Panda said:I disagree.
Bush is worse than Hitler
Hitler was not socialist, Kitsch. We've discussed this at great length over at NationStates, where everybody is a political nut. Suffice it to say that conservatives want to claim Hitler was liberal or left-wing... but it doesn't hold water.Kitsch said:I think the the defining difference between the two is that Hitler was an admitted socialist where as Bush thinks he can hide from it........with the help from fellow socialists he may get away with it
For the sake of arguement lets assume you are correct, it is socialists then that are responsible for bringing Hitler to power, it seems that any time a pol wants to sucker in the "workig-class" they call themselves socialists and promise them everything for free..........and the socialists fall for it everytime.TJHairball said:Hitler was not socialist, Kitsch. We've discussed this at great length over at NationStates, where everybody is a political nut. Suffice it to say that conservatives want to claim Hitler was liberal or left-wing... but it doesn't hold water.
The entire case is hinged upon the notion (ultimately) that 1.) the party's name means it is so and 2.) an equivalence between authoritarianism and socialism (which is, of course, particularly ridiculous to claim when anarcho-communists are in the room.)
The Nazis absolutely detested communists. They were the great enemy. (This was why everybody knew the USSR and the Reich would wind up breaking their pact... the question was when. Adolf set his betrayal closer on the calendar than Joe.)
The "national socialist" party was anything but socialist. It's a misnomer... a deliberate one intended to help sucker working-class Germans into voting for it. The Nazi party was always happy to work with private industry (which is why we see, for example, Mercedes charged with reparations). They were unfriendly to labor unions, increased the gap between rich and poor, etc.
Again, no. The Nazis rode to power by (a) frightening everybody about the socialists and the notion of communist revolution and (b) being an opposition group to a highly unpopular government. They didn't ride to power by promising to expand social services.Kitsch said:For the sake of arguement lets assume you are correct, it is socialists then that are responsible for bringing Hitler to power, it seems that any time a pol wants to sucker in the "workig-class" they call themselves socialists and promise them everything for free..........and the socialists fall for it everytime.
BECUASE THE REAL HITLER CAME FROM EUROPEAN? THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN SKANSYLVAINA. WE PRIDE ORSELVES ON OUR PEACEFUL NATURES.Kitsch said:I don't so much mind Bush being compared to Hitler as much as I mind the implication that he may be a european.
NacchiSK4N said:BECUASE THE REAL HITLER CAME FROM EUROPEAN? THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN SKANSYLVAINA. WE PRIDE ORSELVES ON OUR FUGLY LOOKS PROOF:
.
TJHairball said:Hitler was not socialist, Kitsch. We've discussed this at great length over at NationStates, where everybody is a political nut. Suffice it to say that conservatives want to claim Hitler was liberal or left-wing... but it doesn't hold water.
The entire case is hinged upon the notion (ultimately) that 1.) the party's name means it is so and 2.) an equivalence between authoritarianism and socialism (which is, of course, particularly ridiculous to claim when anarcho-communists are in the room.)
The Nazis absolutely detested communists. They were the great enemy. (This was why everybody knew the USSR and the Reich would wind up breaking their pact... the question was when. Adolf set his betrayal closer on the calendar than Joe.)
The "national socialist" party was anything but socialist. It's a misnomer... a deliberate one intended to help sucker working-class Germans into voting for it. The Nazi party was always happy to work with private industry (which is why we see, for example, Mercedes charged with reparations). They were unfriendly to labor unions, increased the gap between rich and poor, etc.
jack said:I've always held fast to the idea that Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist.
The_Amazing_Messenger said:I never understood this comparison. Hitler actually served in combat, and the German economy actually improved when he seized, .....I mean, stole, ....I mean was "elected" into office, as Bush was.
America's Hitler
starguard said:
:kitty:
Mentalist said:Awaiting Lucy to respond to MX's excellent post. Don't skip over any parts now, Lucy.
Lets see if I have this right, according to you the Nazi's called themselves socialists to try and fool the working class into voting for them but it didn't work, is that accurate? they then tried to scare the working class into voting for the National socialist party by making them afraid of socialists? did that work? And finally, they did not call themselves socialists because they wanted people to believe they would expand social services? is that correct............You claim by calling themselves socialists the Nazi's didn't fool too many people, todays socialists aren't fooling anyone either.TJHairball said:Again, no. The Nazis rode to power by (a) frightening everybody about the socialists and the notion of communist revolution and (b) being an opposition group to a highly unpopular government. They didn't ride to power by promising to expand social services.
I said the name was an attempt to appeal to working class voters. I didn't say it worked very well as such.
Calm down dude, some day you'll be the 51st state and all your suffering will be over.SaintLucifer said:For the millionth time I feel obliged to remind all Americans of one glaringly obvious fact:
CANADA NEVER HAS BEEN, IS NOT NOW AND NEVER WILL BE A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!!
Do you fucking understand?? Will you fucking remember this from now on? The U.S.A. is the ONLY nation whose inhabitants think this way.