Russian Women Discussion
RWD Discussion Groups => Odds and Ends => Topic started by: 2tallbill on June 20, 2019, 08:01:02 AM
-
IF, I'm a 'leftie' - you must be right of Attilla the Hun .. Plenty of right of centre folks abhore [ spelling error corrected ] 'Brexit' and held no fear over migrants coming from the EU - given it had a postitive effect on our economy, overall ..
Attilla the Hun was a lefty, all dictators are. Control by the State and power of
the State is a Lefty ideal. Liberty, freedom and protection FROM the State is a
Righty ideal.
You obviously don't know what characterizes lefties and righties.
Good lord, only you can bring up Brexit when discussing imaginary plots between
the USA, Japan and Iran, neither being a party to your beloved Brexit.
-
'Free Speech' - YES ..promoting polarisation, NO
Yes, definitely a Lefty. Using words like polarization as an excuse to shut
down free speech.
The very definition of free speech is to be able to speak freely about stuff
and not only stuff that lefties agree with. Lefty Dogma only works in a
vacuum where alternative thoughts and ideas aren't allowed. That's
why lefties nearly always lose debates. Their ideas suck.
-
It used to be liberals said, (and some still do) "I don't agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it."
That's because commies were banned during the cold war. After the cold
war they became allowed again so the lefties want to ban conservative
speech. ESPECIALLY if they are effective speakers
-
Really, who WAS your teacher of history, Beel ? They must join your Mathematics teacher in shame..
I had several history teachers. Which teacher are you going to blame for your
inability to understand what exponential growth means?
Hilter was a 'leftie' because he was a 'National Socialist ' ? ;) What about
Mussolini, Franco et al ... ?
Yes, Hitler was a lefty only slightly to the right of communism, as were Mussolini
and Franco. They are all to the left of Liberals. They ALL took over various industries
but they allowed some private business and companies to continue doing business
as long as they saluted properly and sufficiently.
Why were socialists fighting them ?
Why do Muslims fight each other? Why do the Democrats have fights among
themselves? All dictators want to be at the top of the heap. There is little
difference between them. Mao, Stalin and Hitler are nearly identical.
'Imaginary plots ?' Do tell us who is 'imaginating' what ?
Did you read the topic of this thread?
"USA blows up 2 tankers and blames Iran"
That's what the discussion was about when you managed to bring up Brexit.
-
Yes, Hitler was a lefty only slightly to the right of communism, as were Mussolini and Franco. They are all to the left of Liberals.
Oh well ::).
They ALL took over various industries but they allowed some private business and companies to continue doing business as long as they saluted properly and sufficiently.
Although Mussolini was the managing editor of the Socialist daily L'Avanti (Forward!) since 1912, in 1913 he was expelled from the party for his interventionist ideas.
In early 1914 he founded his newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia, with financial support from a number of industrialists - who probably saw WWI, which we joined in 1915, as a promising business opportunity.
No Italian industry was taken over during Fascism, and most industrialists approved of Mussolini's laws because they stifled any labour disputes.
Bill, please do not post nonsense about European history, you show you know VERY little about it :(.
-
- but I support entrepreneurship- that's hardly 'leftie' :popcorn:
So on that subject you are to the right of commies. Almost everybody is to the
right of commies. Hitler was to the right of commies but to the left of you.
'Ri-ight'... So, do tell us why wackos like Alex Jones are having their ability post post lies removed ? Really - bearing in mind your point ? :popcorn:
I didn't bring up Alex Jones, Maxx did.
Wow, there was me thinking that they were trusted to govern more by the electorate - hence winning
Goalpost moved, Moby swerve. You talked about winning debates causing lefties
to win elections, now you are talking about trustworthiness winning elections.
Lefties rarely win debates.
So do tell how Tony Blair's new Labour actually came to power ?
I would have to think hard about something that I care less about.
Hmmmmm.................
I care less about whether the Pope wears boxers or briefs, but I don't
care about either enough to debate with you about them.
-
Oh well ::).Although Mussolini was the managing editor of the Socialist daily L'Avanti (Forward!) since 1912, in 1913 he was expelled from the party for his interventionist ideas.
In early 1914 he founded his newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia, with financial support from a number of industrialists - who probably saw WWI, which we joined in 1915, as a promising business opportunity.
No Italian industry was taken over during Fascism, and most industrialists approved of Mussolini's laws because they stifled any labour disputes.
Bill, please do not post nonsense about European history, you show you know VERY little about it :(.
Italian farms weren't taken over? That's not an industry? They weren't told what
to grow?
Mussolini was kicked out of the socialists because he wasn't socialist enough, but
he was far to the left of the UK or regular USA democrats.
Mussolini, believed in the power of the State and not to the people. That's a lefty
governing principle.
If you want to revoke my Membership to this forum then go ahead, but as long
as my membership hasn't been revoked I will post on any subject that I care to
post about.
From Wikipedia:
The agricultural policy of Fascism
A fundamental principle of the Fascist agrarian policy was to apply the principles of partnership, encouraging the different social classes to work together, as opposed to the system of continuous confrontation inherent in the visions of Marxism and Capitalism.
In addition to his ideological leadership, Mussolini pursued a dictatorship of the proletariat, but favouring the peasants. The Duce aimed to create a new social class in Italy by the expropriation of large estates and the transformation of tenants into landowners and settlers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_Fascism_(Italy)
-
The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/02/22/the-economic-leadership-secrets-of-benito-mussolini/#3dd7340d68e6
-
If you want to revoke my Membership to this forum then go ahead, but as long as my membership hasn't been revoked I will post on any subject that I care to post about.
I modified your post because the linked text did not show.
If you want to revoke my Membership to this forum then go ahead, but as long
as my membership hasn't been revoked I will post on any subject that I care to
post about.
Did I threaten that :o? Why should I do such Commie thing ;D?
-
Fascism
By Sheldon Richman
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives
from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a
protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
read all about it here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
-
I modified your post because the linked text did not show.
