# The far right in Europe is really the far left...



## billc (Oct 7, 2011)

I have a theory that the far right in Europe is really what we here in the states would consider the extreme left. Here is an article that discusses an alleged "far right" political party.  However, the politicians the article discusses are in truth, people of the left...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/special-report-france-far-capitalizes-euro-crisis-070601225.html



> Fabien Engelmann, a 32-year old municipal plumber with tight-cropped hair, was an activist with France's leading trade union and a Trotskyist for many years. Later he joined the far-left "New Anticapitalist Party". This year he switched party again, but not on a leftist ticket.
> He joined France's famed far-right National Front, and he was not the only one.
> This year, five trade unionists have joined the minority party that made its name with the anti-immigrant rhetoric of its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Since January, Le Pen's daughter Marine has been in charge of the party, and Engelmann says she is a magnet.
> "It really is the arrival of Marine Le Pen that convinced me to join the National Front," Engelmann told Reuters. "She has an economic program that is much more geared to defending the little people, the workers, the popular classes of France."





> To make things better, Le Pen is promising to pull France out of the euro, reinstate protectionist barriers, and reassert the state's supremacy over market forces.


A trade unionist and trotskyist who likes the national front because it is "much more geared to defending the little people, the workers, the popular classes of France."
That rhetoric doesn't exactly sound like a limited government, free market capitalist to me.

She wants to raise trade barriers, and reassert the supremacy of the state over market forces...once again, not sounding like a fan of limited government and free market capitalism.


----------



## Monroe (Oct 8, 2011)

I'd say the US is the example of extremist Capitalist as opposed to most of the developed world being extreme left wing. Most countries politics don't revolve around limited government and free markets. They are discussed, but aren't a major focal point in right wing platforms. 

I would agree that Obama is too conservative for my tastes.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2011)

Bill, your extreme naivety and ignorance when it comes to European politics is breath taking.
Le Pen and that party are the most xenophobic, anti freedom, rascist and anti semitic bunch of thugs you could get. They are self proclaimed right wingers, they want 'non-believers' rounded up and detained, they are against free speech and free thought. whatever you think they represent you are very sadly mistaken, these are fascists of the worst kind, very definitely right wing. Statements about economics and big and little government hold no water here.
Your understanding of what is left and right is skewed when it comes to European politics, please just leave it to people who know what they are talking about, clearly you do not. Stick to pontificating about your own politics.

You have no understanding about the dangers of these 'National Front' parties, they are direct descendants of the Nazi party, often with the same supporters and don't give me that bollocks about Nazis being left, it's complete nonsense and you should really invest in some serious study if you insist on setting yourself as an expert in European history. 

I wasn't going to post having just peeked on my phone to the internet but I can honestly say it makes me sick to my stomach to see the ultra right taken so lightly and almost in jest, you really have no idea what they are about. These are the people that will make blood flow throughout Europe if they ever get in power. They aren't socialist, they aren't left, they are fascist they are right wing. Accept it and move on.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I* wasn't going to post having just peeked on my phone to the internet but I can honestly say it makes me sick to my stomach *to see the ultra right taken so lightly and almost in jest, you really have no idea what they are about. These are the people that will make blood flow throughout Europe if they ever get in power. They aren't socialist, they aren't left, they are fascist they are right wing. Accept it and move on.



Ever wonder why something like this gets posted?


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

they do sounda lot like the socialists of 1930's germany.  Once again, socialists, facists and communists are all of the same type of movement, with slight differences based on the countries where they came to power.


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Why would a self proclaimed trotskyite, and union member all of a sudden go so against type?  Once again, you may like to try to disassociate the left from the worst types of behavior but it just doesn't work.  The anti-freedom, anti-free market, anti-immigrant and racist agenda sound too much like the national socialists of Germany, who were on the left and were honest to goodness socialists.  In the end, the international socialists ended up doing the same things the Germans did, but they were able to escape the consequences of their actions.

Once again a quote about their policies:



> Nostalgia and identity are still core National Front concerns, but Le Pen has moved beyond immigration. The new Front rejects all the ideas that have driven European economic growth in the past two decades: globalization, free trade and the dominance of services and the financial industry.



This is a left agenda.  You can hear this stuff down on wallstreet preached by the socialists, greenies, communists and union thugs.


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Some more quotes about Le Pen:



> Most of the authors are not known to have Front sympathies, and some are emphatically left-wing. But Le Pen has borrowed their ideas all the same.
> Jacques Sapir, a leading eurosceptic French economist, has supported a Communist-backed party in previous elections and has no links with or affinities to Le Pen. He said he had heard from friends that she was quoting him and discovered the Front's website carried links to his work.





> "The real fault line is between nationalists and globalists, between economic patriots and those who believe that nations and borders must disappear and that there should be no obstacles whatsoever to commerce, that everything is for sale and everything can be bought, and that there should be no controls on the flows of capital, products and people," she says.





> Le Pen's willingness to cross traditional left-right divides prompted the starkest shift in the Front's economic thinking. In Jean-Marie's day, the platform was 'less government', in line with U.S. president Ronald Reagan's Reaganomics. Now the party wants a strong state, a regulated economy.
> Sulzer, the man in charge of the Front's economic program, says it wants a state that protects France's internal markets from foreign competition: "We cannot compete with exporting countries that do not respect any social or environmental norms."
> The Front also wants to regulate the financial industry and inculcate it with moral values. It favors separating retail and investment banking. Sulzer said Le Pen would have no qualms about nationalizing financial institutions that are in trouble, returning them to the market later. "We do not want to recreate the Soviet Union," he said.
> At home, he said, the Front wants freedom of commerce and industry, free competition and no cartels, monopolies or social abuse.



The more you read about these guys the more left wing they become.



> Now the party wants a strong state, a regulated economy.





> Socialist Segolene Royal, currently third behind Francois Hollande and Martine Aubry in polls of Socialist candidates, has called for more protectionism and last month took a swipe at the banking industry that sounded very Marine Le Pen, saying bankers must "obey, not command".





> Sulzer said Le Pen would have no qualms about nationalizing financial institutions that are in trouble, returning them to the market later.





> The party offers a radical alternative. To restore French competitiveness it will quit the euro; to boost employment it will close French borders to cheap Chinese imports, reindustrialize and empower the state's regulatory role. And it will bring the banks to heel.



What part of this isn't something you would here from the American left?


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

She sounds like she is attempting the approach Hitler used in the 1930's.  That would make her a 1) a socialist and 2) a hard lefty.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Bill, your extreme naivety and ignorance when it comes to European politics is breath taking.Le Pen and that party are the most xenophobic, anti freedom, rascist and anti semitic bunch of thugs you could get. They are self proclaimed right wingers, they want 'non-believers' rounded up and detained, they are against free speech and free thought. whatever you think they represent you are very sadly mistaken, these are fascists of the worst kind, very definitely right wing. Statements about economics and big and little government hold no water here.Your understanding of what is left and right is skewed when it comes to European politics, please just leave it to people who know what they are talking about, clearly you do not. Stick to pontificating about your own politics.You have no understanding about the dangers of these 'National Front' parties, they are direct descendants of the Nazi party, often with the same supporters and don't give me that bollocks about Nazis being left, it's complete nonsense and you should really invest in some serious study if you insist on setting yourself as an expert in European history. I wasn't going to post having just peeked on my phone to the internet but I can honestly say it makes me sick to my stomach to see the ultra right taken so lightly and almost in jest, you really have no idea what they are about. These are the people that will make blood flow throughout Europe if they ever get in power. They aren't socialist, they aren't left, they are fascist they are right wing. Accept it and move on.


Um... No. While I don't agree with bill on this one, you are mistaken about fascism. It is neither inherently conservative nor is it inherently liberal. Hell, Italian fascism was demonstrably anti-conservative AND anti-conservative. I am not saying that bill is RIGHT. His line of reasoning is fallacious. But NEITHER of you seem to understand the difference between the liberal-conservative continuum and the authoritarian-libertarian continuum. In effect, the two of you are having an argument devoid of any real thrust on either side because you are arguing about terms with no demonstrated-as-of-yet understanding about what these terms MEAN.Xenophobia, racism, and anti-semitism, in addition to being semantically redundant in the context of the conversation, are neither inherently conservative nor liberal standpoints. You will find racists on BOTH SIDES of that spectrum.Anti freedom is judged on the authorizarian-libertarian scale. It is entirely possible to be anti-freedom AND be either  CONSERVATIVE or LIBERAL. The basis of bill's argument is flawed on the very same grounds that the basis of your criticism is flawed.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 8, 2011)

*Tez* is correct, *BillC*, in her characterisation of the politics within the spectrum provided by European perspective and history.  EDIT:  Josh, I see your point and to a large extent agree that Fascism is somewhat of a political entity in it's own right.  I have posted this before I think but I find this little 'characteristics' chart to be quite useful when trying to pin down where in the Left--Right tautology a particular ideology lies. http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html

By all means play with your fantastical dreams where the Nazi's are representatives of some mythical Left and equally mythical Atheists kill more than religious fanatics.  By all means post about them here, as long as you don't breach the rules or upset too many people.  But for the last and final time, the Nazi's were the extreme representation of the totalitarian Right and the Communist regime of Soviet Russia might not have had a state religion but their state itself (especially it's Leader) was their divinity.  

