Mosque at Ground Zero

Originally posted by 753
In name only, they were profoundly anti-socialist and used red scares as a propaganda tactic throughout their whole brief history.

I agree, but when did he say arab muslims are angry at the us for its freedoms?

They were anti-communist, but their whole economic structure was very socialist - hence why it actually worked.

They were striving to be self-sufficient, were they not?

What was exactly capitalist in Nazi Germany? War effort was by the people.
It isn't a socialist ideology to take over Europe, it is an economic system and has nothing to do with Nazi party's other ideas.
Hitler did in fact fix a lot of things which went wrong economically in Germany especially after Stressman died (from stress).

Originally posted by Rapscallion
no it wasn't. The Nazis were, by no stretch of the imagination, in anyway socialist. they were "socialist" in name only. their full name was actually the National Socialist German Worker's Party because they wanted to appeal to the german public in the wake of the weimar republic but they actually ended up persecuting socialists and communists. They were not remotely socialist or egalitarian at all. On the contrary, 1930's germany had one of the most rigid social hierarchies in history. it was hierarchical in terms of economics, politics, and ethnicity. Much of the nazi's ideology came from Frederick Nietzsche, possibly the most anti-socialist philosopher who ever existed. he claimed that in an ideal world there are two classes the master class and the slave class and that the slave class, the large uneducated masses existed for the sole purpose of serving the genetically superior and economically elite master class. how is that in anyway socialist? Furthermore they associated socialism and communism with jews and passed multiple pieces of legislation persecuting communists. communists socialist and members of workers' unions were actually persecuted years before the Final Solution was even implemented. they were the first people who the Nazi's attacked as they posed a political threat.

So no, the Nazi party was not a socialist party. Socialism went against the very fundamentals of their entire ideology.

Read above. I also hope you release there is a huge difference between socialism and communism - in Marxist's ideology of course. Socialism still has classes, so don't mix it up with communism which is supposed to have no classes. Proletariat, according to Marx still exist in socialism. Socialism is what is supposed to bring about communist revolution, not capitalism.
The only person who actually understood this was Stalin and he tried to leapfrog the stage of capitalism in his 5 year plan, but failed (for obvious reasons).

Originally posted by inimalist
hitler and his generals were fans of a concept called "war socialism" or "war communism". it isn't a strict soviet style socialism, but it did command huge sectors of the economy for the war effort, styled very much or socialist economic principles

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
. Hitler did in fact fix a lot of things which went wrong economically in Germany especially after Stressman died (from stress).

Fascism is pretty much an inbetween for capitalism and socialism. It was such extreme corporatism coupled with subjugation of workers and state intervention that you can't call it either.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Ya. By creating jobs through rebuilding the military. His recovery wasn't sustainable. At all. Especially with the lack of raw materials.

Fascism is pretty much an inbetween for capitalism and socialism. It was such extreme corporatism coupled with subjugation of workers and state intervention that you can't call it either.

There is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization. Each fascist state had their own ways. While both socialism and communism are economic, social and political ideas, fascism is a political idea foremost and can implement any or hybrid of the above ideologies.

I wouldn't put it between communism and socialism, although I don't deny it is possible.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
[B]They were anti-communist, but their whole economic structure was very socialist - hence why it actually worked.

They were striving to be self-sufficient, were they not?

What was exactly capitalist in Nazi Germany? War effort was by the people.
It isn't a socialist ideology to take over Europe, it is an economic system and has nothing to do with Nazi party's other ideas.
Hitler did in fact fix a lot of things which went wrong economically in Germany especially after Stressman died (from stress).

Fascist corporatist economy may not be laissez faire capitalism, but it's no form of socialism either.

Socialism's defining characteristic isn't government command over the economy but common, or at least equitativelly distributed, ownership of resources. This was never implemented in Germany. Private property and capitalism were never abolished, just blatantly integrated into the State (mainly for the benefit of capitalists I might add).

Fascist corporatism was supposed to be an harmonious and organic form of economic management that represented the interests of all classes and the State, it never seeked to abolish classes altoghether. In practice, labour ended up being subjugated and controlled under a mergere of private (capitalists) and public (party beaurecrats) power. In a way, it was closer to cartel capitalism than to socialism.

Fascist parties, including NSDP, were supported by big business as a way to counter the threat of communist revolution and get rid of trade unions. Although laissez faire was indeed limited by the state's exercise of emminent domain in the war effort, control over production resided in the hands of big business with ties to the party and profits were still kept by the capitalists, not made public or paid to the workers.

As roosevelt said:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."

If by self-sufficiency you mean slaving the rest of the world for labour and raw materials than that's what they were aiming at. But even if they were actually striving for self-sufficiency, that, in itself, wouldn't necessarilly make them socialists.

Ya. By creating jobs through rebuilding the military. His recovery wasn't sustainable. At all. Especially with the lack of raw materials.

Fascism is pretty much an inbetween for capitalism and socialism. It was such extreme corporatism coupled with subjugation of workers and state intervention that you can't call it either.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization. Each fascist state had their own ways. While both socialism and communism are economic, social and political ideas, fascism is a political idea foremost and can implement any or hybrid of the above ideologies.

