Why Nazism=Socialism=Totalitarian

[Freedom Works]

http://mises.org:88/ss05-Reisman (video)

[Master Che]

If you actually believe that us propaganda crap your a moron. And Nazi germany was a Fascist state not a Capitalist state.

[LSD]

And I thought Bob Avakian was a boring speaker...

[Freedom Works]

Wow, those are some excellent non-fallacious responses!

[Guest1]

That's an excellent non-fallacious propaganda piece!

[Freedom Works]

This site is propaganda.

BTW, do you even know what fallacious means?

[Latifa]

Do you realise no one takes anything from that POS resource seriously?

[Freedom Works]

That's because if you did your economic 'theories' fall flat on their face.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 17 2005, 01:37 AM
This site is propaganda.

BTW, do you even know what fallacious means?
Yes, but I haven't actually watched the propaganda because I'm at an office :lol:

But I assume it's as usual with your threads, based on flawed logic and revisionist history.

I'll watch it later on.

[KC]

That's because if you did your economic 'theories' fall flat on their face.

Please, disprove our economic 'theories'.

[Intifada]

(Idiot)

Why Nazism=Socialism

I stopped reading there.

You know nothing about Socialism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

On the subject of the name, "National Socialism", I suggest you read the following report by Georgi Dimitroff which was given to the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935.


THE CLASS CHARACTER OF FASCISM

Comrades, fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.

The most reactionary variety of fascism is the German type of fascism. It has the effrontery to call itself National-Socialism, though it has nothing in common with socialism. Hitler fascism is not only bourgeois nationalism, it is bestial chauvinism. It is a government system of political gangsterism, a system of provocation and torture practiced upon the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. It is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in relation to other nations and countries.

German fascism is acting as the spearhead of international counter-revolution, as the chief instigator of imperialist war, as the initiator of a crusade against the Soviet Union, the great fatherland of the toilers of the whole world.

Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not super-class government, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpenproletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its crudest form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.

This, the true character of fascism, must be particularly stressed; because in a number of countries, under cover of social demagogy, fascism has managed to gain the following of the mass of the petty bourgeoisie that has been driven out of its course by the crisis, and even of certain sections of the most backward strata of the proletariat. These would never have supported fascism if they had understood its real class character and its true nature.

The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities and the international position of the given country. In certain countries, principally those in which fascism has no extensive mass basis and in which the struggle of the various groups within the camp of the fascist bourgeoisie itself is fairly acute, fascism does not immediately venture to abolish parliament, but allows the other bourgeois parties, as well as the Social-Democratic Parties, to retain a certain degree of legality. In other countries, where the ruling bourgeoisie fears an early outbreak of revolution, fascism establishes its unrestricted political monopoly, either immediately or by intensifying its reign of terror against and persecution of all competing parties and groups. This does not prevent fascism, when its position becomes particularly acute, from trying to extend its basis and, without altering its class nature, trying to combine open terrorist dictatorship with a crude sham of parliamentarism.

The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie -- bourgeois democracy -- by another form -- open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake which would prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance, in establishing the fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie which are at present increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic countries -- measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement.

Comrades, the accession to power of fascism must not be conceived of in so simplified and smooth a form, as though some committee or other of finance capital decided on a certain date to set up a fascist dictatorship. In reality, fascism usually comes to power in the course of a mutual, and at times severe, struggle against the old bourgeois parties, or a definite section of these parties, in the course of a struggle even within the fascist camp itself -- a struggle which at times leads to armed clashes, as we have witnessed in the case of Germany, Austria and other countries. All this, however, does not make less important the fact that, before the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, bourgeois governments usually pass through a number of preliminary stages and adopt a number of reactionary measures which directly facilitate the accession to power of fascism. Whoever does not fight the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie and the growth of fascism at these preparatory stages is not in a position to prevent the victory of fascism, but, on the contrary, facilitates that victory.

The Social-Democratic leaders glossed over and concealed from the masses the true class nature of fascism, and did not call them to the struggle against the increasingly reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie. They bear great historical responsibility for the fact that, at the decisive moment of the fascist offensive, a large section of the working people of Germany and of a number of other fascist countries failed to recognize in fascism the most bloodthirsty monster of finance, their most vicious enemy, and that these masses were not prepared to resist it.