Both just go to prove that fanaticism in politics is a vile trait, whichever wing it flaps.  That is the most important point.

I would also say that it might be wise to not for a second hold tight to the deceptive hope that you are convincing anyone of the rightness {yeah, nonsensical politics related pun attack !} of those views who does not already walk in those footsteps of dubious plausibility.  Quite the reverse is more likely to be the outcome in almost any reasoning being, for much the same reasons that we all hate tele-sales of any kind.

That constitutes the end of what I have to say on the matter {everyone breathes a sigh of relief :lol:} --> bye now.


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/the_protocols_of_the_elders_of_liberalism.html



> Perhaps Mr. Cohen was not taught that Nationalism was a liberal concept, having its genesis in Rousseauian ideas of popular sovereignty and the national will.  Rousseau believed that a people and their nation were indivisible, and he welcomed a veneration of the People and the Nation as a way to better unify the State -- and as a way to weaken the power of the nobility and the Church, which he clearly viewed as an impediment to progress.  Europe would adopt this concept of Nationalism (as opposed to Patriotism, love for one's country) and it would reach its ultimate expression in the Fascism of Italy and the Nazism of Germany.  These were liberal ideas. It is no coincidence that the most virulently nationalistic system in history was also a socialist entity; the National Socialist German Worker's Party.


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

For Josh:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/ther_persistent_practice_of_ty.html


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Do you mean this rethinking of the political spectrum:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/rethinking_the_political_spect.html



> *A More Accurate Spectrum*
> 
> The mental framing device of a political spectrum is not a bad idea in itself. There are indeed relationships among tyranny, liberalism, conservatism, and other political phenomena that lend themselves to depiction on a spectrum. But the spectrum must reflect reality.
> 
> There is something nonsensical about a political spectrum that spans the range between tyranny and ... tyranny. If one end of the spectrum is the home of tyranny, then shouldn't the opposite end of the spectrum be the home of liberty, tyranny's opposite? The new spectrum is a rough measurement of liberty: very little liberty on the left end, quite a bit on the right end. At the left extreme reside the hard tyrannies of communism and fascism, as seen historically in such places as the Soviet Union, China, Germany, or North Korea. A bit to the right are the softer tyrannies of socialism, as commonly practiced in Western Europe. Liberalism comes next, then "moderation." Moving further along the spectrum toward greater liberty, one finds conservatism, and finally libertarianism.









there is also this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_taming_of_the_masses.html



> Beginning in the 1930s, at Stalin's direction, communists in the West publicly began to proclaim that they were on the opposite end of the sociopolitical spectrum from what we now call the "fascist" or "right-wing" movements of Europe.  In fact, the Fascisti in Italy, the Nazis in Germany, and the Communists in the Soviet Union were all socialists.  But the Soviet-backed communists in Europe became embroiled in a deadly power struggle over which socialist party was going to rule the European masses.  So they decided to delegitimize the other socialist parties.  This was expedited by the simple but effective Orwellian label "counter-revolutionary," which placed any number of socialist groups on the opposite end of the sociopolitical spectrum from the European communists, who by self-anointment became the "true" socialists.  To cement this distinction, the Communists started calling themselves "left-wing" revolutionaries and labeled anyone who did not accept their claim to supremacy "right-wing" reactionaries.



also:

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/fascclas.html



> This comment from a detailed
> history of the intellectual origins of Fascism is also very much to the
> point:
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Sukerkin, I know that no chart is ever going to be completely accurate or cover every aspect of a concept but there are some interesting flaws to the one you linked to.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

Bill, to respond to BOTH posts, you missed the point. And the article you posted is flawed on the same grounds that you and tez are flawed in reasoning. Because all three have entirely focused on the x-axis while ignoring the y-axis. Sukerkin's link is pretty goodfor understanding what I am getting at.A similar model is the Nolan Chart: http://www.nolanchart.com/article7443-What-Do-The-Nolan-Chart-Categories-Mean.html , though there are other models that are similar, though divergent.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Sukerkin, I know that no chart is ever going to be completely accurate or cover every aspect of a concept but there are some interesting flaws to the one you linked to.


There are, but a 2 dimensional graph is generally more widely accepted for political classification than a 1 dimensional model.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

Personally, I find the Friesian 3-dimensional model to be the most useful. It's three axes are social, economic, and governmental. I find it to be the most accurate, but getting people used to a 3-dimensional model generally requires they accept a 2-dimensional model first. Granted, as soon as you and tez accept a 3-dimensional model, this whole debate between the two of you becomes laughably meaningless and nonsensical.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have a theory that the far right in Europe is really what we here in the states would consider the extreme left. Here is an article that discusses an alleged "far right" political party. However, the politicians the article discusses are in truth, people of the left...



_*The Far Right in Europe is Really Far Left*_- a poem, in the spirit of _Make the Pie Higher_
_I have a theory 
that the far right in Europe
is the extreme left.
here is an article
politicians in truth?
a trade unionist and trotskyist
doesn't sound like a limited government
raise trade barriers
state over market forces
that rhetoric
in truth, the extreme right
in truth, the extreme left
socialists, fascists, and communists
all the same
once again._

:lfao: :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:  
:lfao: :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:  
:lfao: :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:  
:lfao: :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:  
:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:  :lfao:


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Another point of view:

http://www.brookesnews.com/091910hayeknazis.html

[h=2]Nazism is Socialism*
[/h]



> Friedrich August
> von Hayek
> BrookesNews.Com
> Monday 19 October 2009
> ...





> The persecution of the Marxists, and
> of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National
> "Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final
> fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in
> ...



and on mussolini:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html



> *Mussolini the pragmatist*
> 
> Although Mussolini never ceased
> preaching socialism in some form, his actions when in power were like those of
> ...


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

The next bit sounds remarkably like Le Pen:

Mussolini:



> When he did gain power, he implemented economic policies that would endear
> him to many of the Left today. His policies were basically protectionist. He
> controlled the exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that old
> favourite of the economically illiterate -- autarky -- meaning that he tried to
> ...



Le Pen:



> Sulzer, the man in charge of the Front's economic program, says it wants a state that protects France's internal markets from foreign competition: "We cannot compete with exporting countries that do not respect any social or environmental norms."



Occupy Wall street:



> This demand can only be met by ending &#8220;Freetrade&#8221; by re-imposing trade tariffs
> on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field
> for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are
> dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and
> environmental regulation advantages.



From wikipedia on the national front:



> Under her leadership, Marine Le Pen has been more clear in her support for protectionism, while she has criticised globalism and capitalism. She has been a proponent of letting the government take care of health care, education, transportation, banking and energy.[SUP][127][/SUP]



Occupy Wallstreet:


> They want universal single-payer health care, insisting that &#8220;private insurers must be banned from the health care market.&#8221;


Hmmm...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

Wow. Rather than address my critique of the basis of your argument, you plow on through. Well played, sir. Well played. 

I do have to wonder, though, how much knowledge you have of formal political science.


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Formal political science, no, but I have made a study of socialism, from a hobbyists point of view.  Since Socialism is an economic system I look at what economists have to say about it.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Formal political science, no, but I have made a study of socialism, from a hobbyists point of view.



yeah? Do you have an _ant-farm_ or something?.....:lfao:


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

No, I just watch the democrats and get pretty much the same activity.


----------



## granfire (Oct 8, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Um... No. While I don't agree with bill on this one, you are mistaken about fascism. It is neither inherently conservative nor is it inherently liberal. Hell, Italian fascism was demonstrably anti-conservative AND anti-conservative. I am not saying that bill is RIGHT. His line of reasoning is fallacious. But NEITHER of you seem to understand the difference between the liberal-conservative continuum and the authoritarian-libertarian continuum. In effect, the two of you are having an argument devoid of any real thrust on either side because you are arguing about terms with no demonstrated-as-of-yet understanding about what these terms MEAN.Xenophobia, racism, and anti-semitism, in addition to being semantically redundant in the context of the conversation, are neither inherently conservative nor liberal standpoints. You will find racists on BOTH SIDES of that spectrum.Anti freedom is judged on the authorizarian-libertarian scale. It is entirely possible to be anti-freedom AND be either  CONSERVATIVE or LIBERAL. The basis of bill's argument is flawed on the very same grounds that the basis of your criticism is flawed.




Oh, this banter has been going on for a while now:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...l-thanksgiving&highlight=thereal+thanksgiving


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Formal political science, no, but I have made a study of socialism, from a hobbyists point of view.  Since Socialism is an economic system I look at what economists have to say about it.