I wouldn't put it between communism and socialism, although I don't deny it is possible.

Nazi germany and fascist italy used corporatism as an economic model, it was influential in other countris too.

He said it's an inbetween socialism and capitalism. Indeed it absorbed ideas and practices from both.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because they're so selective of which sin they're so against. If it was because 'the bible tells me so', then there would be equal intolerance.

Anti-homosexuality is major among religious groups, from outright condemning it to enacting laws that make homosexuals like 2nd class citizens. Don't think you'd disagree with this.

When the last time you've seen anti-Adultery campaigns from religious groups/people? Denying adulterers equal rights, groups of people holding up anti-Adultery signs etc.? Or any other sin for that matter get this type of attention and condemnation from the religious groups.

Laws against adultery exist in several states. South Carlina law says: Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment... Like 'No Gay Marriage' this is also a law that comes from the Bible.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

Originally posted by Robtard
Japan's more than happy to have US military bases on its soil. It constantly reminds China why they can't just steam-roll over Japan, as they REALLY want to.

Well, they could look after themselves if they had a real army by now.

What makes you say the PRC REALLY wants to militarilly steam roll japan?

Originally posted by 753
Fascist corporatist economy may not be laissez faire capitalism, but it's no form of socialism either.

Socialism's defining characteristic isn't government command over the economy but common, or at least equitativelly distributed, ownership of resources. This was never implemented in Germany. Private property and capitalism were never abolished, just blatantly integrated into the State (mainly for the benefit of capitalists I might add).

Fascist corporatism was supposed to be an harmonious and organic form of economic management that represented the interests of all classes and the State, it never seeked to abolish classes altoghether. In practice, labour ended up being subjugated and controlled under a mergere of private (capitalists) and public (party beaurecrats) power. In a way, it was closer to cartel capitalism than to socialism.

Fascist parties, including NSDP, were supported by big business as a way to counter the threat of communist revolution and get rid of trade unions. Although laissez faire was indeed limited by the state's exercise of emminent domain in the war effort, control over production resided in the hands of big business with ties to the party and profits were still kept by the capitalists, not made public or paid to the workers.

As roosevelt said:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."

If by self-sufficiency you mean slaving the rest of the world for labour and raw materials than that's what they were aiming at. But even if they were actually striving for self-sufficiency, that, in itself, wouldn't necessarilly make them socialists.

Agreed.

No, self-sufficiency is being able to produce everything you need yourself. It was Stalin's and Hitler's aims, although problematic for numerous reasons.

To assert that Nazism was closer to capitalism stretches the imagination past the breaking point .

The Germany government completely controlled monetary policy, banking, imports and exports, set up severe price and wage controls, restricted dividends, organized factories...etc. Profits soared on paper, but in reality, businessmen and companies just became just one more cog in the Nazi machine, controlled and buried in red-tape, taxation, and mandatory contributions to the state.

Yes, Hitler supressed communists, socialists, and any other non-Nazi with both propaganda and physical force. This only proves that he was an expert at consolidating power, not that the regime was close to capitalism.

Again, fascism is a political idea and any economic system can be attached to it, be it capitalism, socialism or communism (neither of which are true to their ideology, if they are).

Soviet Russia was never in fact communist, but we still go on about calling it communist and cussing out anyone who may like the idea.
We utilize many socialist ideas in our governments, because they are a GOOD ideas - such as free health, free education, public transport and the likes.

Just because Hitler had a socialist attached to him does not mean it is evil (Hitler also was the first to ban smoking in public places, so is that Nazi too? No. Although I as a smoker will throw any argument I can at righteous non smokers. Yes I will. Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), Volkswagen is Hitler's doing, but if you drive Das Auto does not mean you support Hitler.

And I am anti-capitalist, but I don't support Hitler. Socialism will get us a long way, if not abused by a crazed dictator, that is.

The point is -
Socialism was in Germany just like Communism was in Russia, elements of both were there, but the true ideologies were not.

So when will this place be built?
Next year?

something like that.

they should also build a synagogue, church, temple, mandir & gurdwara as well to promote inter faith unity.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
[B]No, self-sufficiency is being able to produce everything you need yourself. It was Stalin's and Hitler's aims, although problematic for numerous reasons.

To assert that Nazism was closer to capitalism stretches the imagination past the breaking point .

The Germany government completely controlled monetary policy, banking, imports and exports, set up severe price and wage controls, restricted dividends, organized factories...etc. Profits soared on paper, but in reality, businessmen and companies just became just one more cog in the Nazi machine, controlled and buried in red-tape, taxation, and mandatory contributions to the state.

They surely weren't liberal, but is liberalism a necessary political environment for capitalism or even a component of it? Mercantilism flourished under absolutist regimes until they eventually began hampering its growth. Still, private property and search for profit through reinvestment and never-ending market expansion defined their economies at the same time despotism defined their politics. A despotic government might serve capitalists just fine as long as they get to control or influence it.

