Freedom of speech != Freedom of consequences.
It's funny the fascist far right in this thread are all whining about violence when their ideology involves a very brutal and violent "cleansing" of elements they dislike.
I guess being shameless hypocrites is what does this.
"My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility
Prediction for the future
Hitler's own words? He was staunchly anti-Marxist, and he wanted to redefine what "socialism" meant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...s_on_economics
He was a staunch supporter of private ownership, which isn't a socialist principle, and generally opposed socialist theory. The label he chose for his party is essentially a misnomer. Taking it for granted is like using North Korea as a symbol of democracy.
Hitler famously stated that the Reich had not real economic theory. If it was closest to anything, it was closest to a form of state capitalism.
Reverse it and it's a hate crime....... Some people just want free speech for themselves I guess.
Me thinks Chromie has a whole lot of splaining to do!
You are cherry picking one quote that seems to fly in the face of all his other quotes and the party's economic points.
Sure he once said, "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative"
But he also qualified that statement later by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.
He also said, "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism..." and "What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings". So either way, the state is in control as they are dictating the decisions of the individual.
Hitler was also against materialism (which most say is a big proponent of Capitalism)
Also you have the fact that the Nazi's 25 point program included:
- the abolition of all incomes unearned by work
- the confiscation of all war profits
- the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations
- profit-sharing in large enterprises
- extensive development of insurance for old-age
- land reform suitable to our national requirements
Those are all socialist ideals.
USA and their free speech law are hilarious...
You let any @ssh0le, hate screamer, psychopath saying whatever he wants publicly and after you are all surprised when they form some kind of cult and shoot people.
People would advertise hate must be silenced.
Communism is absolutely responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, I'm sorry but that's just a fact. There's nothing McCarthyist about it.
Communist theory requires a massive restructuring of society at a rapid rate. This has never been achieved without the deaths of millions of people.
No, it is not fair to call Nazi ideology "state capitalist" but not Khmer Rouge as communist. The Nazis rejected any label as capitalists and state capitalism has nothing to do with capitalism as defined by private enterprises controlling industry. State capitalism is the antithesis of this definition, it is the state controlling industry. The two have nothing to do with each other besides having the same word in it.
The Khmer Rouge branded themselves as communists and succeeded in dismantling socioeconomic classes. It is pretty fucking offensive to deny the Khmer Rouge's communist ideology as the basis for all the people they murdered through their social engineering and genocide of educated "bourgeois".
This has nothing to do with my main thesis though, I just used communists as an example. My point is that it is wrong to physically harm people for believing in bad ideas or bad ideologies.
That student wouldn't have punched that neo-nazi if that neo-nazi had been wearing a red star communist hat and was handing out copies of the little red book even though the Soviet Union and Mao's PRC dwarf the crimes of Nazi Germany.
These people are willing to punch Nazis because of their emotional hatred of Nazi ideology, not because it is well reasoned to do so. Just like you are defending communist crimes because you hold left wing views, not because it is well reasoned to do so.
Oh no, a nazi got punched! How horrible!
That would seem to contradict what you just said.
Oh I'd murder the fucker and their entire family tree for punching a puppy.
- - - Updated - - -
People say stupid shit all the time if you havn't learned to brush words off without resorting to violence then you're on a fast track to winning a Darwin Award.
There were plenty of quotes in there, not just one.
Something which is true of pretty much every modern Western nation.Sure he once said, "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative"
But he also qualified that statement later by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.
You do realize those quotes directly contradict your earlier argument, yes? These are statements supporting private ownership and Hitler's attempt to redefine socialism, respectively.He also said, "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism..." and "What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings". So either way, the state is in control as they are dictating the decisions of the individual.
No. They aren't. The first isn't really socialist at all. The second is just authoritarian. The third is state capitalist. The fourth, admittedly, is socialist. The fifth directly contradicts the first, which is hilarious (and also not socialist). And the last, again, has nothing to do with socialism.Also you have the fact that the Nazi's 25 point program included:
- the abolition of all incomes unearned by work
- the confiscation of all war profits
- the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations
- profit-sharing in large enterprises
- extensive development of insurance for old-age
- land reform suitable to our national requirements
Those are all socialist ideals.
Meanwhile, the same 25-point plan included pushing small businesses and such.
Also, you're conveniently ignoring that the plan also demanded legal opposition to "known lies and their promulgation through the press". If they'd actually meant that, their own propagandists would have been criminals. That clearly wasn't true, because a lot of this stuff was convenient rhetoric, and it's more useful to look at what the Nazi's actually did, rather than believing their propaganda pieces blindly.
[quote]You mean "Stalinism".
Sure it has. The American Revolution's death toll, for instance, was well below that mark. And really, the "massive restructuring of society" occurred AFTER the Revolution, and had a death toll that was practically zero.Communist theory requires a massive restructuring of society at a rapid rate. This has never been achieved without the deaths of millions of people.
You seriously need to stop taking Nazis at their word. They lied about a lot of shit.No, it is not fair to call Nazi ideology "state capitalist" but not Khmer Rouge as communist. The Nazis rejected any label as capitalists and state capitalism has nothing to do with capitalism as defined by private enterprises controlling industry. State capitalism is the antithesis of this definition, it is the state controlling industry. The two have nothing to do with each other besides having the same word in it.
Also, you not understanding state capitalism doesn't make it not a thing; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
Nobody was doing that.The Khmer Rouge branded themselves as communists and succeeded in dismantling socioeconomic classes. It is pretty fucking offensive to deny the Khmer Rouge's communist ideology as the basis for all the people they murdered through their social engineering and genocide of educated "bourgeois".
But it wasn't the communism that caused the death toll. That's the part you keep skipping over. Rather than blaming the vicious totalitarianism of the leadership, you try and blame economics. This doesn't make sense.
No, because they're explicitly advocating harm. Nazi views are explicitly harmful.These people are willing to punch Nazis because of their emotional hatred of Nazi ideology, not because it is well reasoned to do so.
Again, no. I haven't defended the Khmer Rouge in any way. They were vicious totalitarians. Like Stalin, for that matter.Just like you are defending communist crimes because you hold left wing views, not because it is well reasoned to do so.
I'm just pointing out that fascism and totalitarianism is the cause of those issues, not the underlying economic system, which was communism. You're drinking the McCarthy kool-aid and confusing economics for politics.
talk smack, get cracked.
- Christopher HitchensPopulists (and "national socialists") look at the supposedly secret deals that run the world "behind the scenes". Child's play. Except that childishness is sinister in adults.
Hitler's statements include comments such as "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".
Plus, there's this statement; "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can't escape...What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings"
That first bit is complaining that people aren't free to be private individuals. It's not a socialist perspective, this was Hitler trying to redefine the term. Because the term is entirely about the ownership of the means of production.