So basically you don't actually have a real base from which to evaluate political systems or philosophies, but speak with an air of authority on the topic, nonetheless. Got it.

How much knowledge do you have of formal _economics_?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

Bill, my big problem with your approach is that you are presenting intermediate to advanced concepts about politics, yet you have no foundation or real familiarity with the _basics_ relating to your chosen topic. It's backwards. 

The thing is, this forum is populated by _martial artists. _Yourself included. How often do we help a novice martial artist avoid some pretty massive blunders by stressing heavily that they need to work the basics?

If you were a white-belt hobbyist who came on these forums and proclaimed loudly *"BRUCE LEE IS TEH ROXOR OF ALL MARTIAL ARTISTS! THE ONLY TECHNIQUE YOU WILL EVER NEED IS TO PUNCH TEH BALLZORZ!!!"* You would be lampooned by some, debated heavily by others, and mentored by the rest if we could ever get you to wipe the froth from the corners of your mouth, and start learning some BASICS about martial arts before making any proclamations 'round these here parts.

But this is essentially what you're doing with politics. Probably economics, too.

The approach in martial arts, politics, mathematics... really all human pursuits, is best served by having a strong foundation in the basics _before _moving on to more advanced topics.

And in this day and age, it doesn't require a degree, it doesn't require attendance at a fancy-schmancy college, it merely requires some time well spent on the interwebs to become truly conversant in these topics. 

And were you to actually DO that, you would be _much _more warmly received.


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

None.  I didn't know that was necessary to post on the political thread of a martial arts web site.  I guess I'll go get my degree in both political science and economics and then come back and post.  Would that meet your requirement for posting on the political side of martial arts web site?  Or, I can research the writings of actual professors of economics and experts of other fields, at least one, Hayek, a Nobel prize winner, and see what their thoughts are on the topic I'm interested in, post them and their works as sources and then go have a life.  Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, all believe hitler was a socialist and a lefty and I have numerous other authors that I can site supporting my belief that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists.  Also, I believe that National socialism, Italian Facism and international communism are all different types of socialism with different flavors depending on the facts on the ground in the countries where they came to power and the idiosycracies of their particular murdering madmen who championed them.   So my base would be the works of well known economists.

By the way, did you develop the Friesian 3 dimensional model on your own in your spare time...or did you get it from some other person who created it and who you now site as YOUR source of wisdom?  And I suppose all of the theories you will explain to us here are of course all your own, developed without any outside influence otherthan your own contemplation as to the nature of political science and economics.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Oh, this banter has been going on for a while now:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...l-thanksgiving&highlight=thereal+thanksgiving




Alrighty then. Also, that was mildly painful to read. All that talk of native savages, and _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee_ didn't even come up. But I digress.


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Oh, you're another Elder.  Well, it was nice to meet you.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> None.  I didn't know that was necessary to post on the political thread of a martial arts web site.  I guess I'll go get my degree in both political science and economics and then come back and post.  Would that meet your requirement for posting on the political side of martial arts web site?  Or, I can research the writings of actual professors of economics and experts of other fields, at least one, Hayek, a Nobel prize winner, and see what their thoughts are on the topic I'm interested in, post them and their works as sources and then go have a life.  Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, all believe hitler was a socialist and a lefty and I have numerous other authors that I can site supporting my belief that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists.  Also, I believe that National socialism, Italian Facism and international communism are all different types of socialism with different flavors depending on the facts on the ground in the countries where they came to power and the idiosycracies of their particular murdering madmen who championed them.   So my base would be the works of well known economists.
> 
> By the way, did you develop the Friesian 3 dimensional model on your own in your spare time...or did you get it from some other person who created it and who you now site as YOUR source of wisdom?  And I suppose all of the theories you will explain to us here are of course all your own, developed without any outside influence otherthan your own contemplation as to the nature of political science and economics.



First, if you CAN cite, then DO site. Second, read the post directly above yours. That responds to a number of points you make here. I probably posted it while you were still writing this. 

Your last sentence is entirely nonsensical, based even on the posts I put up before you wrote this.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Oh, you're another Elder.  Well, it was nice to meet you.



Actually, me and him disagreed with eachother quite often, but that _was _a nice attempt at an ad hominem. Try ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENTS I WRITE.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 8, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Alrighty then. Also, that was mildly painful to read. All that talk of native savages, and _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee_ didn't even come up. But I digress.



"Savages?"

I'm just going to trust that you omitted the quotation marks by accident, right? :lfao:


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

Yes, sorry. I was still reeling from being equated to you. I don't smell NEARLY as bad!


----------



## elder999 (Oct 8, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> . I don't smell NEARLY as bad!



*WTF?* :angry:


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Rudy (R.J.) Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced; another was rated the 26th most important of the last century), six novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His website is here.

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/



> Mussolini&#8217;s _fascism_ was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler&#8217;s _National Socialism_ was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist.  In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
> Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois  democracy and conservatives).  Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him &#8212; see &#8220;What? Hitler Was Not Elected?&#8221;) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers&#8217; Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
> To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler,  totalitarian control over all significant  economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews



His book, "Death by Government" is great.  I think I donated my copy to the library so eventually I'll have to reaquire it for my kindle.

I just hope he has his basics on political science down.

Also, another great book, "Property and Freedom," By Richard Pipes.

From wikipedia on Mr. Pipes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pipes



> Pipes taught at Harvard University from 1950 until his retirement in 1996. He was the director of Harvard's Russian Research Center from 1968 to 1973 and is now Baird Professor Emeritus of History at Harvard University. In 1962 he delivered a series of lectures on Russian intellectual history at Leningrad University. He acted as senior consultant at the Stanford Research Institute from 1973 to 1978. During the 1970s, he was an advisor to Washington Senator Henry M. Jackson. In 1981 and 1982 he served as a member of the National Security Council, holding the post of Director of East European and Soviet Affairs under President Ronald Reagan.[SUP][5][/SUP] Pipes was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger from 1977 until 1992 and belongs to the Council of Foreign Relations. In the 1970s, Pipes was a leading critic of détente, which he described as "inspired by intellectual indolence and based on ignorance of one's antagonist and therefore inherently inept".[SUP][6][/SUP]



http://www.fff.org/freedom/0999h.asp



> Pipes concisely and impressively analyzes the differences and similarities in
> 20th-century Soviet communism, Italian fascism, and German national socialism.
> All three systems shared a common hatred for classical liberalism and the
> institution of private property. While the Soviets abolished private property
> ...


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Another economist thinks that the national socialists are in fact socialists.



> Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. In
> &#8230; *read more*
> 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College (1967-69), California State University (1967-1971) and Temple University (1973-1980). From 1963 to 1967, he was a group supervisor of juvenile delinquents for the Los Angeles County Probation Department. More than 50 of his publications have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review and Social Science Quarterly and popular publications such as Reader's Digest, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. He has made many TV and radio appearances on such programs as Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," William F. Buckley's "Firing Line," "Face The Nation," "Nightline" and "Crossfire."



I hope he has his basic economics down as well.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2010/10/20/leftists,_progressives_and_socialists


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

George    Reisman    George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of _Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics_ (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996). His web site is www.capitalism.net. His blog is at georgereismansblog.blogspot.com. Send him mail. (A PDF replica of the complete book _Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics_

 can be downloaded to the reader's hard drive simply by clicking on the book&#8217;s title, immediately preceding, and then saving the file when it appears on the screen.)

http://mises.org/daily/1937



> Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian*Mises Daily:*Friday, November 11, 2005 by George Reisman





> My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.
> The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.


I hope this guy knows what he is talking about as well.

Wow, a lot of these Emeritus Professor guys think that the nazis were socialists and I guess they might believe they were a little more left than right, in any demension.


----------



## billc (Oct 8, 2011)

Oh Josh, you were saying your Ph.D.s in economics and political science were from where again?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Rudy (R.J.) Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced; another was rated the 26th most important of the last century), six novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His website is here.
> 
> http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
> 
> ...



NOW there's something to work with.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Oh Josh, you were saying your Ph.D.s in economics and political science were from where again?



Never claimed one. I claim I know the basics of political science. Going from your responses... you don't.And whether or not you would like to admit it, that still has a significant bearing on this discussion. If we were debating physics, I could quote Dawkins all I want, but since i don't have even basic literacy in physics, that would have a significant bearing on the debate as well.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 8, 2011)

elder999 said:


> *WTF?* :angry:



lol


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2011)

Billcihak and Josh you can argue as much as you like about mine or anyone else's arguments being flawed, mine were made after a long fast and intense emotional hours but I spend a lot of my time fighting these thugs call them fascists or right wingers, what you will, I don't think you understand the misery these disgusting excuses for humanity bring to innocent people both here in the UK and across Europe with their violence and hatred.
That Billcihak can endlessly spout this odious 'I'm right, you're wrong' shows free speech is a wondrful thing but is no nearer the truth than if I said day was night.
I posted before the opinion of a professor who's peers rate him as the leading authority on German history who stated the Nazi party was right wing and Billcihak's best repsonse was that he'd been brain washed by the left. Endless posts of bumpf then came thick and fast supposedly representing Billcihak's view of Nazi's. Yeah, whatever. The fact is that Billcihak still equates American politics and European politics as being the same, still thinks socialism is what he says it is and has no knowledge whatsoever of European of British history. His knowledge of American history seems flawed too.