What is the source of the influence of fascism over the masses? Fascism is able to attract the masses because it demagogically appeals to their most urgent needs and demands. Fascism not only inflames prejudices that are deeply ingrained in the masses, but also plays on the better sentiments of the masses, on their sense of justice, and sometimes even on their revolutionary traditions. Why do the German fascists, those lackeys of the big bourgeoisie and mortal enemies of socialism, represent themselves to the masses as "Socialists," and depict their accession to power as a "revolution"? Because they try to exploit the faith in revolution and urge toward socialism that lives in the hearts of the mass of working people in Germany.

Fascism acts in the interests of the extreme imperialists, but it presents itself to the masses in the guise of champion of an ill-treated nation, and appeals to outraged national sentiments, as German fascism did, for instance, when it won the support of the masses by the slogan "Against the Versailles Treaty!"

Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses, but it approaches them with the most artful anti-capitalist demagogy, taking advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering bourgeoisie, the banks, trusts and financial magnates, and advancing those slogans which at the given moment are most alluring to the politically immature masses. In Germany -- "The general welfare is higher than the welfare of the individual"; in Italy -- "Our state is not a capitalist, but a corporate state; in Japan -- "For Japan, without exploitation"; in the United States -- "Share the wealth," and so forth.

Fascism delivers up the people to be devoured by the most corrupt and venal elements, but comes before them with the demand for "an honest and incorruptible government." Speculating on the profound disillusionment of the masses in bourgeois-democratic governments, fascism hypocritically denounces corruption (for instance, the Barmat and Sklarek affairs in Germany, the Stavisky affair in France, and numerous others).

It is in the interests of the most reactionary circles of the bourgeoisie that fascism intercepts the disappointed masses who desert the old bourgeois parties. But it impresses these masses by the severity of its attacks on the bourgeois governments and its irreconcilable attitude to the old bourgeois parties.

Surpassing in its cynicism and hypocrisy all other varieties of bourgeois reaction, fascism adapts its demagogy to the national peculiarities of each country, and even to the peculiarities of the various social strata in one and the same country. And the mass of the petty-bourgeoisie and even a section of the workers, reduced to despair by want, unemployment and the insecurity of their existence, fall victim to the social and chauvinist demagogy of fascism.

Fascism comes to power as a party of attack on the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, on the mass of the people who are in a state of unrest; yet it stages its accession to power as a "revolutionary" movement against the bourgeoisie on behalf of "the whole nation" and for the "salvation" of the nation. (One recalls Mussolini's "march" on Rome, Pilsudski's "march" on Warsaw, Hitler's National-Socialist "revolution" in Germany, and so forth.)

But whatever the masks which fascism adopts, whatever the forms in which it presents itself, whatever the ways by which it comes to power --

Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of the working people ;

Fascism is unbridled chauvinism and annexationist war ;

Fascism is rabid reaction and counter-revolution ;

Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all working people!

Link (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/TUF35i.html#c1).

Note, this article was originally posted by fats on October 8th 2005, in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41323).

Also after bothering to waste half an hour listening to this drivel. I have noticed one very big thing. Every opinion George Reisman offers on Socialism is backed up by neither a source or an example. Funny that.

Plus he also says countries like Sweden governed by Social Democrats are not Socialist as they don't have a Socialist economy, they instead run a hampered market economy.
This is interesting for two reasons. The first is that it surely puts rest to all the claims by those fuck wits here who call America Socialist. The second is that surely if market hampering, as practised by Sweden, constitutes a market economy. By his definition, Nazi Germany which also practised market hampering, therefore was a Market economy not a Socialist economy. Making the fundemental principles of his speech a laughing stock.

This is probably the least intelligent tirade I have heard against Socialism, and if this kind of intelligence is what you base your economic and political ideology on. Then I truly pity you.

[Free Palestine]

http://mises.org:88/ss05-Reisman (video)

Too idiotic to merit a rebuff.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, if STATE OWNERSHIP = SOCIALISM, and SOCIALISM "requires totalitarian dictatorship," does it not follow that CANADA is, in fact, a TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP? Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the Canadian government, but the absurdity of this statement is obvious.