Did I threaten that :o? Why should I do such Commie thing ;D?
I am glad you didn't ;D
-
Hard to decide where to start refuting some simplistic clichés ::).
Italian farms weren't taken over?
Not that I know of.
That's not an industry?
It was not in Italy, then. Most farms were owned by absentee landlords and worked by mezzadri (peasants tilling the landlord's fields and owing half of their private produce), with overseers watching over them - which is considered a reason for the rise of Mafia in Sicily since they were the only local interlocutors.
They weren't told what to grow?
After the 1935 sanctions for our invasion of Ethiopia, they were encouraged to grow staples that could no longer be imported.
Mussolini was kicked out of the socialists because he wasn't socialist enough...Mussolini, believed in the power of the State and not to the people. That's a lefty governing principle.
Bit of a contradiction there.
Mussolini pursued a dictatorship of the proletariat, but favouring the peasants.
Never heard of that ::).
-
Yes, Hitler was a lefty only slightly to the right of communism, as were Mussolini
and Franco. They are all to the left of Liberals. They ALL took over various industries
but they allowed some private business and companies to continue doing business
as long as they saluted properly and sufficiently.
The Nazis were a fascist, right wing, ultranationalist party. Not left wing at all. They had a strong dislike of liberal democracy.
From the Oxford dictionary -
fascism -
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
http://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fascism
-
Attilla the Hun was a lefty, all dictators are. Control by the State and power of
the State is a Lefty ideal. Liberty, freedom and protection FROM the State is a
Righty ideal.
LOL. Right. The definition of the "1%", his kingdom was just that - a hereditary kingdom, in which the populace was expected to proclaim undying fealty to him or the son who succeeded him (his sons fought for power after Attilla's death).
According to historian Adrian Goldsworth, Attilla's main aim was "to profit from plunder during warfare and extortion during peacetime." That doesn't sound too "lefty" to me.
Yet, 100% of men who like underaged boys are homosexuals. Jeffrey Epstein
You found ONE right wing pedo what has that got to do with his question?
The point was never about pedophiles, and I didn't "find" Hastert's name. I knew who he was.
I could list dozens of right wing pedophiles, and I would hazard a guess you could find the same number of left wing pedophiles. The point was that one cannot characterize NAMBLA supporters as "left wing". They come from all social classes and political persuasions.
Mussolini pursued a dictatorship of the proletariat, but favouring the peasants.
Peasants aren't part of the proletariat.
Furthermore, to be part of the "proletariat", the state must own the means of production, i.e., "exploitation" of workers by the the owners of the means of production cannot exist. Marxism 101.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
The Nazis were a fascist, right wing, ultranationalist party. Not left wing at all. They had a strong dislike of liberal democracy.
From the Oxford dictionary -
fascism
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
http://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fascism
I realize that you want it to be right wing but it's far left of everything EXCEPT
Socialism and Communism. So it's right wing compared to Communism, but
not compared to our American market economy and Constitutional Republican
form of government. Compared to what we have in the USA Fascism is left wing.
It almost exactly mirrors what they have in Modern China. Tell me how Modern
China is right wing.
Fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.
"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes
through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that
control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where
socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring
owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic
authority conceived it.
(Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism
abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market
relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished
money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices
and wages politically. "
Follow my source by clicking here (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)
-
Hard to decide where to start refuting some simplistic clichés ::).
Why don't I give you some links to Articles that explain how fascism is
far left of capitalism that we have in the USA.
History of Left-wing Fascism
http://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/history-of-left-wing-fascism
Statism: Whether Fascist or Communist, It's The Deadly Opposite of Capitalism
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/11/13/statism/#2e010f1a5f5c
From the New York Times
Can China be labeled as Fascist?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html
FASCISM IN CHINA TODAY
ANCIENT ROOTS AND MODERN REALITIES
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/China/chinafacism.html
I've posted this twice already but nobody debating me has read it.
Fascism
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
-
'Beel'
You are in the realms of wacko-land territory - trying to tell us that Fascism is far to the left of US capitalism - with dubious 'opinions'
-
The Nazis were a fascist, right wing, ultranationalist party. Not left wing at all. They had a strong dislike of liberal democracy.
From the Oxford dictionary -
fascism -
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
http://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fascism
Lefties believe in the State taking care of more things, righties believe in the
State taking car of less things.
More Authoritarian = Left
Less Authoritarian = Right
Fascism is more authoritarian
Any group can be patriotic, that's not a political feature but often it is incorrectly
described as such. The Soviet Commies were very patriotic, they had the great
patriotic war with the Germans. They had patriotic songs, they march with their
military weapons in big patriotic parades. The Soviet Commies weren't right
wing.
-
'Beel'
You are in the realms of wacko-land territory - trying to tell us that Fascism is far to the left of US capitalism - with dubious 'opinions'
I've posted links with the NY Times, Forbes and others, which of the links do
you think are dubious? I quoted liberally from them.
-
According to historian Adrian Goldsworth, Attilla's main aim was "to profit from plunder during warfare and extortion during peacetime." That doesn't sound too "lefty" to me.
If you change the words plunder and extortion with the word Taxes
then it sound pretty lefty to me.
Furthermore, to be part of the "proletariat", the state must own the means
of production, i.e., "exploitation" of workers by the the owners of the means
of production cannot exist. Marxism 101.[/font][/size]
Yet the Chinese have done EXACTLY that,
They have converted from communism/socialism one step to
the right to fascism. Deng Xiaoping 101
-
I've posted this twice already but nobody debating me has read it. Fascismhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Because it's a waste of time, considering its author. It's full of ridiculous statements like...
Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
As if consumers counted at all in the 1920s-1930s, in Italy and elsewhere ::).
That article is a long sequel of half-baked opinions, rather than historical facts.
Bill, I could dig up most of Mussolini's laws from our national archives (facts) and post them, but I do not feel so inclined because I would also have to translate them into English :(.