The treating of such subjects by Bicihak as an excuse to lecture us on his views always fails to consider the human cost, saying the socialists killed millions is not just nonsense, it's crass propaganda for his political views which in turn come from television pundits. Threads like this are never a discussion they are a lecture in the art of television bigotry and punditry. Now, I'm with Sukerkin, I've eaten, reflected on the suffering of many and now I'm off, like Suk I'm not bothering to post more on this, it's all just a rehash of Billcihak's world...and you're welcome to it.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Billcihak and Josh you can argue as much as you like about mine or anyone else's arguments being flawed, mine were made after a long fast and intense emotional hours but I spend a lot of my time fighting these thugs call them fascists or right wingers, what you will, I don't think you understand the misery these disgusting excuses for humanity bring to innocent people both here in the UK and across Europe with their violence and hatred.That Billcihak can endlessly spout this odious 'I'm right, you're wrong' shows free speech is a wondrful thing but is no nearer the truth than if I said day was night.I posted before the opinion of a professor who's peers rate him as the leading authority on German history who stated the Nazi party was right wing and Billcihak's best repsonse was that he'd been brain washed by the left. Endless posts of bumpf then came thick and fast supposedly representing Billcihak's view of Nazi's. Yeah, whatever. The fact is that Billcihak still equates American politics and European politics as being the same, still thinks socialism is what he says it is and has no knowledge whatsoever of European of British history. His knowledge of American history seems flawed too.The treating of such subjects by Bicihak as an excuse to lecture us on his views always fails to consider the human cost, saying the socialists killed millions is not just nonsense, it's crass propaganda for his political views which in turn come from television pundits. Threads like this are never a discussion they are a lecture in the art of television bigotry and punditry. Now, I'm with Sukerkin, I've eaten, reflected on the suffering of many and now I'm off, like Suk I'm not bothering to post more on this, it's all just a rehash of Billcihak's world...and you're welcome to it.


Yom Kippur shalom, by the way (I know it's a day late, but based on your absence you didn't use the computer during High Holy Days).Frankly I agree that billc's view is incomprehensibly limited. But let's get a couple things clear. (This is from my phone again, so it's going to come out as one giant paragraph.) First, my only criticism of you so far is that you speak of the political spectrum in the same manner billc does


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 9, 2011)

Tez,

I never post until the day after Yom Kippur, mostly because I'm too emotionaly drained, but also because I'm really cranky when I'm hungry and thirsty. 

I hope your fast was an easy one.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Billcihak and Josh you can argue as much as you like about mine or anyone else's arguments being flawed, mine were made after a long fast and intense emotional hours but I spend a lot of my time fighting these thugs call them fascists or right wingers, what you will, I don't think you understand the misery these disgusting excuses for humanity bring to innocent people both here in the UK and across Europe with their violence and hatred.That Billcihak can endlessly spout this odious 'I'm right, you're wrong' shows free speech is a wondrful thing but is no nearer the truth than if I said day was night.I posted before the opinion of a professor who's peers rate him as the leading authority on German history who stated the Nazi party was right wing and Billcihak's best repsonse was that he'd been brain washed by the left. Endless posts of bumpf then came thick and fast supposedly representing Billcihak's view of Nazi's. Yeah, whatever. The fact is that Billcihak still equates American politics and European politics as being the same, still thinks socialism is what he says it is and has no knowledge whatsoever of European of British history. His knowledge of American history seems flawed too.The treating of such subjects by Bicihak as an excuse to lecture us on his views always fails to consider the human cost, saying the socialists killed millions is not just nonsense, it's crass propaganda for his political views which in turn come from television pundits. Threads like this are never a discussion they are a lecture in the art of television bigotry and punditry. Now, I'm with Sukerkin, I've eaten, reflected on the suffering of many and now I'm off, like Suk I'm not bothering to post more on this, it's all just a rehash of Billcihak's world...and you're welcome to it.


Yom Kippur shalom, by the way (I know it's a day late, but based on your absence you didn't use the computer during High Holy Days).Frankly I agree that billc's view is incomprehensibly limited. But let's get a couple things clear. (This is from my phone again, so it's going to come out as one giant paragraph.) First, my only criticism of you so far is that you speak of the political spectrum in the same manner billc does: solely in terms of the x- axis. "Left" and "right" speech inherently limits the ability of honest evaluation. It lacks dimension. Secondly, while billc saying that fascism, socialism, communism and marxism are all the same IS entirely nonsensical and ignorant of history, the way you word this makes it seem as if you don't believe the socialists killed millions. Problem is, that is exactly what happened in the USSR under Stalin. Thirdly, I DO understand the horror wrought by the Nazi party. I AM versed 20th century European history. Moreover, when my mom converted to Judaism when I was in middle-school, I found myself immersed in Jewish culture along with her. I've spoken to members of her synagogue who were holocaust survivors. So I not only have historical context and emotional experience. DO NOT lump me in with bill merely because I pointed out the basic flaw in your argument. I represent me.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Yom Kippur shalom, by the way (I know it's a day late, but based on your absence you didn't use the computer during High Holy Days).Frankly I agree that billc's view is incomprehensibly limited. But let's get a couple things clear. (This is from my phone again, so it's going to come out as one giant paragraph.) First, my only criticism of you so far is that you speak of the political spectrum in the same manner billc does: solely in terms of the x- axis. "Left" and "right" speech inherently limits the ability of honest evaluation. It lacks dimension. Secondly, while billc saying that fascism, socialism, communism and marxism are all the same IS entirely nonsensical and ignorant of history, the way you word this makes it seem as if you don't believe the socialists killed millions. Problem is, that is exactly what happened in the USSR under Stalin. Thirdly, I DO understand the horror wrought by the Nazi party. I AM versed 20th century European history. Moreover, when my mom converted to Judaism when I was in middle-school, I found myself immersed in Jewish culture along with her. I've spoken to members of her synagogue who were holocaust survivors. So I not only have historical context and emotional experience. DO NOT lump me in with bill merely because I pointed out the basic flaw in your argument. I represent me.



Thank you and fair one! (as she goes against what she said about posting lol)

The problem is however European politics and American politics aren't the same, how we perceive people's political orientation here is different from how Americans do, Liberals here are a totally different kettle of fish to Liberals in America. Here they aren't left wing, they don't believe in things that American liberals believe  to the point of almost being opposites.
Did the socialists kill millions in the USSR? Not socialists as we understand them here, communists did or you can argue that a dictator did but not socialists. Here you can't lump communists and socialists together, two different breeds. You may not see a difference but we do, definitions are not the same here. Perhaps a thread with us Europeans and Brits explaining how we define our political parties and factions while you do the same for yours is called for.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 9, 2011)

Josh, to give some context on thae way Tez posts about this. While I'm sure your experience with survivors was a sobering and emotional one, both Tez and I are a direct product of the Shoah. we are the product of survivors and have no family beacuse of it. Think of this, last week we celebrated Rosh HaShana, the entire family gathered for a festive meal. All 12 of us. That's it. That's for both mine and my wife's and a couple of those people are husband and wives of our immediate family. I grew up not quite grasping the concept of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. Family was mom, dad and sisters.  

So yeah, we get emotional about it.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 9, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Josh, to give some context on thae way Tez posts about this. While I'm sure your experience with survivors was a sobering and emotional one, both Tez and I are a direct product of the Shoah. we are the product of survivors and have no family beacuse of it. Think of this, last week we celebrated Rosh HaShana, the entire family gathered for a festive meal. All 12 of us. That's it. That's for both mine and my wife's and a couple of those people are husband and wives of our immediate family. I grew up not quite grasping the concept of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. Family was mom, dad and sisters.  So yeah, we get emotional about it.


That definitely is outside of my experience.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 9, 2011)

(Removed. Double post)


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Thank you and fair one! (as she goes against what she said about posting lol)The problem is however European politics and American politics aren't the same, how we perceive people's political orientation here is different from how Americans do, Liberals here are a totally different kettle of fish to Liberals in America. Here they aren't left wing, they don't believe in things that American liberals believe  to the point of almost being opposites.Did the socialists kill millions in the USSR? Not socialists as we understand them here, communists did or you can argue that a dictator did but not socialists. Here you can't lump communists and socialists together, two different breeds. You may not see a difference but we do, definitions are not the same here. Perhaps a thread with us Europeans and Brits explaining how we define our political parties and factions while you do the same for yours is called for.