Sorry, while he clarifies this at the end of his speech, it undermines his thesis vis-a-vis the Nazis. Nazi Germany, obviously, would fall under this definition of the hampered market. Urgh.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Holy shit, this just gets funnier!
Evidently, socialism is necessarily totalitarian because it requires enforcing price controls. Of course, the assertion vis-a-vis enforcement of price controls applies just as much to any black market activity, for example, buying and selling of crack-cocaine or child pronography. Therefore, taking this to its logical conclusion, in order for a government to effectively outlaw crack of kiddy-porn, it must become totalitarian.
Shit son . . .

[Dimentio]

Neo-Libertarian Philosophy
By P. Popovic

In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.

Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.

We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.

Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.

Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.

Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.

Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.

Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about Liberotopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! That idiot Jefferson was actually insane!

The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.

Government

Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.

Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.

Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if it is literally burnt.

Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an illusion.

Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists (AKA camouflaged Marxists) serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders of Statism".

Planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.

Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.

Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.

Regulation

The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.

Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.

All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300 000 per year in the US, or 17 500 000 persons worldwide, like the tobacco industry.

If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?

Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.


Political Debate Strategy

Count only the benefits of liberal capitalism, count only the costs of government.

Five of a factoid beats a full argument.

All historical examples are tainted by statism, except when they favor liberal capitalist claims.

Spiritually baptize the deceased as libertarians because they cannot protest the anachronism: Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Spooner, etc.

The most heavily armed libertarian has the biggest gun and thus the best argument.

The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism. It's only a matter of degree.

Inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. Those without property have the freedom to try to acquire it. If they can't, let them find somebody else's property to complain on.

Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany.

Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianist capitalism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.

Only libertarian economists' Nobel Prizes count: the other economists and Nobel Prize Committee are mistaken.

Any exceptional case of private production proves that government ought not to be involved.

_____________________ ________

:huh:

:lol:
________________________________

No comments

[Ownthink]

I quit when he pronounced it "Nat See" instead of "Naht Zee".

[Xvall]

I laughed my ass off reading this thread.

[encephalon]

:lol:

Serpent, where did you get that?

[FleasTheLemur]

Haven't we had this dance before? Haven't we proved that not only does Capitalists thrived in a Nazi government and that America's brand of capitalists also wanted a fascist government? I think there's a thread someone on this very subject.

[CrazyModerate]

Even if the Nazi's did show socialistic tendencies, and few things should be pointed out.

First of all, many business people and capitalists recognize the economic turn around the Nazi government was capable of. Hitler is often praised by business leaders.

The Nazis banned trade unions, and often violently destroyed them. Almost every modern socialist movement, ranging from anarchists to social democrats, all associate themselves with the Labour movement and trade unions.

One of the key factors of socialist ideology is the acceptance of equality for all humans, regardless of race, religion, sexuality, and in some cases socialists don't cage people of different ideology(this board is not a great example of that.)

The final thing that should be pointed out, is that the vast majority of modern socialists, as well as figures such as Marx, were and are vehemently opposed to totalitarianism and extreme statism. Most socialists fall in the category of "libertarian left", as in they believe in all fundamental freedoms of speech and thought, of free choice in personal life, and the belief in privacy. Most socialists view the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao with absolute disgust.

[RedCeltic]

It is well known among most reputable historians and scholars that the name “National Socialist German Worker’s Party” (NAZI) was an elaborate election ploy due to the fact that anything with the words “Socialist” and “Workers” in the name automatically did fairly well in the polls as many Germans of the day were quite fond of socialism.

The fact is that the NAZI party as well as Adolph Hitler were very much anti socialist as well as anti communist. That was all wrapped up in their ideology. If you or the speaker in this video had read any of his speeches you would find that many of them are just as much anti communist and socialist as they are anti Jewish. In fact for them it was all one in the same. Remember that the key title for the party was “Nationalist”… that means they were pro German and anti everything else.

