's most obvious trait is free markets - having state controlled but privately "owned" businesses is a form of SOCIALISM!!!

 

[Raoul_Luke]

It is implied by the M-W definition, just not made explicit. Nationalism and racism are right-wing philosophies, therefore political programs centered on nationalism and racism are right-wing. Individualism (in the true sense, not in the sense of the abstract exaltation of the generalized-in-theory, bourgeois-in-practice individual that is extremely compatible with fascism) is left-wing, therefore a political program based on hostility to individualism is right-wing.

Again - hogwash! Nationalism and racism are neither left or right wing. I have a known a number of (democrat) white working class people who are nationalistic as well as virulently racist. Again, you don't get to decide what words mean - you are simply trying to demagogue people into accepting the shackles of communism.

 

[EatTheRich]

That, of course, is hogwash. Just another example of the radical leftists trying to look "moderate" by demonizing anyone who doesn't agree that socialism is a "moderate" approach to politics.

The same freaking thing happened under Soviet era "communist" leadership (and, frankly, every other communist system) - the workers were/are exploited by the party elites, who live like potentates while the common folks line up to buy toilet paper. Capitalism's most obvious trait is free markets - having state controlled but privately "owned" businesses is a form of SOCIALISM!!!

Exploitation in the “Soviet era” was characteristic of a socialism still in its infantile stage, bearing much of the stamp of the capitalist society from which it was emerging. With every big socialist victory the level of that exploitation was lessened (e.g., Soviet defeat of Hitler and Korean defeat of the U.N. led to de-Stalinization), while with every big counter revolutionary victory it was intensified (for example, Hitler’s rise to power and Franco’s victories in Spain led to the Great Terror).

If the state control of business that is necessary to ensure profits today and that the modern market demands cannot be purchased on the market, that market is not “free.”

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Exploitation in the “Soviet era” was characteristic of a socialism still in its infantile stage, bearing much of the stamp of the capitalist society from which it was emerging. With every big socialist victory the level of that exploitation was lessened (e.g., Soviet defeat of Hitler and Korean defeat of the U.N. led to de-Stalinization), while with every big counter revolutionary victory it was intensified (for example, Hitler’s rise to power and Franco’s victories in Spain led to the Great Terror).

If the state control of business that is necessary to ensure profits today and that the modern market demands cannot be purchased on the market, that market is not “free.”

Yes, every Marxist experiment has failed because of, well, because of capitalism. That argument is as insipid as it is self-serving...

 

[EatTheRich]

Yes, every Marxist experiment has failed because of, well, because of capitalism. That argument is as insipid as it is self-serving...

Note that by “failed” you mean “tremendously improved the lives of millions of people, but did not eliminate every social problem typical of capitalism overnight.”

 

[EatTheRich]

Again - hogwash! Nationalism and racism are neither left or right wing. I have a known a number of (democrat) white working class people who are nationalistic as well as virulently racist. Again, you don't get to decide what words mean - you are simply trying to demagogue people into accepting the shackles of communism.

Whatever their (dominant) race, class, or (big-business) Party, to the extent that they accepted the capitalist ideologies of nationalism and racism, they were right-wing. Why do you think fascists from Mussolini, to Hitler, to Franco, to McCarthy, to Rockwell, to Pinochet self-identified as right-wing?