The fact that we are talking about political from two different national perspectives is precisely the reason I go at this from the standpoint of political science, which evaluates the forms of political structures. Communism was actually the out-party in the time of Stalin and was suppessed. Now I will grant that stalian was more dictatorial than true socialism. And even in America it is incorrect to lump socialists, communists, nazis and fascists together. That was a critique I leveled at billc myself. You are again pumping me with him. Stop it. I can agree with specific points he makes without agreeing with him in ALL his points, let alone think like him. I am against communism, but that does not make me Nazi simply because they did too. There's certainly not one sole over-riding view in America for politics, history, or anything else for that matter. But as far as political science goes, the definitions for polital forms are more or less unified for what communism, socialism, fascism, nationalism, authoritarian, etc. actually are.Billc, by his own admission having no formal understanding of political science, takes a "hobbyists" point of view which allows him to feel justified in making statements from ignorance and using one expert or another to back up what he wants to believe, rather than take the time to gain some foundation and understanding, since this being a martial are website somehow constitutes the acceptability of willful ignorance. I don't. So again, don't lump me and him together the way he lumps communism and socialism together. It is just as patently false. And I would like to point out that European politics also isn't simply classified as "left, right, center". Applying a 2- or 3-axis understanding for evaluating and classifying political forms would do some good.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> The fact that we are talking about political from two different national perspectives is precisely the reason I go at this from the standpoint of political science, which evaluates the forms of political structures. Communism was actually the out-party in the time of Stalin and was suppessed. Now I will grant that stalian was more dictatorial than true socialism. And even in America it is incorrect to lump socialists, communists, nazis and fascists together. That was a critique I leveled at billc myself. You are again pumping me with him. Stop it. I can agree with specific points he makes without agreeing with him in ALL his points, let alone think like him. I am against communism, but that does not make me Nazi simply because they did too. There's certainly not one sole over-riding view in America for politics, history, or anything else for that matter. But as far as political science goes, the definitions for polital forms are more or less unified for what communism, socialism, fascism, nationalism, authoritarian, etc. actually are.Billc, by his own admission having no formal understanding of political science, takes a "hobbyists" point of view which allows him to feel justified in making statements from ignorance and using one expert or another to back up what he wants to believe, rather than take the time to gain some foundation and understanding, since this being a martial are website somehow constitutes the acceptability of willful ignorance. I don't. So again, don't lump me and him together the way he lumps communism and socialism together. It is just as patently false. And I would like to point out that European politics also isn't simply classified as "left, right, center". Applying a 2- or 3-axis understanding for evaluating and classifying political forms would do some good.




Josh, you are being a tad paranoid about Billcihak in assuming I'm lumping you with him when I'm not. You have to bear in mind that when answering posts on here one is also making points to a more general reader using your post as a kicking off point, only a little is actually directed at you and I trusted you could tell what was and wasn't.   
Also you use expressions that aren't every day usage for me ie 'pumping' (?)

We have tried in past posts to use political science to explain to Billcihak accepted definitions etc as I posted what I got back was 'well that professor was brainwashed by the left' so frankly you are wasting your time trying to take any sort of reasonable, scientific and provable route with him. We've tried in the past to look at the differences between socialism and communism, they haven't been accepted they are considered the 'bad lefties', we've tried to discuss Nazism, nationalism and fascism again our points along with accepted academic cites are dismissed. So I'm afraid what you get left with is what you see, we are reduced to the level of trying to explain in words of one syllable that no, the Nazis are not 'lefties' and yes the fascists are on the right, it's the best we can manage now.  So the best you are going to get is that the socialists didn't kill people, the communists did. You are welcome however to tread the long hard road we did to try and get the nuances, subtleties and flavours of various poltical entities over. Try the political science stand point but if you get that the academis have been brainwashed by the left please don't say I didn't warn you.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 9, 2011)

I can agree to a point about billc, but you are missing my WHOLE POINT about the inherent fallacy in describing things solely described as "left" or "right". Left or right on which dimension? Social? Economic? Governmental? And when you respond to ME, with a post that quotes ME, and say " Not socialists as we understand them here, communists did or you can argue that a dictator did but not socialists. Here you can't lump communists and socialists together, two different breeds. You may not see a difference but we do, definitions are not the same here", do you see how I just might take that to be directed at me? Stalin's reddish was different from Lenin's Russia, and different from Kruschev's Russia. Under Stalin, communism was supressed. Wealth was not shared equally under Stalin. That is part of why Kruschev got popular. His policies were much more communist. Although Russia has oscillated between socialism, socialist-dictatorship, communism, and market socialism at various times, under Stalin, Russia was distinctly socialist-dictatorship. These words vary between America and Europe only in their colloqial understanding, and really they vary colloqially within America. BUT their lexical definition is the same here or in England, and I am using the lexical definition. And you might understand it as "communism" but through the various phases of Russia in the 20th century, they receded to themselves as a socialist republic. Not exactly the same as the socialism of Denmark or Switzerland, but socialist nonetheless.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 9, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> And you might understand it as "communism" but through the various phases of Russia in the 20th century, they receded to themselves as a socialist republic.



By that standard, North Korea is Democratic, because it's right there in their name.

Definitions of left and right, capitalist, socialist and communist are pretty much the same in the Western world, except the US. I can guarantee you that Tez and I could switch places in our respective countries, right in the middle of a political discussoin, and unles refering to particular individuals, know exactly what was being discussed.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> I can agree to a point about billc, but you are missing my WHOLE POINT about the inherent fallacy in describing things solely described as "left" or "right". Left or right on which dimension? Social? Economic? Governmental? And when you respond to ME, with a post that quotes ME, and say " Not socialists as we understand them here, communists did or you can argue that a dictator did but not socialists. Here you can't lump communists and socialists together, two different breeds. You may not see a difference but we do, definitions are not the same here", do you see how I just might take that to be directed at me? Stalin's reddish was different from Lenin's Russia, and different from Kruschev's Russia. Under Stalin, communism was supressed. Wealth was not shared equally under Stalin. That is part of why Kruschev got popular. His policies were much more communist. Although Russia has oscillated between socialism, socialist-dictatorship, communism, and market socialism at various times, under Stalin, Russia was distinctly socialist-dictatorship. These words vary between America and Europe only in their colloqial understanding, and really they vary colloqially within America. BUT their lexical definition is the same here or in England, and I am using the lexical definition. And you might understand it as "communism" but through the various phases of Russia in the 20th century, they receded to themselves as a socialist republic. Not exactly the same as the socialism of Denmark or Switzerland, but socialist nonetheless.



No I'm not missing the point at all, you are. When discussing politics with Billcihak we have tried, believe me we have tried very hard to make a discussion along the lines you are describing, we've made points about communism, socialism, fascism et al again and again but what we get back are links to media pundits, so we gave up and stick to telling him that Nazis aren't on the left and the fascists are on the right. Even that doesn't work, what we get back is that Nazis believe in 'big' government therefore are lefties. 
You are lecturing me,us, Josh and are treating us as morons. In your words, don't. We've had this discussion many times on here, it leads nowhere other than to media links. All you are doing is teaching us to suck eggs and you aren't doing that good a job with your definitions,they reek of propaganda btw still lets see what links you get from BC.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 9, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> By that standard, North Korea is Democratic, because it's right there in their name.Definitions of left and right, capitalist, socialist and communist are pretty much the same in the Western world, except the US. I can guarantee you that Tez and I could switch places in our respective countries, right in the middle of a political discussoin, and unles refering to particular individuals, know exactly what was being discussed.


One well known description is "a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. ". Democracy IS often a factor in both socialism and communist. Obviously not the only factor, by far, and it is often a heavily limited factor. But you left out a sizeable chunck of my argument.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> By that standard, North Korea is Democratic, because it's right there in their name.
> 
> Definitions of left and right, capitalist, socialist and communist are pretty much the same in the Western world, except the US. I can guarantee you that Tez and I could switch places in our respective countries, right in the middle of a political discussoin, and unles refering to particular individuals, know exactly what was being discussed.



Exactly!


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> One well known description is "a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. ". Democracy IS often a factor in both socialism and communist. Obviously not the only factor, by far, and it is often a heavily limited factor. *But you left out a sizeable chunck of my argument.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Probably because we are rehashing a good many other threads here. For me it's half five in the morning and I'm getting ready for work but even if I had the leisure to to sit and discuss I really can't be bothered anymore , this American definition of things political in Europe gets wearying after a while and as I said we've been there, done that got, the t shirt and seen the film.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> No I'm not missing the point at all, you are. When discussing politics with Billcihak we have tried, believe me we have tried very hard to make a discussion along the lines you are describing, we've made points about communism, socialism, fascism et al again and again but what we get back are links to media pundits, so we gave up and stick to telling him that Nazis aren't on the left and the fascists are on the right. Even that doesn't work, what we get back is that Nazis believe in 'big' government therefore are lefties. You are lecturing me,us, Josh and are treating us as morons. In your words, don't. We've had this discussion many times on here, it leads nowhere other than to media links. All you are doing is teaching us to suck eggs and you aren't doing that good a job with your definitions,they reek of propaganda btw still lets see what links you get from BC.