The Germans just suffered a bad depression after loosing the First World War. Communist and Socialist sympathies were on the rise. Then came Hitler and the Nazi party which basically told disheartened Germans that they did have something to be proud of and that their problems were due to non Germans… foreigners and Jews! Communism and Socialism were wrapped up in this due to Lenin being non German and Karl Marx being born a Jew.

Their ideology had been very clearly laid out as being quite different from Marxism and in fact openly anti Marxist, anti Socialist and anti Communist. You don’t need some quack nobody speaker to tell you that, Hitler said all this openly in many of his speeches.

As for the whole thesis of this little speech, that a planned state run economy = socialism and communism… that is going under the assumption that it was socialism and communism when practiced by the USSR. A state run economy in the context of a military state was not even the slightest bit socialistic under Stalin, therefore even less so under Hitler.

Marx talked about collective ownership of the means of production. The original intention for the Soviet Union was for an economy run by labor councils known as “Soviets” which is why they named themselves the Union of Soviets. A strong state government controling the means of produciton was a coruption under the USSR, however is intrinsicly linked to the ideology of Fascism.

[Andy Bowden]

Goddammit, I thought we'd been through this already....


CAPITALIST BUSINESSMEN SUPPORTED NAZI GERMANY.


Capitalists don't care about some puritarian Free-market ideal. They care about making money.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:45 AM
Do you realise no one takes anything from that POS resource seriously?
This is very true. Not to mention that no one, not even most capitalists, take a Randite "objectivist" (in reality, subjectivist), seriously!

[workersunity]

this guy would be quick to go in the revolution, i would be gratified in taking him out myself

[CrazyModerate]

I wouldn't. I am against the death penalty.

[Guest1]

Not a death penalty, a violent angry mob participating in a revenge killing.

And since we're talking about Nazism too, what would you have done with the Nazis?

Let them run free, and run in the elections after the war?

[ack]

Ignorance!

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 20 2005, 07:21 AM
Not a death penalty, a violent angry mob participating in a revenge killing.

And since we're talking about Nazism too, what would you have done with the Nazis?

Let them run free, and run in the elections after the war?
No, I would want them to be rehabilitated. And if they resisted to extremes, then simply imprisoned. Thats what I think about all insane people, I think we should try to fix them, not leave them in a cell broken, and we should definately not kill them.

And yes, I do think the Nazi followers were simply mentally disturbed people.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Oct 20 2005, 07:13 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Oct 20 2005, 07:13 PM)
Che y [email protected] 20 2005, 07:21 AM
Not a death penalty, a violent angry mob participating in a revenge killing.

And since we're talking about Nazism too, what would you have done with the Nazis?

Let them run free, and run in the elections after the war?
No, I would want them to be rehabilitated. And if they resisted to extremes, then simply imprisoned. Thats what I think about all insane people, I think we should try to fix them, not leave them in a cell broken, and we should definately not kill them.

And yes, I do think the Nazi followers were simply mentally disturbed people. [/b]
Nazis = Death.

I probably won't ever change my position on that.

I just simply cannot believe that NAZIS would ever change. These are people that glorify a idealogy that spawned the fucking Holocaust! They cannot ever be "converted" into anything else, short of some weird ass MKULTRA method or some shit.

[Militant]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Oct 20 2005, 11:13 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Oct 20 2005, 11:13 PM)
Che y [email protected] 20 2005, 07:21 AM
Not a death penalty, a violent angry mob participating in a revenge killing.

And since we're talking about Nazism too, what would you have done with the Nazis?

Let them run free, and run in the elections after the war?
No, I would want them to be rehabilitated. And if they resisted to extremes, then simply imprisoned. Thats what I think about all insane people, I think we should try to fix them, not leave them in a cell broken, and we should definately not kill them.

And yes, I do think the Nazi followers were simply mentally disturbed people. [/b]
I agree with you. You're crazy.

They committed genocide,you can't "save" someone after that. You put them down like a rabid dog, for the good of society.

[CrazyModerate]

SO what, do you kill the 30% of Germans that voted for the Nazis? DO you kill all Germans? Then you have another genocide on your hands.

I bet none of you know about the anti-German(not just anti nazi) genocide post world war II. You can't defend genocide, ever. I'm not defending genocide. I still think those that killed should be put in jail, and re-educated. And thats what they pretty much did.