Yes, Hitler supressed communists, socialists, and any other non-Nazi with both propaganda and physical force. This only proves that he was an expert at consolidating power, not that the regime was close to capitalism.

Again, fascism is a political idea and any economic system can be attached to it, be it capitalism, socialism or communism (neither of which are true to their ideology, if they are).

Soviet Russia was never in fact communist, but we still go on about calling it communist and cussing out anyone who may like the idea.
We utilize many socialist ideas in our governments, because they are a GOOD ideas - such as free health, free education, public transport and the likes.

Just because Hitler had a socialist attached to him does not mean it is evil (Hitler also was the first to ban smoking in public places, so is that Nazi too? No. Although I as a smoker will throw any argument I can at righteous non smokers. Yes I will. Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), Volkswagen is Hitler's doing, but if you drive Das Auto does not mean you support Hitler.

And I am anti-capitalist, but I don't support Hitler. Socialism will get us a long way, if not abused by a crazed dictator, that is.

I agree completelly. The nazis, or at least a wing of the party, were far ahead of their time in regards to nature conservancy. Associating something with nazism to discredit it is just a fallacy with the same value of claiming vegetarians are nazis cause himler was one.

The point is -
Socialism was in Germany just like Communism was in Russia, elements of both were there, but the true ideologies were not.

I agree, and while it's clear that the fascists incorporated policies and ideas from authoritarian state socialists, the key component of any socialist economy, common or state ownership of the means of production, wasn't implemented.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Laws against adultery exist in several states. South Carlina law says: Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment... Like 'No Gay Marriage' this is also a law that comes from the Bible.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

But you don't see the same types of protest from those same people as they protest agaisnt homosexuality, now do we. Adultery is also but one sin in the bible.

Where is "no gay marriage" in the bible though?

Originally posted by 753
Well, they could look after themselves if they had a real army by now.

What makes you say the PRC REALLY wants to militarilly steam roll japan?

Possible. They don't though, that's the price they pay.

For what Japan did in Manchuria during WW2, there's lots of anti-Japanese sentiment in China to this day.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Indeed. But then again, soviet style anything just had a tendency to fail....

true, I'm just pointing out that hitler himself used socialist and communist policy, by name (he didn't hide it was socialist/communist).

and even then, when we look at the industry in Germany at the time, the vw and contracts with corporations show the Nazi party had absolute control of the economy. that they had a moderatly lasse-faire system under that control, which they didn't, it wouldn't be capitalism in theory or practice.

still, this dispute seems trivial. the best way to describe the economic policies of the Nazi (or any totalitarian regieme) would be "Nazism"

Originally posted by Robtard
But you don't see the same types of protest from those same people as they protest agaisnt homosexuality, now do we. Adultery is also but one sin in the bible.

Where is "no gay marriage" in the bible though?

No we don't (there's a lot of anti-adultery protests in Muslim countries though, more than anti-gay actually). But does a protest really matter? There's laws against adultery on the books as of 2010 in the United States, that alone should speak for itself. In fact, Shirley Phelps-Roper, one of the leaders of the WBC, always says that all sins are equal, and that there is no "level of severity" when it comes to God's laws. She says this whenever someone pulls the number of "Why do you ONLY care about the gay sin?". And you can find all that on youtube.

'No gay marriage' isn't in the Bible because gay didn't mean "homosexual" until the 1960's, but the wording in Leviticus leaves little room for speculation.

"A man should not lay with another man as he does with a woman"

or something like that. Technically, that does leave room for unconsummated gay marriage.

Originally posted by lord xyz
"A man should not lay with another man as he does with a woman"

or something like that. Technically, that does leave room for unconsummated gay marriage.

In fact you could argue it allows any non-vaginal sex between two men.

Originally posted by lord xyz
"A man should not lay with another man as he does with a woman"

or something like that. Technically, that does leave room for unconsummated gay marriage.

it would, though at least to Catholics, no marriage is official until it is consummated

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No we don't (there's a lot of anti-adultery protests in Muslim countries though, more than anti-gay actually). But does a protest really matter? There's laws against adultery on the books as of 2010 in the United States, that alone should speak for itself. In fact, Shirley Phelps-Roper, one of the leaders of the WBC, always says that all sins are equal, and that there is no "level of severity" when it comes to God's laws. She says this whenever someone pulls the number of "Why do you ONLY care about the gay sin?". And you can find all that on youtube.

'No gay marriage' isn't in the Bible because gay didn't mean "homosexual" until the 1960's, but the wording in Leviticus leaves little room for speculation.

Again, not talking about laws (when was the last time an adulterer was charged with the crime anyhow?), I said that the religious anti-gay types just use religion as an excuse to hide what is nothing more than intolerance and hatred.

Shirley Phelps is both insane and an idiot. Yet the Phelps do picket more over homosexuality then they do Sweden, soldiers, The Pope anyone/everything else.

Fair enough, 'homosexual marriage', 'marriage between same sex' or what have you, anywhere? Leviticus is both done away with (if we're talking about Christians) and it speaks only of sexual contact between a man and man.