When I was in my early 20s, I had the fortune to attend a series of some 10 evening lectures called Storia del Fascismo, given in a packed concert hall at Milan's Conservatory of Music. Each lecture of about 2 hours featured reputed historians and major political figures who lived during Fascism and could tell the tale as direct witnesses.
The picture they painted differed in several important aspects from yours and what is in your links.
-
Because it's a waste of time, considering its author. It's full of ridiculous statements like...As if consumers counted at all in the 1920s-1930s, in Italy and elsewhere ::).
Bill, I could dig up most of Mussolini's laws from our national archives (facts) and post them, but I do not feel so inclined because I would also have to translate them into English :(.
When I was in my early 20s, I had the fortune to attend a series of some 10 evening lectures called Storia del Fascismo, given in a packed concert hall at Milan's Conservatory of Music. Each lecture of about 2 hours featured reputed historians and major political figures who lived during Fascism and could tell the tale as direct witnesses.
The picture they painted differed in several important aspects from yours and what is in your links.
Sandro,
The last thing I would do is to ask you to do a lot of needless work
just for the sake of arguing a point with me. You might have a point
that Italy wasn't AS fascist as say Germany was under Hitler or China
is becoming today.
Everything Germany ever did under Hitler is readily available in English
and he did EVERYTHING to take his country one step to the right of
Socialism. He did take over industries and he did tell others what to
build and dictated most everything.
Fascism is to the right of Socialism and communism but not that much.
-
Fascism is to the right of Socialism and communism but not that much.
Yeah, only a few hundred miles or so.
German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterizes the repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”:
This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.
-
Yeah, only a few hundred miles or so.
Explain how China was able to switch from Communism to fascism
in so little time without a massive change in government.
-
Explain how China was able to switch from Communism to fascism
in so little time without a massive change in government.
I don't think China is Fascist and Nazi's were the group I commented on. Are you trying to say that modern China and Nazi Germany are similar somehow?
-
If you change the words plunder and extortion with the word Taxes
then it sound pretty lefty to me.
And if you leave it as is, it sounds pretty right wing to me.
Yet the Chinese have done EXACTLY that,
They have converted from communism/socialism one step to
the right to fascism. Deng Xiaoping 101
No, they haven't. The Chinese were truer to Marxism than the Soviets in, for example, allowing private farms when they realized collective farms did not work. That was under Mao, not Deng.
China is still socialist today, not fascist.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
Sandro,
The last thing I would do is to ask you to do a lot of needless work just for the sake of arguing a point with me. You might have a point that Italy wasn't AS fascist as say Germany was under Hitler or China is becoming today.
Everything Germany ever did under Hitler is readily available in English and he did EVERYTHING to take his country one step to the right of Socialism. He did take over industries and he did tell others what to build and dictated most everything.
Fascism is to the right of Socialism and communism but not that much.
First, I doubt everything Hitler did is printed in English.
Second, Nazi economic policies were all over the map. They rejected capitalism because it was controlled by "Jewish bankers". However, you are mistaken about Nazi Germany taking over all industry. They didn't.
I think economically, Nazi Germany's policies can be defined as "economic nationalism". That really is one of the keys to fascism - nationalism - it is a core to the ideology, whereas it is anathema to communism.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
And if you leave it as is, it sounds pretty right wing to me.
Nope, crony capitalism is a left wing Democrat type thing.
The Democrats politicians want control and a little payola
and they are happy.
No, they haven't. The Chinese were truer to Marxism than the Soviets in, for example, allowing private farms when they realized collective farms did not work. That was under Mao, not Deng.
China is still socialist today, not fascist.
China allows different private companies manufacture and sell things
and not owning the means of production, they just control who does
what. Huawei Technologies is privately owned, they develop their own technologies.
In China they have privately owned supermarkets not government
owned stores. They are the very definition of fascism.
I know you don't want to admit it but it's true.
-
Nope, crony capitalism is a left wing Democrat type thing.
The Democrats politicians want control and a little payola and they are happy.
Which doesn't negate my original point.
BTW, "crony capitalism" didn't exist at the time of Attila.
China allows different private companies manufacture and sell things and not owning the means of production, they just control who does what. Huawei Technologies is privately owned, they develop their own technologies.
No, they don't. Huawei is owned by its workers. That is within the parameters of Marxist thought.
In China they have privately owned supermarkets not government owned stores. They are the very definition of fascism.
LOL. I think you're confused.
Marxism allows private ownership. But that ownership cannot be exploitative, i.e., it can't make profit on the backs of underpaid workers.
I believe China allows what would be labelled "exploitation" in its special economic zones. However, those industries, when they reach a certain level of success, cannot be privately owned. Furthermore, if an individual is too successful, his wealth is open to confiscation. This is why so many Chinese purchase homes in the West, and try to move their money outside the country.
I know you don't want to admit it but it's true.
Your truth, seen through the prism of your political biases. It's not an objective truth.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
Which doesn't negate my original point.
Sure it does
No, they don't. Huawei is owned by its workers. That is within the parameters of Marxist thought.
Using Huawei as an example was a mistake on my part. They are controlled
by the Chinese State and they lie and say that it's owned by the workers
when it's not true. Workers aren't allowed to buy or sell their shares.
I was wrong, I thought that Huawei was privately owned. I was correct that
they allow individuals to own factories, and the means of production. That
is inherently anti Marxist and it is totally fascist in how they do it.
http://www.itnews.com.au/news/analysis-who-really-owns-huawei-175946
Marxism allows private ownership. But that ownership cannot be exploitative, i.e., it can't make profit on the backs of underpaid workers.
I would be happy to quote Karl Marx for you.
"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto
-
"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto
China isn't communist they're socialist and use a socialist market economy. They allow for for private ownership but the government takes any residual profits. Most western experts, from what I've seen, consider China a capitalist country but China denies this.
You need ultranationalism for fascism to exist and China lacks this.
-
First, I doubt everything Hitler did is printed in English.
Second, Nazi economic policies were all over the map. They rejected capitalism because it was controlled by "Jewish bankers". However, you are mistaken about Nazi Germany taking over all industry. They didn't.
I think economically, Nazi Germany's policies can be defined as "economic nationalism". That really is one of the keys to fascism - nationalism - it is a core to the ideology, whereas it is anathema to communism.
First, there are adequate history books and texts in English of Hitlers
writings, beliefs and history as to not require any translation for the
sake of arguments here on RWD.
Second, I never said that Hitler took over all industries because he
didn't. I didn't say that Hitler took over most industries either because
he didn't I said that they took over industries because they did. They
also formed a few state-run firms either and example would be the
Reichswerke Hermann Göring which was founded in 1937 for the
exploitation of the German iron ore deposits.
The Nazi's also set wages and prices, which is a totally lefty thing.
This is from an economic study by The Yale Economic Department.
"The Nazi regime did not have any scruples to apply force and terror, if that was judged useful to attain its aims. And in economic policy it did not abstain from numerous regulations and interventions in markets, in order to further rearmament and autarky as far as possible. Thus the regime, by promulgating Schacht’s so-called “New Plan” in 1934, very much strengthened its influence on foreign exchange as well as on raw materials’ allocation, in order to enforce state priorities. Wage-setting became a task of public officials, the capital market was reserved for state demand, a general price stop decreed in 1936.1 In addition state demand expanded without precedent. Between 1932 and 1938 it increased with an average annual rate of 26 per cent; its share in GNP exploded in these years from 13.6 to 30.5 per cent.2 As a consequence private consumption as well as exports were largely crowded out.
http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/buchheim-041020.pdf
There are countless economic studies that show the parallels
between Socialism and fascism and I know where to find them.
Quote from Hitler
Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that
"we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system",[16] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of
socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that
"Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."
http://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany.html
I can do this all day, (actually I can't I need to go to work right now).
I know you don't want this to be true, but it is and it's provable.
Udachi!
Bill
-
China isn't communist they're socialist and use a socialist market economy. They allow for for private ownership but the government takes any residual profits. Most western experts, from what I've seen, consider China a capitalist country but China denies this.
China allows for private ownership of the means of production. They are fascists
You need ultranationalism for fascism to exist and China lacks this.
No, you don't.
China is fairly nationalist and they have patriotic and national songs
and themes, they have a social reward system for exactly that which
measures every single Chinese private life.
I'll get back to this soon, I have to run.
We should put this into a new thread.
-
China allows for private ownership of the means of production. They are fascists
If this is the case then the US is also fascist.
-
First, there are adequate history books and texts in English of Hitlers writings, beliefs and history as to not require any translation for the sake of arguments here on RWD.
Second, I never said that Hitler took over all industries because he didn't. I didn't say that Hitler took over most industries either because he didn't I said that they took over industries because they did. They also formed a few state-run firms either and example would be the Reichswerke Hermann Göring which was founded in 1937 for the exploitation of the German iron ore deposits.
But they didn't do so for ideological reasons.
The Nazi's also set wages and prices, which is a totally lefty thing.
Hmm. Sol Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon were "lefties"?
This is from an economic study by The Yale Economic Department.
"The Nazi regime did not have any scruples to apply force and terror, if that was judged useful to attain its aims. And in economic policy it did not abstain from numerous regulations and interventions in markets, in order to further rearmament and autarky as far as possible. Thus the regime, by promulgating Schacht’s so-called “New Plan” in 1934, very much strengthened its influence on foreign exchange as well as on raw materials’ allocation, in order to enforce state priorities. Wage-setting became a task of public officials, the capital market was reserved for state demand, a general price stop decreed in 1936.1 In addition state demand expanded without precedent. Between 1932 and 1938 it increased with an average annual rate of 26 per cent; its share in GNP exploded in these years from 13.6 to 30.5 per cent.2 As a consequence private consumption as well as exports were largely crowded out.
http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/buchheim-041020.pdf (http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/buchheim-041020.pdf)
There are countless economic studies that show the parallels between Socialism and fascism and I know where to find them.
Quote from Hitler
Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that
"we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",[16] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."
http://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany.html (http://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany.html)
I can do this all day, (actually I can't I need to go to work right now).
The "right" generally has no issue with inequalities in wealth, status, and privilege. The "left" does. The Nazis had no issue with the former.
I know you don't want this to be true, but it is and it's provable.
You assume too much. If the Nazis were, objectively, socialists, I would have no issue with that. As you know, I am not a believer in communism.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
China allows for private ownership of the means of production. They are fascists
Socialism allows for private ownership of the means of production. Even Marxism does, however, Marxists only allow private ownership by groups - trade unions, cooperatives, etc. This is what China is doing today.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
If this is the case then the US is also fascist.
Partially as the US Government heavily regulates all sorts of industries
but nothing like the the Nazi's or the Socialists or the Commies because
they are further to the left.
Tell me which of the two main parties in the USA wish to regulate industries,
businesses and outcomes more?
Fascism is a far left wing. I realize that it's embarrassing to admit after arguing
that it's not, but it is. It's the lefts big lie right after racists are on the right,
when it was them who were the original racists.
Left is more government control: Totalitarian communists at the furthest
left. Right is for less control: Anarchy being the furthest to the right.
Nothing is right wing about Nazism or fascism, nothing. All their founding
concepts came from blending socialism with something they thought was
more workable.
-
Partially as the US Government heavily regulates all sorts of industries
but nothing like the the Nazi's or the Socialists or the Commies because
they are further to the left.
Tell me which of the two main parties in the USA wish to regulate industries,
businesses and outcomes more?
Fascism is a far left wing. I realize that it's embarrassing to admit after arguing
that it's not, but it is. It's the lefts big lie right after racists are on the right,
when it was them who were the original racists.
Left is more government control: Totalitarian communists at the furthest
left. Right is for less control: Anarchy being the furthest to the right.
Nothing is right wing about Nazism or fascism, nothing. All their founding
concepts came from blending socialism with something they thought was
more workable.
Nazism is more than economics, it is ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, fascist and anti-egalitarian. All right wing.
-
Nazism is more than economics, it is ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, fascist and anti-egalitarian. All right wing.
You are repeating yourself. NONE of those things are right wing.
The USSR was ultra nationalist, they had military parades with their tanks
and missiles (sorta like Hitler did with his goose stepping armies). They had
the "GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" they had years and years and years of war
hero patriotic movies. They were socially conservative.
The Soviet Union had some official even announce that they didn't have sex
in Russia! Is that socially conservative enough for you?
They were all about the Olympics. They juiced up their athletes to win
various competitions. They were ultra nationalists. So are and were the
Chinese.
Anti-egalitarian: contrary to principles of social equality and fairness
Do you think that the show trials of the Soviet Union were about equality
and fairness? How about the Gulags for saying the wrong thing?
The Left wing is about the State and control of the people by the State
and the good of the state. That describes the Commies, the Nazi's the
socialists and the far out wacko Democrats. Far out right wing are
the anarchists wanting no laws or government.
I know that you want to deny this but that's the facts.
-
The USSR was ultra nationalist, they had military parades with their tanks and missiles (sorta like Hitler did with his goose stepping armies). They had the "GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" they had years and years and years of war hero patriotic movies. They were socially conservative.
WRONG!!!
Nationalists were routinely arrested and thrown in gulags. There was a provision in the Soviet Criminal Code about nationalism. Whole tomes were written, up to the late 1980's, about "bourgeois nationalism", and to be accused of being a "bourgeois nationalist" was indeed a serious accusation. You can research every republic, and you will find lists of individuals who were sentenced to gulags, usually for between 10 and 25 years, for expressing nationalist sentiment. I can name the majority of those either executed, or sentenced, in Ukraine for "bourgeois nationalism", not so much the other republics, but I do know that the Soviet system was the same in this regard, regardless of republic. Ukrainian nationalists were the first in the USSR to be arrested and executed. The better half's paternal family all could speak Ukrainian fluently, but never did publicly, for fear of being labelled nationalists, which, as I noted, was a crime in the USSR. When we married, the better half was called to a meeting at work, where everyone at his workplace was present, and where he was denounced as a "bourgeois nationalist" - and this was during so called "glasnost'".
The Soviets stated the proletariat doesn't need nationalism. Nationalism was created by the bourgeoisie to divide the proletariat. Have you ever heard the slogan, "proletariat of the world, unite!" If you'd visited the USSR, you'd see posters with this slogan all over. It was on Soviet money. There was never a "Soviet" nationality.
The parades were about the proletariat, not nationalism or national identity. As I have posted in the past, because no one wanted to fight for the USSR in WWII, Stalin brought back Tsar trained generals, and was advised by them to release priests from jail, open churches, and appeal to save "Mother Russia", not the Soviet Union. Winning in sports was about the superiority of the socialist system over the rotten bourgeoisie, not national identity or sentiment.
The suppression of nationalism is exactly why there were skirmishes (and still are) in former Soviet lands. The peoples of the USSR never had a chance to work out nationalism, the way Western Europeans did in the aftermath of WWII.
As for conservatism, how many conservatives destroy the places of worship of the majority of the population, and ensure for those few places of worship remaining, that anyone attending will never succeed in their work life? In how many conservative countries are those worshipping on the holiest day of the religious year rounded up and driven 20 km from the city, forced to walk back, or find rides along the way back, solely because they dared to worship? How many conservatives allow abortion on demand at any stage of a pregnancy? In what conservative countries can you go to a district in a city to find any sort of sexual deviancy you desire, free, for a night, or a week? In what conservative countries can workers show up so drunk they pass out curled around a toilet? In what conservative countries would people be lined up in front of a store in the morning, cursing the women who work there to open it, so that they can buy cheap alcohol?
I come from a relatively conservative part of Canada. The things I saw in the USSR as a young woman were shocking to me. The better half's grandmother, who attended the Smolny Institute, and never adjusted to the degeneracy of the USSR, approved of me when she met me precisely because I was unlike Soviet Ukrainian girls - I didn't smoke, didn't drink, did not dress provocatively, I wasn't painted like a doll (though I do wear make up).
No, the USSR was never either nationalist or conservative. It was exactly what it stated it was - a proletarian dictatorship.
The Soviet Union had some official even announce that they didn't have sex in Russia! Is that socially conservative enough for you?
That was during a telemost, and the woman who made that pronouncement meant pornography, though her wording was bad. Even the Russian audience laughed.The Soviets stated pornography was created by the Western bourgeoisie. The reason for its creation, according to the Soviets, was to appeal to the lowest of human instincts, in order to distract the international proletariat from the vital fight against the bourgeoisie.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
You are repeating yourself. NONE of those things are right wing.
The USSR was ultra nationalist, they had military parades with their tanks
and missiles (sorta like Hitler did with his goose stepping armies). They had
the "GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" they had years and years and years of war
hero patriotic movies. They were socially conservative.
The Soviet Union had some official even announce that they didn't have sex
in Russia! Is that socially conservative enough for you?
They were all about the Olympics. They juiced up their athletes to win
various competitions. They were ultra nationalists. So are and were the
Chinese.
Anti-egalitarian: contrary to principles of social equality and fairness
Do you think that the show trials of the Soviet Union were about equality
and fairness? How about the Gulags for saying the wrong thing?
The Left wing is about the State and control of the people by the State
and the good of the state. That describes the Commies, the Nazi's the
socialists and the far out wacko Democrats. Far out right wing are
the anarchists wanting no laws or government.
I know that you want to deny this but that's the facts.
You're selling out the truth to protect the right wing. The Soviets were ultra nationalists? :wallbash:
-
Now to fascism - socialism, and communism, in theory, look to equalize individuals, the first being economic equality, and most "leftist" ideologies support such values, not only economically, but social and political equality, although even Marx did not call for this result. Fascism does not call for equality in any way whatsoever.
If you look at the rise of fascism, you will see that where it occurred, it was a reaction against the communists. Fascist leaders were supported by industrialists who feared a communist revolution. Once fascists gained power, one of the first things they did was sell off state industries to private industry. They encouraged private ownership, big business, and profit. However, all industry had to serve the national interest, i.e., the state. Trade unions, a stalwart of socialist states, were smashed by fascists, and replaced with state unions that served major business owners. These things hardly sound "left" to me.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
Russians of all “flavors” love their rodina
fields of grain for wild horses to run
polushka pole
Sovietska nationalizma eta horrosho
Ukrainia nationalizma eta plohoi
because the state won’t benefit
and that’s what patriotism is all about
quo bono?
always ask this question...
Russian kino is an endless loop
of great patriotic war nostalgie
to remind the masses
that their suffering could be worse
and it’s proud Russia standing up to the outside world
on to victory tovarische with our great leader!
create the illusion,
that the present
is a reflection of the past...
this is all the Russian political elites gotta do to fool Russians!
In America, it’s race...
pit one race against the other...
divide and conquer
is the oldest political strategy in the books
BO,
question for you!
when you were living in the good ole CCCP
did you have a job?
could someone ever level the accusation against you
that you were someone who "aided and abetted" the Soviet Union
a country that was in ideological and military opposition to the whole western world
a country who was considered to be an enemy of your own country at the time...
by helping the Soviet Union, did you end up hurting Canada and other Western democracies by some measure
I'm not suggesting that you worked as a technician in a nuclear warhead assembly facility
but did you have a job that would be considered supporting the Soviet Union?
-
But they didn't do so for ideological reasons.
"Hitler's second volume, entitled Die Nationalsozialistische Bewegung
(“The National Socialist Movement”), written after Hitler’s release from
prison in December 1924, outlines the political program, including the
terrorist methods, that National Socialism must pursue both in gaining
power and in exercising it thereafter in the new Germany."
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Mein-Kampf
Hmm. Sol Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon were "lefties"?
When they used wage and price controls absolutely. The commies
did it too.
The "right" generally has no issue with inequalities in wealth, status, and
privilege. The "left" does. The Nazis had no issue with the former.
The Nazi's were to the right of the Socialists. They were socialist light.
You assume too much. If the Nazis were, objectively, socialists, I would have no issue with that. As you know, I am not a believer in communism.
The Nazi's were socialist light, they were to the right of socialists but
to the left of America's market capitalist economy and America's
Constitutional Republic.
-
Now to fascism - socialism, and communism, in theory, look to equalize individuals, the first being economic equality, and most "leftist" ideologies support such values, not only economically, but social and political equality, although even Marx did not call for this result. Fascism does not call for equality in any way whatsoever.
If you look at the rise of fascism, you will see that where it occurred, it was a reaction against the communists. Fascist leaders were supported by industrialists who feared a communist revolution. Once fascists gained power, one of the first things they did was sell off state industries to private industry. They encouraged private ownership, big business, and profit. However, all industry had to serve the national interest, i.e., the state. Trade unions, a stalwart of socialist states, were smashed by fascists, and replaced with state unions that served major business owners. These things hardly sound "left" to me.
They didn't allow trade unions in the Soviet Union either. The Soviets nearly
reinvaded Poland because of their union(s)
The part that makes it all lefty is that they had to serve the national interest
of the State, by the State, for the State as determined by the State.
-
The part that makes it all lefty is that they had to serve the national interest
of the State, by the State, for the State as determined by the State.
"They" could be citizens of any state.
-
Who wants the government to control the people and who wants the people to control the government?
-
Russians of all “flavors” love their rodina
fields of grain for wild horses to run
polushka pole
Sovietska nationalizma eta horrosho
Evidently not. Had they loved it so much, it would not have collapsed.
BO,
question for you!
when you were living in the good ole CCCP
did you have a job?
could someone ever level the accusation against you
that you were someone who "aided and abetted" the Soviet Union
a country that was in ideological and military opposition to the whole western world
a country who was considered to be an enemy of your own country at the time...
by helping the Soviet Union, did you end up hurting Canada and other Western democracies by some measure
I'm not suggesting that you worked as a technician in a nuclear warhead assembly facility
but did you have a job that would be considered supporting the Soviet Union?
No, I never worked there. I could not work there, legally. Westerners could not work there unless they were specifically invited (usually technical people with special skills related to industries for which the USSR had purchased foreign - usually German - equipment), or if they defected.
Canada was not particularly anti Soviet at that time.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
"Evidently not. Had they loved it so much, it would not have collapsed."
how could they have prevented it from collapsing?
America will go the same way in a few more decades, I ALREADY know this...
if America was smart, and we both know that's not true
but if it was
it would prepare for a "soft landing"
by being THE regional power in an American Union of nations in the western hemisphere
not the EU
the AU
but politically we are light years away from doing that
but America's future will be entirely 100% in the Western Hemisphere
and remember folks
A man a plan, Panama!
Panama canal is using temporary shutdowns to conserve the water that operates the locks due to a drought
in a few years the panama canal will likely be shutdown on a regular basis because of the global warming caused drought
unless it is retrofitted to use water from a different source to operate the locks
China wants to build a new canal to the north that doesn't use locks
anyone home in Washington, hello...hello...???
where? mar-a-largo?
-
WRONG!!!
Nationalists were routinely arrested and thrown in gulags. There was a provision in the Soviet Criminal Code about nationalism.
Sure, if you were a Ukrainian/Belarussian nationalist you were in big trouble,
but if you were a "Soviet Union nationalist" you were in on the correct side.
They had campaigns on the New Soviet man, the Soviet Olympians, the
Soviet space program, the Soviet military, blah, blah, etc a million times
over. Their superior Soviet man or athlete or even system of government
were superior to all others, it was Nationalistic.
As for conservatism, how many conservatives destroy the places of worship
of the majority of the population, and ensure for those few places of worship remaining, that anyone attending will never succeed in their work life?
Zero? I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I never tried
to call the USSR conservative. They had these socially conservative goals.
The new Soviet man wasn't supposed to be a drinker, a womanizer, etc.
They were abject failures at achieving these goals (and most everything
else they tried to accomplish).
They had Soviet missiles in their parades. They said they weren't
Soviet nationalists but they were.
-
"They" could be citizens of any state.
I'm not sure I understand your point maybe you can explain it to me?
I would prefer not to assume.
When I say "the State" I mean the government.
-
You said -
The part that makes it all lefty is that they had to serve the national interest
of the State, by the State, for the State as determined by the State.
This could apply to right states as well, and some center states.
-
You said -
This could apply to right states as well, and some center states.
The further right the government is the less intrusive into the lives
of it's citizens. Right wing governments have less laws, rules,
regulations and taxes. Left wing governments have more laws rules,
regulations AND taxes AND tax breaks. Left wing governments seek
to control or alter behavior.
-
The further right the government is the less intrusive into the lives
of it's citizens. Right wing governments have less laws, rules,
regulations and taxes. Left wing governments have more laws rules,
regulations AND taxes AND tax breaks. Left wing governments seek
to control or alter behavior.
Far right governments are very intrusive, give me an example of a far right state being less intrusive.
-
how could they have prevented it from collapsing?
America will go the same way in a few more decades, I ALREADY know this...
You may recall it collapsed after a failed coup. A coup in which the most elite Soviet troops refused to obey orders and fire on their own citizens. A coup in which Muscovites took to the streets to protest troops who were there to enforce the orders of the Politburo.
The USSR collapsed because its populace didn't support its existence.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
Sure, if you were a Ukrainian/Belarussian nationalist you were in big trouble, but if you were a "Soviet Union nationalist" you were in on the correct side.
But people didn't claim "Soviet" nationality. They were Ukrainian, Russian, Georgian, Armenian, Uzbeki, Estonian, etc. Even those of mixed nationality never stated they were "Soviet". They would list their nationalities. Unless, of course, they were German.
They had campaigns on the New Soviet man, the Soviet Olympians, the Soviet space program, the Soviet military, blah, blah, etc a million times over. Their superior Soviet man or athlete or even system of government were superior to all others, it was Nationalistic.
No, you are wrong. You obviously haven't read much Lenin, nor, I suspect, did you ever spend any time in the USSR.
Everything was about the proletariat. The proletariat was not "Soviet" (which translates to "council"). The proletariat was, and is, universal. This is why citizens were not allowed to leave the country. Anything that could potentially weaken the proletariat (which included average citizens who wished to move elsewhere, where they could fight against the proletariat), anywhere in the world, was a threat.
Look at this -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_and_Kolkhoz_Woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_and_Kolkhoz_Woman)
Do you see any reference to "Soviet"?
Zero? I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I never tried to call the USSR conservative. They had these socially conservative goals. The new Soviet man wasn't supposed to be a drinker, a womanizer, etc.
Read some Lenin. Then read some history of the early days of the USSR. Hardly "conservative". Up until the collapse, a divorce could be obtained in a day.
The "new Soviet man" was just a proletariat - a person free from the constraints and mores of the past.
If a lack of drinking were really something desired, alcohol would not have been so readily available, practically at every store, from 6 a.m. until midnight. After all, store hours, and what was sold in those stores, was controlled solely and exclusively by the state. If I went to the local store to buy milk in the morning, sometimes, there was no milk, but there was always alcohol.
They had Soviet missiles in their parades. They said they weren't Soviet nationalists but they were.
But again, that was about the dictatorship of the proletariat, not nationalism. The proletariat has no nation, no national identity.
Google was used to find the wikipedia link in this post.
-
They didn't allow trade unions in the Soviet Union either. The Soviets nearly reinvaded Poland because of their union(s)
The part that makes it all lefty is that they had to serve the national interest of the State, by the State, for the State as determined by the State.
The USSR had hundreds of thousands of trade unions, but they were organized by the Party, on a local, regional, or national scale.
Every Soviet worker was a member of a trade union, unless expelled by that trade union. Workers paid dues to the trade union. The bosses used those dues for vacations to exclusive parts of the USSR, such as Crimea, Sochi, the Caucasus, etc.
The better half was expelled from the trade union as a traitor when we married. His salary increased by 3 rubles, as they stopped taking union dues from him.
Poland had trade unions as well. You are referring to Solidarnosc, which was the first trade union not controlled by the communist party. As a trade union, it would have survived. It wasn't its formation that was an issue. It was its activities on social change that was the issue, and in that regard, Solidarnosc coupled with the intelligentsia and the Catholic Church to demand social change.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
Bills, a word of friendly advice: do not insist on posting weird opinions in this thread, they have been proved ill-informed so many times it's embarrassing ;).
-
“The USSR collapsed because its populace didn't support its existence.”
aw c’mon BO,
you were there, you SAW what what was going on
so you know the truth is MUCH more complicated than JUST that...
OK...
the BIG question!!!!!
WHY DIDN'T the populace support its existence?
hint:cuz the other way 'round was also true?
when you were living in Kyiv, what western media influences were you exposed to?
magazines, movies, etc...
after the failed coup of Aug 24 in Moscow, Ukraine declared its independence. About 90 percent of Ukrainians voted for their country’s independence on December 1, 1991.
what were the reasons for such an overwhelmingly one sided vote?
now take that list
and compare it to today...
regime change time
will be coming to Ukraine...
when a large enough percentage of Ukraine's population
doesn't support it's existence...
-
Far right governments are very intrusive, give me an example of a far right state being less intrusive.
The State of North Dakota vs the State of California.
If you speed in the State of North Dakota they charge you a penalty
of $1 for every mile per hour over the speed limit. In California they
charge you at least $100.00
Compare and contrast the state building contractors licensing laws in
California or New York compared to Texas or Florida.
Compare the freedom in Hong Kong before and after the left wing fascist
Chinese took control.
In 14 states and Washington, D.C., braiders are regulated by separate,
specialty licenses that can include up to 500 hours of coursework before
a braider can work legally. That's to braid hair legally.
My sisters braided each others and their friends hair without a license
when they were teenagers.
http://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/braiding/
-
The State of North Dakota vs the State of California.
If you speed in the State of North Dakota they charge you a penalty
of $1 for every mile per hour over the speed limit. In California they
charge you at least $100.00
Compare and contrast the state building contractors licensing laws in
California or New York compared to Texas or Florida.
Compare the freedom in Hong Kong before and after the left wing fascist
Chinese took control.
In 14 states and Washington, D.C., braiders are regulated by separate,
specialty licenses that can include up to 500 hours of coursework before
a braider can work legally. That's to braid hair legally.
My sisters braided each others and their friends hair without a license
when they were teenagers.
http://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/braiding/
By 'state' I meant country. Didn't realize braiding was so complicated. What is the incentive not to speed in ND? I still don't consider China to be fascist and I think most others don't as well.
-
aw c’mon BO,
you were there, you SAW what what was going on
so you know the truth is MUCH more complicated than JUST that...
No, it really isn't. Pope John Paul II once described his role in the collapse of communism (it was huge, BTW) as this - "The tree was already rotten. I simply gave it a good shake and the apples fell."
OK...
the BIG question!!!!!
WHY DIDN'T the populace support its existence?
hint:cuz the other way 'round was also true?
See Pope John Paul II.
when you were living in Kyiv, what western media influences were you exposed to?
magazines, movies, etc...
None.
The Dnipro Hotel sometimes carried the International Herald Tribune, but not very often, maybe once every few months. Communist papers from the West were sold, mostly French and Italian, but I didn't buy the French ones, and I don't read Italian. I came back from Canada once with a copy of Time magazine, which was very coveted - never seen before by any Soviets I knew who could read English (a very small list).
PS - Anything sold in a foreign hotel had to be purchased with foreign currency, converted to rubles at an exceptionally poor exchange rate.
During the late days of so called perestroika, some Western programmes were on television - The Muppets after midnight, Dallas after the news (hubby tells me all the babas watched it). Dallas was shown to demonstrate the rotten decadence of the West. Gone With the Wind was shown on television. These, though, were exchanges. The Soviets traded Eisenstein movies, for example, for The Muppets. I know a British series starring Timothy Dalton, perhaps Jane Eyre, but not certain, was played on television, as women commented on his handsomeness.
Before my time, some Western movies were shown. Not many American - Some Like it Hot was popular, hubby told me. Another popular movie there was Mackenna's Gold. I only know this because women just swooned for Gregory Peck. Lots of French movies were shown - lots starring a young Alain Delon (women loved him), The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, and the French film Diva, which I still like, was shown there to mostly empty theatres, and lots of French comedies. I am fairly certain a fair number of Italian movies, from the 1950's were shown there as well, because Marcello Mastrioianni was known, and again, women swooned. I would have to ask the better half, as most of those movies predate my time there.
I know that Bollywood movies were popular, those were the foreign movies that predominated when I was there. I am sure there are others, but most Western movies were shown to demonstrate the negative aspects of Western life.
So, to answer your question, none, and that was intentional. Any Westerner living there was under KGB surveillance, pretty much 24/7.
after the failed coup of Aug 24 in Moscow, Ukraine declared its independence. About 90 percent of Ukrainians voted for their country’s independence on December 1, 1991.
what were the reasons for such an overwhelmingly one sided vote?
Obscurity and greed. They assumed they would live in prosperity merely by declaring independence. They didn't understand that no one would feed them, they'd need to do this themselves, and, in 25 years, they've learned virtually nothing in this regard.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
The further right the government is the less intrusive into the lives
of it's citizens. Right wing governments have less laws, rules,
regulations and taxes. Left wing governments have more laws rules,
regulations AND taxes AND tax breaks. Left wing governments seek
to control or alter behavior.
this particular administration is attempting to control, regulate, and apply sanctions/tariffs on practically every country it can.
Fathertime!
-
To add, my husband says a lot of Italian movies were shown in the USSR, because they had social themes - Bread and Chocolate, Bicycle Thieves, all of Fellini's movies. Not Western, but all of Kurosawa's movies were shown.
Additional American movies - It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, 3:10 to Yuma (which no one watched to the end, other than hubby), The Magnificent Seven, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Kramer v Kramer, Tootsie (which was portrayed as a "poor man who had to dress as a woman in order to find a job").
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
The Fraser Institute, a right wing think tank in Canada which receives significant funding from the Koch Brothers and Tea Party supporting billionaires, publishes a "freedom index" every year. That index looks at various types of freedoms, allocating points to each type for an overall score of freedom.
Here's a link to last year's freedom index. The Executive Summary is at page 9. Note that 2 of the top 4 countries for economic freedom are ::cough cough:: socialist.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/human-freedom-index-2018.pdf (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/human-freedom-index-2018.pdf)
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
But again, that was about the dictatorship of the proletariat, not nationalism. The proletariat has no nation, no national identity.
Google was used to find the wikipedia link in this post.
I think we are at a stalemate, I think all the things I've mentioned are
about Nationalism, you consider it differently.
Udachi!
Bill
-
Ever see this one?
(http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/mccain-in-syria-2-detail-2.jpg)
-
Jeez,
JUST found this ..
What sort of clueless muppet would post such bollox as 'fact' ?
Now whilst I realise they've prob never BEEN to Syria and wouldn't know that there have been some crazy alliances ( my enemy's enemy is my friend) during battle ...
McCain did NOT meet with al-Baghadi.. The photo was taken with former FSA chief ( Free Syrian Army) members .. including 'Gen.Idris' - last I heard of exiled in Turkey
Have some Americans SO lost the plot that they'd believe and re-post such twaddle ?
http://theweek.com/articles/463930/what-sen-john-mccain-doing-syria