Sorry, I just think killing people because they killed is hypocritical. I thought we were trying to prove that Socialism DOES NOT equal Nazism.

I always thought the goal of Socialism was to end the suffering of all human beings. Obviously if they defend what they did and go on without any remorse, then yes ofcourse they should be locked away forever. But if they realize they were wrong, if they are willing to live in a society with Jews, Slavs, Socialists and other victims of the holocaust then yes they should be freed. There is a former Nazi in my town that has lived like a normal Canadian for 60 years now. He wasn't a leader, just a soldier. He contributed to society like an average citizen.

[Ownthink]

There is a former Nazi in my town that has lived like a normal Canadian for 60 years now. He wasn't a leader, just a soldier. He contributed to society like an average citizen.


Yes, as well as answering the call to kill millions of innocents! What a great guy he is!

Nazi Scum.

This argument overflows with bullshit. It's the exact same as "I was just following orders". Oh yeah? The last few times that happened, there were millions killed in a pointless war, there were more millions killed in more pointless wars, human rights laws were blatantly broken, and hundreds of thousands more innocents died in 2 more wars.

"But sir, I was just following orders! It's not my fault I murdered those innocent civilians, I was "ordered" to!"

Bullshit. Anyone who serves imperialism by killing for it deserves the fate that they so indiscriminatly gave to others because "they were told to": DEATH.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:49 AM

There is a former Nazi in my town that has lived like a normal Canadian for 60 years now. He wasn't a leader, just a soldier. He contributed to society like an average citizen.

I'm ashamed he lives in my country. He should be extradited to Israel to stand trial. They have the right attitude about dealing with NAZIS; they hang them by the neck until they're dead dead dead.

And you mention that NAZIs were mentally disturbed individuals, so can you explain why 30% (your number) of a country suffered from severe psychoses?

And even if it was a mental issue, does that absolve them of responsibility for their actions?

At the end of the day it's us (even you!) or them. And oddly enough I choose us.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I like how no one has replied to this thread but leftists. Seems the capitalists have nothing to say? ;)

[CrazyModerate]

See this is the thing about you guys. You just want to kill kill kill. Your as bloodthirsty as the Nazis. Its disgusting. You don't see socialism as a way to help human, you just want to kill everything that disagrees with you.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:48 PM
See this is the thing about you guys. You just want to kill kill kill. Your as bloodthirsty as the Nazis. Its disgusting. You don't see socialism as a way to help human, you just want to kill everything that disagrees with you.
I guess I see the difference in punishing crimanals, and murdering innocents.

[CrazyModerate]

Thats not punishment, thats revenge. Fucking reactionaries. I think they should be imprisoned, and if they show true sorrow and are capable of living among the community with no problems, then they should be let alone. Most of them were forces anyways. The guy I'm talking about has no actually Nazi beliefs, and has since explained how he no longer believes in them.

I don't like Nazis, I just don't mind former ones that threw their terrible former beliefs.

I think this about all humans. I believe in rehabilitation. Criminals, the mentally ill, the emotionally disturbed, and others should all be fixed so we can live peacefully together.

[Amusing Scrotum]

See this is the thing about you guys. You just want to kill kill kill. Your as bloodthirsty as the Nazis. Its disgusting. You don't see socialism as a way to help human, you just want to kill everything that disagrees with you.

Its called youth and testosterone. :lol:

[CrazyModerate]

Im sorry, but I believe there is a cycle of violence. If you treat a violent person violently, they will react violently. And if you kill them, their friends will act violently. And the cycle will continue. I don't like violence.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 04:16 PM
Im sorry, but I believe there is a cycle of violence. If you treat a violent person violently, they will react violently. And if you kill them, their friends will act violently. And the cycle will continue. I don't like violence.
Let's see how far the Revolution gets with "no violence, because I "don't like it!".

Oh yeah, nowhere. Sometimes, force is necessary. There is a difference between ridding the world of such evils as Nazism and going to some random guys house and murdering his entire family.

It's all relative, you can't say you dislike ALL forms of violence. Nothing would ever get done.

