: "Sure there are rich and poor," they love to say, "but it's not systemic. Here in the free-market, it's all about personal responsibility! . . .capitalism is freedom! . . .live your dreams! . . .control your destiny! . . ." and other assorted bullshit propaganda ...
And "were all brothers....lets revolt and everything will be fine.....everyone will be equal.....people will like working for others needs" is not "assorted bullshit propoganda". I think thats down to what you believe - but the arbiter is not whim, its reality.
: That being said, Fascism, Nazism and Hitler do share some features with what we call Leftism, but I'm positively stupefied that Rightists would consider them significant enough to draw parallels between them.
If they are confused it is because the parallel should be between collectivist and indivualist. Hilter believed in the subjugation of individual to race and nation - very different from communism but still collectivist. Staying away from 'left/right' would help.
: a post comparing the Gestapo to the FBI. Now there's one that might add to the sum of human understanding!
You'd win many supposedly 'right wing' US constitutionalists hearts I'm sure! (without intending to, I'm also sure)
: At this conference, one country after another found reasons for refusing entry to Jewish emigrants,
What you seem to be arguing is that were a local hoodlum to say he would murder people if you didnt take them into your house then, should you choose not to, you would be an accessory to the murder. Thats legal insanity, and a bizarre reverse-causal sense of justice.
Ofcourse, being for the the free movement of people I criticise the above from another angle. Regardless - a govt isnt in any way responsible for the holocaust by not bowing to Hitlers threats, it is guilty of stopping free movement opcourse.
: On the issue of statism, it is true that fascism by definition favors a authoritarian government, but the paradox of communism is (or, will be, when and if communists seize political power) will be how to construct a state dedicated to its own disintegration. How can any self-respecting person draw parallels here, unless, as I've stated before, the animating priciple is not to augment understanding but rather to align oneself with power.
The intent is certainly different - the outcome historically though, hasnt been.
: And, anyway, it is simply not true that capitalists want to abolish the state. Capitalist need the state, and use its force all the time, whether the task is breaking up unions, spying on political activists, confiscating wealth to build useless weaponry, going to war to protect or expand corporate profits.
That sounds like the semi-imperial 'mixed' economies of the west to me. In a genuine capitalist state there would be force, used in defence of those rights to life, property and free action/expression. Without that state one would need to have ones own means to defend said rights. Ofcourse what happens is that people vote for themselves the efforts of others and hey presto we have taxes, controls, handouts and all that crap.
:So, when the Roosevelt administration responded to the threat of social revolution with the New Deal, lots of capitalists howled; similarly the Johnson administration responded to the street-power of the sixties with environmental legislation, Affirmative Action and the Great Society.
Those measures were developed by people who meant to get power and they got it. But its an interesting concept - the payment of money to potential rioters as if the payer is the subject of a protection racket extortion.
"Leukemia ceilings and a Cadillac floor
Hitler was a Leftist and I'll tell you more"
"Chevrolet butterflies, see them fly
Stalin was a capitalist and I'll tell you why"