I am sorry if I come off as lecturing. Not my intent. Just long winded. However, at least in THIS discussion I have yet to hear you talk 2 dimensionally. It's all been in 1 dimension: single axis continuum, ultimately consisting of left and right. As far as for my definitions reeking of propoganda... Hpwever, I was using the Oxford dictionary, Mirriam-Webster, and the Communist Manifesto. One source was propaganda for certain, but done by the father of both. The key difference between communism and socialism, in the LEXICAL definition, is whether or not goods are equally distributed.


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2011)

Tez, not that I don't enjoy you slugging it out with Josh, but media links is hardly what I post.  I have listed and "cited" at least 5 PH.Ds in economics, one a Nobel Prize winner and a Ph.D. in political science.  All of them are  greatly respected in their fields and a couple were actually alive during the Nazi period.  Hmmm...you gave me one history Ph.D., not a Nobel Prize winner, or was he?  I don't remember.  Well, back to slugging it out with Josh.  It is quite entertaining.

And here is a new link:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html



> As an economic system, fascism is





> socialism with a capitalist veneer.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 10, 2011)

Now you say that America and Europe have different definitions of both socialism and capitalism. I say that's a complete load of bollocks. And I have friends in Europe that would disagree with you. But there is q simple way to find out: what is your definition of socialism? What is your definition of communism. In Europe, what is the primary difference or differences?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 10, 2011)

Wow, 5 pages so far, this belong on someone's ego wall.  :rofl:


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> I am sorry if I come off as lecturing. Not my intent. Just long winded. However, at least in THIS discussion I have yet to hear you talk 2 dimensionally. It's all been in 1 dimension: single axis continuum, ultimately consisting of left and right. As far as for my definitions reeking of propoganda... Hpwever, I was using the Oxford dictionary, Mirriam-Webster, and the Communist Manifesto. One source was propaganda for certain, but done by the father of both. The key difference between communism and socialism, in the LEXICAL definition, is whether or not goods are equally distributed.



Josh, you aren't understanding what I'm saying...we have, me and many others tried discussing this left/right issue with Billcihak in as many dimensions as we can but it simply doesn't work, it goes back to being left is bad, right is good, until he fleshes out his theories we can go no further and as I said it's wearying to try and discuss things just to have Ann Coulter chucked at you. this is one the argumetns are one dimensional, we can't break out of the credo Billcihak lives by, it's his mantra... lefties are bad, nasty and violent, the right are calm, peaceful and productive, yes he said that so how exactly do you suggest discussing the subject with any depth when this is what you get. I'm tired of posting about this, I only did on this thread because I find the French National Front a dangerous and nasty affront to decent humans, I don't care what economic policies makes them left or right, it's their other policies that worry me.


Billcihak that 'one' professor' was the peer world accepted expert on Nazi Germany and German history with pages of credits and qualifications from the best universities in the word, you said he was brainwashed by the left so what did you expect me to post after that. Trying to have a serious discussion with you is like trying to nail ice cream to the wall. As for Nobel prize winners well Obama is one isn't he, does that make him acceptable in your eyes or are you still hating him?


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2011)

Something tells me the protesters here pooping on police cars are not right wingers.


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2011)

Actually, I never use Ann Coulter to argue that the nazis and fascists were a type of socialism.  I'm sure Ann would agree, but I use Ph.D.s in  economics and political science to support my argument.


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2011)

Oh, I don't hate Obama, I feel sorry for him really.  He is a deluded man who has a warped set of principals that are going to damage the country.  I do want him VOTED out of office at the next opportunity.  2012 can't come soon enough.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Something tells me the protesters here pooping on police cars are not right wingers.



Something tells me I really don't care. For all we know, like the 'rioters' in the UK they are criminals with long records. Two thirds of the so called rioters were found to be convicted criminals, somehow I doubt politics comes into what they were doing.

By the way 'pooping' is a infantile word, if you mean defecating say so. I imagine it takes certain amount of dexterity to do that on a police car so perhaps they are right wingers ( a Latin joke)


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2011)

Careful Tez, if you are going to refer to the protesters as criminals Makalakumu is going to give you a lecture on civil disobedience.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Careful Tez, if you are going to refer to the protesters as criminals Makalakumu is going to give you a lecture on civil disobedience.



Oh my... so where did I refer to them as criminals then? You see, you misread what I write, that's quite _sinister_ really.


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2011)

Well, you stated the "rioters" in the U.K. were criminals with long records and you said for all you know the silly people here in the states were just like them.

Tez:  





> For all we know, like the 'rioters' in the UK they are criminals with long records.


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2011)

Believe me, you don't want the "protesters and civil disobedience" lecture from Makalakumu.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, you stated the "rioters" in the U.K. were criminals with long records and you said for all you know the silly people here in the states were just like them.
> 
> Tez:



Oh dear, I said two thirds of the RIOTERS, that word doesn't mean demonstrators, had criminal records and thats a fact, they were inc ourt again so their records came up. They were RIOTERS, looting and destroying property even killing people. At no time did they say they were demonstrating against or for anything. Some were on Facebook telling people what they were doing... stealing.... Do pay attention.

You don't like Makalakumu's view fine but please don't talk about him behind his back. It's sneaky, petty and attacking a poster not his posts.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually, I never use Ann Coulter to argue that the nazis and fascists were a type of socialism.  I'm sure Ann would agree, but I use Ph.D.s in  economics and political science to support my argument.



I'm not taking part in this any further than I already have (because it makes my teeth ache) but if I could put in an information request for BillC to repost those economists of stature that he has posted before that he uses as sources (in a PM if you could so I can keep my word and stay out of the mud).  You'll have to forgive me but I don't recall you linking to anyone who had sufficient professional gravitas or credence to overturn the body of qualified opinion on these matters in my eyes, so a refresher would be nice.  

I must warn you in advance that if any of them are Austrian School then they already start with a strike against them for lack of critical thinking, doubly so if they have marked Right Wing bias, triply so if they are 'media mouth-pieces'.  I prefer my academics of influence to be impartial and to have good arguments backed up by solid econometric analysis if at all possible.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 10, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I'm not taking part in this any further than I already have (because it makes my teeth ache) but if I could put in an information request for BillC to repost those economists of stature that he has posted before that he uses as sources (in a PM if you could so I can keep my word and stay out of the mud).



They're Movement Conservatives with an agenda, like Thomas Sowell.  Re-branding Naziism has been a long term project of the American Conservative Movement, part of their marketing campaign to associate all that is bad and smelly in life with their political enemies.

Like this *******:






Anything that is posted by our local Movement representatives should be read with that in mind.  Actually, it's interesting how you can see popular arguments that are circulated through the Movement distribution chains show up here in our very own MartialTalk.  Like the obsession with Alinsky, or the Tides Foundation.  No one would even know who or what those are without those arguments being distributed from the top of the Movement.  The flow of information would make a very interesting modeling project, it's almost biological in nature.  Fascinating, really.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 10, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Josh, you aren't understanding what I'm saying...we have, me and many others tried discussing this left/right issue with Billcihak in as many dimensions as we can but it simply doesn't work, it goes back to being left is bad, right is good, until he fleshes out his theories we can go no further and as I said it's wearying to try and discuss things just to have Ann Coulter chucked at you. this is one the argumetns are one dimensional, we can't break out of the credo Billcihak lives by, it's his mantra... lefties are bad, nasty and violent, the right are calm, peaceful and productive, yes he said that so how exactly do you suggest discussing the subject with any depth when this is what you get. I'm tired of posting about this, I only did on this thread because I find the French National Front a dangerous and nasty affront to decent humans, I don't care what economic policies makes them left or right, it's their other policies that worry me.Billcihak that 'one' professor' was the peer world accepted expert on Nazi Germany and German history with pages of credits and qualifications from the best universities in the word, you said he was brainwashed by the left so what did you expect me to post after that. Trying to have a serious discussion with you is like trying to nail ice cream to the wall. As for Nobel prize winners well Obama is one isn't he, does that make him acceptable in your eyes or are you still hating him?


I give up. Even when you're talking to me, you are really talking to Bill. This whole discussion with you has been a waste of my time. At least when I talk to billcihak, though we often disagree vehemently on many things, and I find his research methods to be seriously flawed, when he responds to me, he responds to ME. I have no intention on being treated as a springboard. Therefore I am done talking to you.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2011)

I really don't believe that having a PhD is an indicator of gravitas in any subject. They are relatively easy to gain, don't actually have to be too factual because the student has to write a thesis ( otherwise their own theory) of their subject, they don't have to be agreed with they just have to be a reasonable argument. You can buy one off the internet if you wish not to do your own work. Economics, political and social sciences are often opinion led, if you work hard to present your hypothesis you will gain your PhD. It's in the presentation, the working out if you like of your theory that you earns you the PhD, not necessarily the views you hold. There are plenty of people who will disagree with you and may prove you wrongeven the people examining you.
http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~cipolla/phdguide.htm

_"To achieve the PhD degree it is necessary to demonstrate that you have mastered the skills necessary to carry out research to professional standards. The point of the PhD is not to demonstrate your brilliance (although this might also occur), but to demonstrate that you have mastered a set of research skills_." 

This is the point of a PhD, it doesn't mean what you have to say in a subject like economics or politial science is necessarily the correct and only theory, only that you can theorise and articulate it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 10, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I really don't believe that having a PhD is an indicator of gravitas in any subject. They are relatively easy to gain, don't actually have to be too factual because the student has to write a thesis ( otherwise their own theory) of their subject, they don't have to be agreed with they just have to be a reasonable argument.



 I just died a little inside.  OK, a lot.  I'm going to go to my room and cry over my wasted life.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> I give up. Even when you're talking to me, you are really talking to Bill. This whole discussion with you has been a waste of my time. At least when I talk to billcihak, though we often disagree vehemently on many things, and I find his research methods to be seriously flawed, when he responds to me, he responds to ME. I have no intention on being treated as a springboard. Therefore I am done talking to you.



Good, I'm pleased because this thread was started by BillC, I answered him and you jumped in to lecture me, you haven't understood a word I've written, I've tried to clearly explain to you why I, Sukerkin and a lot of other people don't want to get into these discussions anymore. I wasn't talking to BillC, I was talking to you however like him you have seen my words and found a whole different meaning in them, I'm not responsible for that, you are.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 10, 2011)

Amazing. Abject disagreement with the pair of you being reframed as a lack of understanding. Well whatever. Shalom, and good riddence.


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2011)

So are you saying this history guy you keep throwing out as a source didn't really earn his PH.D.?  Besides, the guys I list have long work histories and have distinguished themselves in their respective fields.  You can disagree, that is the nature of pursuing knowledge, but these guys aren't fly by night guys either.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I just died a little inside. OK, a lot. I'm going to go to my room and cry over my wasted life.



No, the point of them is to gain good jobs.!
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2005/10/purpose-of-phd.html

Josh, you don't understand what is going on, I'm sorry but that is it, you wanted to discuss something we have rehashed and done to death, I had already said I wasn't going to go over that all again but you persisted in lecturing. Find one of the many, many threads here on the subject and try to resusitate it.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> So are you saying this history guy you keep throwing out as a source didn't really earn his PH.D.? Besides, the guys I list have long work histories and have distinguished themselves in their respective fields. You can disagree, that is the nature of pursuing knowledge, but these guys aren't fly by night guys either.



Please, do me a favour and go on a reading comprehension course. Read what one of the oldest, most respected universities in the world says about the purpose of a PhD and what it's for.


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Hmm...Sukerkin, I like the qualifications that you put on the way I can support my thoughts on socialism.  It would be as if you challenged me to a duel, and you picked the time, the place and the weapons.  When I arrived, the sword would be the one of your choosing, which would be too short, too heavy and has the words, "Souvenier: Made in China,"  on the length of the blade.  Of course I would notice that your blade was made by a famous Japanese sword smith with a reputation for swords that cut Sun Beams.  My second would be your younger brother, the officials would be your two older brothers, and the audience watching the duel would be composed of your close friends and family.  My supporters, also chosen by you would be Tez and empty hands.  Even with that I will start re-posting my sources as I have time.  As a down payment:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM



> RUDOLPH J. RUMMEL, b, 1932, BA and MA from the University of Hawaii (1959,
> 1961); Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University, 1963); Phi Beta
> Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Omicron Delta Kappa. Taught at Indiana University (1963),
> Yale (1964-66), University of Hawaii (1966-1995); now Professor Emeritus of
> ...



http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/



> Mussolini&#8217;s _fascism_ was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler&#8217;s _National Socialism_ was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist.  In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
> Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois  democracy and conservatives).  Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him &#8212; see &#8220;What? Hitler Was Not Elected?&#8221;) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers&#8217; Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
> To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler,  totalitarian control over all significant  economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).



Not exactly Ann Coulter is he?


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Next, here is a documentary on the Soviets.  At 2:50 on the video they go into the nazis and their simularity to the communists.  Is Dr. Goebels enough of a source?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2011)

RUDOLPH J. RUMMEL, b, 1932, BA and MA from the University of Hawaii (1959, 
1961); Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University, 1963); *Phi Beta 
Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Omicron Delta Kappa.* *And this means?

*

*Taught at Indiana University (1963), *Yale (1964-66), University of Hawaii (1966-1995); *What subjects?*


 now Professor Emeritus of 
Political Science, University of Hawaii.

*Received numerous grants from NSF, 
ARPA, and the United States Peace Research Institute. Who are they?
*Frequently nominated for 
the Nobel Peace Prize (see here).* didn't win though 
*
 Received the 
Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association for having 
intellectually most challenged the field in 1999; the Lifetime Achievement Award 
2003 from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science 
Association; and the 2007 The International Association of Genocide Scholars' 
Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to the Field of Genocide and 
Democide Studies and Prevention.  *this means little outside America, it doesn't tell us anything*.


I think you should bear in mind, and I take the liberty of speaking for Sukerkin here as well as myself, that we are martial artists who if we were to challenge you, act as seconds etc etc would act in an honourable, correct way and to the best of our ability in whatever role we were assigned. To say that we would act unfairly is insulting.


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Next:



> *George Gerald Reisman* (born January 13, 1937)[SUP][1][/SUP] is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University and author of _Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics_ (1996).[SUP][2][/SUP] He is also the author of an earlier book, _The Government Against the Economy_ (1979), which was praised by F.A. Hayek and Henry Hazlitt, the contents of which are mostly subsumed in his lengthy treatise, _Capitalism_.
> In _Capitalism_, Reisman seeks to achieve a synthesis of the British Classical and Austrian Schools of Economics, uniting the doctrines of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, James Mill, and John Stuart Mill with those of Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Ludwig von Mises.
> Reisman was born in New York City[SUP][1][/SUP] and earned his Ph.D. from New York University under the direction of Ludwig von Mises, whose methodological work _The Epistemological Problems of Economics_ Reisman translated from the German original into English. He is an outspoken advocate of free market or _laissez-faire_ capitalism.
> In the 1980s, with his wife, Edith Packer, J.D., Ph.D., he organized _The Thomas Jefferson School of Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology_, which held several conferences and seminars. Its lecturers included Leonard Peikoff, Edward Teller, Petr Beckmann, Hans Sennholz, Bernard Siegan, Anne Wortham, Robert Hessen, Allan Gotthelf, David Kelley, John Ridpath, Harry Binswanger, Edwin A. Locke, Walter E. Williams, Mary Ann Sures, Andrew Bernstein and Peter Schwartz. Attendees of these conferences include later Objectivist writers Tara Smith and Lindsay Perigo.[SUP][3][/SUP]
> Reisman was a student of Ayn Rand, whose influence on his thought and work is at least as great as that of his mentor Mises. He identifies himself as an Objectivist, though he is no longer affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute due to a falling out with some of its senior members, particularly Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz




http://mises.org/daily/1937



> Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian*Mises Daily:*Friday, November 11, 2005 by George Reisman





> My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.
> The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Perhaps Sukerkin could put fewer qualifiers on my responses then, rather than dismissing sources simply because he disagrees with them.  The point to my posting my sources is to show that there are people, with a great deal of education and knowledge in subjects that deal with socialism and leftism, who believe that the national socialists of germany and the the fascists of Italy were in fact socialists.


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Next:

Friedrich Augustus Hayek: (Also not Ann Coulter)



> He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century, winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974. Along with his mentor Ludwig von Mises, he was an important contributor to the Austrian school of political economy.[SUP][1][/SUP] Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate information which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.[SUP][2][/SUP] Hayek also produced significant work in the fields of systems thinking, jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.





> At the University of Vienna, he earned doctorates in law and political science in 1921 and 1923 respectively, and he also studied philosophy, psychology, and economics. For a short time, when the University of Vienna closed, Hayek studied in Constantin von Monakow's Institute of Brain Anatomy, where Hayek spent much of his time staining brain cells. Hayek's time in Monakow's lab, and his deep interest in the work of Ernst Mach, inspired Hayek's first intellectual project, eventually published as _The Sensory Order_ (1952). It located connective learning at the physical and neurological levels, rejecting the "sense data" associationism[SUP][_clarification needed_][/SUP] of the empiricists and logical positivists. Hayek presented his work to the private seminar he had created with Herbert Furth called the Geistkreis.[SUP][11][/SUP]
> During his years at the U. of Vienna Carl Menger's work on the explanatory strategy of social science and Friedrich von Wieser's commanding presence in the classroom left a lasting influence on Hayek.[SUP][12][/SUP] Upon the completion of his University exams, Hayek was hired by Ludwig von Mises on the recommendation of Wieser as a specialist for the Austrian government working on the legal and economic details of the Treaty of Saint Germain.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] Between 1923 and 1924 Hayek worked as a research assistant to Prof. Jeremiah Jenks of New York University, compiling macroeconomic data on the American economy and the operations of the U.S. Federal Reserve.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]



http://www.brookesnews.com/091910hayeknazis.html



> [h=2]Nazism is Socialism*
> [/h]
> 
> Friedrich August
> ...





> The persecution of the Marxists, and
> of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National
> "Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final
> fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in
> ...



The neat thing about Hayek is that he was alive at the time the German National Socialists were coming to power, something you think is an important feature Tez.


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Next:
A slight departure in that this Ph.D. is not an economist or political scientist but he does some really nice work in the area of socialism and right-left issues.



> *My full name is Dr. John Joseph RAY (JR for short). I was born of Australian
> pioneer stock in 1943 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland in Australia. I
> was, in other words, born in the Tropics, like my parents and all of my
> grandparents before me. After an early education at Innisfail State Rural School
> ...



http://knol.google.com/k/hitler-was-a-socialist#



> *HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST*
> 
> 
> 
> John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D





> So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a
> socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas
> that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas
> among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2011)

Are you sure you are citing Hayek in support of what you believe? 
http://www.liberal-vision.org/liber...ust-hayek-1899-1992-the-road-to-serfdom-1944/


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

From your article Tez:



> National Socialism in Germany after 1933 intensified that process, destroying all individual rights in Germany.


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Next:

Thomas Sowell:



> *Thomas Sowell* (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author. A National Humanities Medal winner, he advocates laissez-faire economics and writes from a libertarian perspective. He is currently a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University
> 
> 
> graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), Thomas Sowell went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).
> ...



If you want to see his views, unfortunately you will have to read his chapters in "Intellectuals and Society,":

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318370288&sr=1-1




> [h=1]Intellectuals and Society [Hardcover][/h]Thomas Sowell
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(Author)  

My copy is on my kindle.*


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Have to go for now...


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> From your article Tez:




??? and that means what? 

Ah of course, that means they can't possibly be right wing because they are goody goodies aren't they, they'd never destroy individual rights would they. 


Tez walks slowly and carefully away from this thread as a sense of unreality sets in. The kettle boils and she makes a pot of tea. Taking her cup and saucer through to the sitting room, she sinks gratefully into the big leather armchair. She shakes her head sadly, there's none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Hmm...Sukerkin, I like the qualifications that you put on the way I can support my thoughts on socialism.



I didn't mean it that way, BillC, I was just after winnowing out the non-reputable sources so as not to waste our combined time.  I was also giving you the opportunity to do so off the record as I said I really am not going to get publicly involved in this nonsense but I am interested in why you think in the fashion that you do.  

I do like to play an even hand when I can and won't disdain good argument or dismiss things out of hand just because they don't fit some inviolable world-picture; I am proud of the fact that John considers me 'good people' and would sit down and drink with me even if I am a wishy-washy Liberal almost directly because of that attitude - the only time my responses harden is when ideology control peoples brains rather than reason (or if they don't have a good reason why they let ideology control them).


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Next:
> 
> Friedrich Augustus Hayek: (Also not Ann Coulter)
> 
> ...



No I don't. He's also a liberal or didn't you notice? doesn't say the Nazis are socialists though.


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Did you read this:



> The persecution of the Marxists, and
> of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National
> "Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final
> fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in
> ...



From the article I cited by Hayek.


----------



## billc (Oct 11, 2011)

Tez,


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 12, 2011)

Stop insulting other peoples intelligence. Basing your opinions on cherry picking phrases from people you think are right wing doesn't mean you are correct. Insulting people is the last resort of a person who knows he hasn't the wherewithal to make a reasoned argument ...on his own.


----------



## Blade96 (Oct 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually, I never use Ann Coulter to argue that the nazis and fascists were a type of socialism.  I'm sure Ann would agree, but I use Ph.D.s in  economics and political science to support my argument.



Don't fool yerself into thinking just because they got a phd means they must be right. Remember Shirley Phelps-Roper also has a dree and is a lawyer. But what do you think of her??


----------



## elder999 (Oct 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I really don't believe that having a PhD is an indicator of gravitas in any subject. They are relatively easy to gain, don't actually have to be too factual because the student has to write a thesis ( otherwise their own theory) of their subject, they don't have to be agreed with they just have to be a reasonable argument. _"To achieve the PhD degree it is necessary to demonstrate that you have mastered the skills necessary to carry out research to professional standards. The point of the PhD is not to demonstrate your brilliance (although this might also occur), but to demonstrate that you have mastered a set of research skills_." This is the point of a PhD, it doesn't mean what you have to say in a subject like economics or politial science is necessarily the correct and only theory, only that you can theorise and articulate it.



I got a PhD. in physics. From a left-coast, ivy-league equivalent university. With honors.

I'm a *less than* mediocre physicist.

I'm a *damn fine* engineer. (_Peerless_, if you ask me. *Don't* ask me. :lfao: )

I got my PhD. because I had to give direction and supervision to people with PhD.s and they resented it(my not having one.). Boss called me into the office ,and said, pretty much: you're going to get a PhD. Here's where you'll go.This is what your thesis is.Here's your research project. You're advisors will be these guys. Your thesis will be classified upon completion. You have three years, but we'd like to see it done in two. We'll pay for travel to California when you need to go-probably every two weeks or so-and we'll pay you straight time for lab time for your research project. 

I got a PhD. In a *hard* science. Big deal.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I got a PhD. in physics. From a left-coast, ivy-league equivalent university. With honors.
> 
> I'm a *less than* mediocre physicist.
> 
> ...




I'm not saying they are worthless in subjects like science and mathematics etc, but in a subject where you are using your opinion it doesn't prove that your opinion is the correct and only answer. You can do PhDs in subjects such as David Beckham for crying out loud. What doing a PhD in a subject like that proves is that you can research, argument and be articulate, it doesn't prove that David Beckham is the greatest footballer who has ever or will live.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 13, 2011)

No, Irene, but your basic explanation of the process still applies.

And I *am* a less than mediocre physicist. I *am* a *damn fine engineer-all I ever really wanted to be, but circumstances dictated otherwise.*


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No, Irene, but your basic explanation of the process still applies.
> 
> And I *am* a less than mediocre physicist. I *am* a *damn fine engineer-all I ever really wanted to be, but circumstances dictated otherwise.*


*

Have a look and see what the Cambridge chappies think a Phd is, I posted it up. They've been at this degree stuff since 1284 CE so I think they may know a thing or two about students, studying and qualifications.*


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 17, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not saying they are worthless in subjects like science and mathematics etc, but in a subject where you are using your opinion it doesn't prove that your opinion is the correct and only answer. You can do PhDs in subjects such as David Beckham for crying out loud. What doing a PhD in a subject like that proves is that you can research, argument and be articulate, it doesn't prove that David Beckham is the greatest footballer who has ever or will live.



Is it the PhDs in humanities that you consider worthless compared to PhDs in hard sciences, or is it that you consider the humanities themselves worthless?  I don't ask this rhetorically, I'm honestly curious.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't actually think any PhD is worthless, they have to be worked at, researched, put into intelligable language etc, they show academic prowess in whatever subject. What I do think is pointless is holding up a PhD to prove your political thought is correct especially when it's someone elses. Saying 'it must be true this man who has a PhD says it is, therefoer it is' doesn't hold water. You can theorise anything you want to and do a PhD on that subject, look at this one for example. "UNDRESSING THE MOVES: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF LAP-DANCERS AND LAP-DANCING CLUB CULTURE "
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=1&uin=uk.bl.ethos.493247

It proves someone has done a lot of work, it proves that this person has thought about their subject and may be a good bet to employ but it doesn't necessarily prove that lap dancing is something every child should be learning at school despite the conclusions this person may make. Many economists have PhD, many have theories, they don't all agree with each other, some are polar opposites to each other so citing a man who has a PhD as the sole correct arbiter on the subject of the left and the right is never going to be correct. These people who theorise, and decide that to them the Nazis are left wing are deciding nothing, they are postulating, speculating and conjecturing only, they aren't proving anything. 

From the same website as above
_'The development of microsatellites for parrots'

_And this one
_The origins and evolution of the bra 
http://northumbria.openrepository.com/northumbria/handle/10145/83473

_For the Trekkies

_http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...rprising-thesis/2006/08/27/1156617211732.html_


----------



## Blade96 (Oct 19, 2011)

hey Billi, I think I found your twin on martial arts planet forum.


----------