[CrazyModerate]

THe reason I oppose violenec is the reason I oppose the war in Iraq. There have been many revolutions, and I believe very few have them have been successful.

[Hiero]

No, I would want them to be rehabilitated. And if they resisted to extremes, then simply imprisoned. Thats what I think about all insane people, I think we should try to fix them, not leave them in a cell broken, and we should definately not kill them.

Nazism isn't a mental condition. It is just ignorant to think so.

[RedCeltic]

I personally am not in support of a violence to obtain our goals in my country (mostly because it is not practical) however I do realize that often it becomes unavoidable. One hundred years ago in the United States (as in most countries) when the labor movement was in its infancy violence was not only practical but essential. You would have found few workers in 1905 willing to hold hands singing “we shall overcome” as the National Guard charged them with bayonets. Back then the National Guard were permanently stationed in “armories” located in major manufacturing areas and sort of worked like a fire department does. Only instead of responding to fires they responded to striking workers and angry mobs, and were willing to put them down with brute force. So keep that in mind when talking about non violence.

As for executions, while I’m primarily against the death penalty I do feel that individuals guilty of war crimes should be executed. Now I’m not talking about Gas room attendants, party members, or whatever, I’m talking about policy makers! Those are the people who stood at the Nuremburg trials.

Think about it like this… if an innocent man is put on trial and executed who is responsible for his death? The prison warden? The person who flicked the switch? (Gave the injection or whatever)… or is it the Governor, Judge, and District Attorney? I’d say the latter personally. Execution is a barbaric overtly racist institution which should be reserved for war criminals.

Therefore some high ranking Nazi party member with a government position may have been guilty of war crimes to a degree it calls for execution. A low ranking SS officer out in Normandy in charge of guarding Omaha Beach with some big guns wouldn’t. Naturally the real question here is what do you do with all the lowly enlisted personnel and low ranking officers responsible for all those horrific images that make us all shutter when we think of the holocaust. I think that any sane person who would have done such things could not live out the rest of their lives in peace. A sane person would be plagued with nightmares, nagging guilt, extreme depression, etc.. For the rest of their lives. I am only assuming such things however and it would be interesting to see case studies on those who worked in the camps and how those experiences affected the rest of their lives. These people are ether all very old now or dead.

To suggest that individuals who are twisted enough to believe in such things as genocide, without having the means, nor history necessary to commit such acts would be as ludicrous as suggesting that case studies should be done on what makes individuals most likely to commit any number of crimes from robbery to rape and have those people round up and incarcerated on the premise that they might commit a crime one day due to them fitting a profile.

Many of the people that fall prey to such evil ideologies as Nazism feel alienated from the larger society and want to belong to something. I feel that the movie “American History X” does a very good job in showing us not only what makes these kinds of people tick, yet also that given the right situation, even the worst of them can see the error in their ways.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:10 AM

No, I would want them to be rehabilitated. And if they resisted to extremes, then simply imprisoned. Thats what I think about all insane people, I think we should try to fix them, not leave them in a cell broken, and we should definately not kill them.

Nazism isn't a mental condition. It is just ignorant to think so.
It is impossible to place a clinical diagnosis on a political ideology however many of the beliefs of such an ideology would theoretically fall under the diagnosis of “sociopath”.

Than again however so would belief in Capitalism, as in the documentary “The Corporation” claims, that if a corporation is to be believed to be a “legal person” and given all the same rights than what type of person would cooperation be? A sociopath.

[Freedom Works]

Than again however so would belief in Capitalism, as in the documentary “The Corporation” claims, that if a corporation is to be believed to be a “legal person” and given all the same rights than what type of person would cooperation be? A sociopath.
No self loving capitalist would believe in the idea of a business being a legal person.

http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=473

[RedCeltic]

I mentioned the movie because I thought the comparison of a Corporation to a sociopath was funny.

While the movie is truly a piece of propaganda in any sense of the word, and goes out of the way to paint all Corporations to be the same as the most corrupted... the fact of the legality of corporate status is far from fiction.

I personally had first heard of this some years before I saw the movie when a woman who was running for Attorney General of New York State mentioned it during a campaign speech.

Here's some more information on it:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/per...od_timeline.pdf (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf)