Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 16, 2024

"What was very shocking, very disturbing was the city of Moscow, where I'd never been ... it was so much nicer than any city in my country," [Tucker Carlson] said, calling the Russian capital "so much cleaner, and prettier aesthetically -- its architecture, its food, its service -- than any city in the United States."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

On the negative side, a lot of Muscovites fall from windows.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2024-02-14 02:46 PM | Reply

...then, by all means, Tuckums, stay.

#2 | Posted by Wardog at 2024-02-14 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

what's their gun control look like?

a factor perhaps?

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2024-02-14 04:02 PM | Reply

If he liked it so much, why would he come back?

#4 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2024-02-14 05:07 PM | Reply

Architecture? If you go for that style, sure. They've also had a little longer to work on it.

About 8 or 10 years ago, I worked on two books that had a chapter in them written by this vile POS. Ironically they were books on values published by a theological press -- that now is toes up, which sucks for me personally. But after its founder died, the press took a bad libertarian turn and published books by the likes of Jonathan Last and his chums.

Ugh. Used to be a great outfit.

#5 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-02-14 07:18 PM | Reply

They've also had a little longer to work on it.
- DBT2

Makes no sense, why wouldn't we adopt?

But then again it would be torn down due to the architects so said something Lumpers disagree with at some point.

Concrete, glass and steel architecture sucks. Ironically it materials represent the common man and socialism.

Today white counter tops and right angled kitchens are all the rage. That ain't Russias doing, it's a all part of the conscious destruction of the past.

#6 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-02-14 08:24 PM | Reply

factor perhaps?

#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Laws are important but enforcement is what matters.

Underground economy (Russian Mafia) guns are probably tolerated with some kickback.

#7 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-02-14 08:27 PM | Reply

I've been to Moscow. I went in 2014 when I was 22 and before Obama's 2nd term and just before anti-Russia hysteria gripped the average American political partisan hack on both the left and right. I liked to drink to my fill in those days, but I was amazed at the number of full-blown, obvious alcoholics I met while in Moscow. almost as many as I met in Bosnia. At least in Bosnia you could get good Cevapi. Cold, sliced Maskoska is tasteless.

#8 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2024-02-14 09:16 PM | Reply

Tucker is the only person in history to get rejected by the CIA and the KGB.

#9 | Posted by Reinheitsgebot at 2024-02-14 11:13 PM | Reply

9. Lee Harvey Oswald? Or was he just used and discarded?

#10 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-02-14 11:39 PM | Reply

You will never see any "war" protests in Moscow.

Because it's a 15 year prison sentence to call it a war.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-02-15 02:18 PM | Reply

"Carlson: Moscow so much nicer than any city in my country"

So when you moving traitor tuckems?

America won't miss you.

#12 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-02-15 03:31 PM | Reply

Tuckem's needs to move there, now!

#13 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-02-15 04:20 PM | Reply

It's amazing how much republicans love Russia and Putin.

All it took was a couple decades of propaganda.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-02-15 04:30 PM | Reply

@#14 ... All it took was a couple decades of propaganda. ...

... and likely the channeling of some money into GOP campaign coffers.


#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-15 04:33 PM | Reply

This dumbass has never been to La Jolla.

#16 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-02-16 11:14 AM | Reply

"This dumbass has never been to La Jolla."

I don't know that he has been to anywhere in Europe. So far as I can tell, one European capital looks the same as the next. I can't imagine Moskva is much different.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-16 02:23 PM | Reply

Yeah, the domes in Rome and Paris are dead-ringers for the Kremlin.

#18 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-02-16 03:30 PM | Reply

I don't know how anyone can hear him because he is so far up something.

#19 | Posted by Brennnn at 2024-02-16 03:36 PM | Reply

I was in Moscow in 1994, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I found Moscow to be one of the most gray, dull and dreariest large cities that I've ever visited, and considering that I've been to 33 countries and all 50 states (plus Puerto Rico), that's saying a lot. Now the people there were very warm and friendly and interesting to talk to, and there were many famous places to see and visit, but that did not change the impression one got when walking around the city or coming from, and going to, the airport.

OCU

#20 | Posted by OCUser at 2024-02-16 03:53 PM | Reply

"Yeah, the domes in Rome and Paris are dead-ringers for the Kremlin."

I like Rome. Paris is the worst of all the capitals. I'd prefer Moscow were it now for all the commies.

My kids won't even go to Paris.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-16 04:34 PM | Reply

#20

Lots of Kruschevkas.

One of my daughters friend's family somehow inherited a Kruschevka unit. They want nothing to do with it. Apparently, the elevators are a bit sketchy.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-16 04:36 PM | Reply

- all the commies.

Are sleeping under your bed...

"In fact, one modern answer to the question "Is Russia Communist" is that it is not communist at all but in fact a deranged form of a right-wing government structure that is run by a despotic maniac. They report:

Russia is a dictatorship in all but name, controlled at the top by President Vladimir Putin with his cronies and oligarch friends below him.

His party, United Russia, dominates both the legislative and executive arms of government, giving him effective free reign to run the country. As seen days ago his cabinet fears him, stumbling and trembling through a scripted attack on Ukraine while Putin basked in the array of subservience before him.

People would be remiss to compare this government with the Soviet Union.

Putin's government is not communist nor even socialist.

It is a reactionary and right-wing government. Remnants of Russia's soviet past exist in the form of the Russian communists, who have a not inconsiderable amount of support inside the state."

www.historyonthenet.com

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-16 04:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Putin's government is not communist nor even socialist."

Got it bro.

The government was actually far worse when it was communist/socialist.

Why the ---- do you defend this --------?

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-16 05:51 PM | Reply

You're no better than Putin.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-16 05:51 PM | Reply

lol... Little Ms. Bomber sure hates to be wrong!

You tell us almost daily that modern Russia is communists mostly, which is dead wrong.

About as wrong as when you tell us that Hitler was a socialist, lmao.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-16 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Berlin is a dead-ringer for Moscow. You can't even tell the difference. And Prague? Man, that architecture is straight out of pre-glasnost Russia ( the "old" city, not that 16th century crap)

#27 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-02-16 10:27 PM | Reply

"About as wrong as when you tell us that Hitler was a socialist, lmao."

Dude, Hitler was an officer in the Bavarian Soviet Republic.

Why does history bother you so much.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 04:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Berlin is a great city. Prague is the greatest city in Europe, so far as I'm concerned.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 04:10 AM | Reply

Well is he lyin'?
I've never been there, but on YT and Google earth streetview it looks very nice, very clean, not the homeless on the sidewalk and the ------ and peepee everywhere, no hordes of drug zombies.
Are libs madnat TC for rehumanizing Russian people after they've done so much to dehumanize Russian people? (and dehumanizing Ukrainian people in the process, 'We hate Russia so much we will pay you to kill them and die yourselves in the process' "Money well spent! Not risking a single American life!")

'It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.'.

#30 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-02-17 01:13 PM | Reply

Well is he lyin'?
I've never been there
#30 | POSTED BY TROLLS_OF_DR

Of course you haven't, comrade.

Now, finish your borscht and vodka.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-02-17 01:42 PM | Reply

The government was actually far worse when it was communist/socialist.

Which was it, communist or socialist?

Why don't you just admit you don't know what either world means and you use whichever you feel sounds scarier.

In this case, you used both. Cause you're a fkkking joke.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-02-17 01:45 PM | Reply

- Dude, Hitler was an officer in the Bavarian Soviet Republic.

"It is uncertain whether this indicated that Hitler was a true supporter of the soviet republic, or that he was simply taking an available opportunity not to return to his impoverished pre-war civilian life.

Befitting what is now known about his character, Hitler's Far Left politics may have been purely opportunistic, rather than reflecting a deeper political belief.

It is also known that once the Soviet Republic had fallen to the White Guard and the Freikorps, Hitler changed his loyalties without a beat and aligned himself with the Weimar Republic and " as part of a three-man committee assigned to investigate the behavior of his regiment's soldiers " he informed on other soldiers who had shown sympathy for the Soviet Government.[35][34]"

en.wikipedia.org

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-17 01:55 PM | Reply

"Which was it, communist or socialist?"

He could have said "The Antifa Government" to be clear.
Socialism was the necessary intermediate stage towards Communism; both being set against a Monarchist/Capitalist/Elitist philosophy (Fascism, for short).

#34 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-02-17 02:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

- Why does history bother you so much.

#28 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

People who misstate history to reinforce their prejudices are bothersome nits.

"Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party."

"To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement.

Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers' Party, but his primary"indeed, sole"focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda."

.

"By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies.

Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front).

Gregor remained the head of the left wing of the Nazi Party, but the lot for the ideological soul of the party had been cast."

.

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler's Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character.

Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month.

That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps.

Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished."

excerpts

www.britannica.com

You've been given the facts before, and you continue to lie about them.

Why does real history bother you do much?

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-17 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

so much

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-17 02:06 PM | Reply

"Which was it, communist or socialist?"

Good question. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, so the most obvious answer would be that they were socialist. But not so fast, the only legal party in the USSR was the communist party.

"Why don't you just admit you don't know what either world means and you use whichever you feel sounds scarier."

Bruh, I went to college. I know what both terms mean. The friction is with progressives, who want the output of the free market, but they want to control the output. In that way, they're not much different than Marxists.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 03:44 PM | Reply

Good question.

One which you can't answer because both socialism and communism are incorrect answers.

Bruh, I went to college.

Bruh, you clearly didn't learn anything.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-02-17 03:49 PM | Reply

"It is uncertain whether this indicated that Hitler was a true supporter of the soviet republic..."

Cool story. Is it certain that any socialist was a supporter of the agnecy in which they served as an officer? I mean, you could just as easily say that Stalin or Lenin weren't socialist. Or communist. Or anything for that matter.

The only thing we know for certain is that Stalin and Lenin and Hiter served as officers in Soviet governments. To try and get in their headspace and determine whether they bought into it or not is a waste of time.

In Germany in the 1930s, the commies and the NS were competing for the same hearts and minds. They were both authoritarian groups seeking to create a dictatorship. They were going to fight. An as such, there wasn't a lot of gray area between the NS and the commies. The ideologies weren't that different.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 03:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Socialism was the necessary intermediate stage towards Communism;
#34 | POSTED BY TROLLS_OF_DR

You haven't posted a single thing worth reading since creating this username.

You're too stupid to post anything with any insight.

At least try to be funny.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-02-17 03:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Bruh, you clearly didn't learn anything."

Would you like to compare academic pedigrees?

Or better yet, just tell me where I am wrong. And we can move the conversation on from there.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 03:52 PM | Reply

#40

Socialism was literally the intermediary stage between capitalism and communism. At least according to Marx.

MY advice to you: when you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk. You just look like an idiot.

You should have gone to college. Or STFU about stuff that you'd larn in college, but didn't.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 03:55 PM | Reply

I say "was" because, outside of a handful of extremists, neither socialism nor communism is recognized as a valid economic system.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 03:57 PM | Reply

Socialism was literally the intermediary stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialism and communism aren't the same thing. No matter how much you need them to be.

And socialism isn't a stage between anything.

You're desperate to write off crony capitalism as socialism because you're an idiot.

MY advice to you: when you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk. You just look like an idiot.

Sounds like something you've been told a lot in your life.

You idiot.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-02-17 04:00 PM | Reply

#44

Sure champ.

This is why you should have gone to college. Or at least read a book.

"You're desperate to write off crony capitalism as socialism because you're an idiot."

So this was really a discussion about Marxism (#34)-which you don't seem to be familiar with. I'm super surprised.

From the river to the sea! Amiright? I'm guessing you're equally spun-up on that.

Why is it that idiots like you think they know things about things they know nothing about? Was it your parents? Were you told you were super special or smart or something? I just don't get it.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 04:07 PM | Reply

#45

Was that word salad of disjointed thoughts your brain shutting off?

You spent your life digging latrines.

College time well spent.

Just go enjoy my tax dollars paying your pension.

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-02-17 04:37 PM | Reply

Feel sorry an airline pilot who can't admit they are wrong, even when the facts are laid out for them.

Apparently this one has a PhD in BS, so there's that.

Personally, I'm going to go with the Encyclopedia Britannica and every other scholarly history of the WWII.

"By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies."

"Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler's Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character."

The problem here is that rwingers are loath to admit that Hitler was an rwing conservative nationalist, and a Fascist backed by wealthy crony capitalists... much like most of today's Republican Party.

It's just not a good look.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-17 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Socialism and communism aren't the same thing. No matter how much you need them to be.
And socialism isn't a stage between anything.

CHAPTER XL : THE GRADUAL TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO COMMUNISM
The Two Phases of Communist Society
www.marxists.org

ClownHut you are out of your depth, swim back from where you came

#48 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-02-17 05:37 PM | Reply

ClownHut you are out of your depth,

Socialism and communism aren't the same and are mostly theoretical concepts, especially communism.

The closest humans have come to experiencing either are in tribal societies.

swim back from where you came
#48 | POSTED BY 1LUMPER2

Mar Vista?

I can drive there. Probably 20 minutes without traffic.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-02-17 06:18 PM | Reply

__________
fee.org - Joseph Goebbels' Own Words Show He Loved Socialism and Saw It as 'the Future'.
Socialists will continue to argue that Nazism was not "real" socialism, but the Nazi [short for National Socialist German Workers Party / Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP] propaganda despised capitalism and spoke like Karl Marx. - Monday, January 23, 2023

|----- One of the comforts of growing older is knowing that some things will never change. ... And the trumpets will sound at the Second Coming before capitalists and socialists agree on whether the Nazis were "really socialists."

The last item has always puzzled me, I confess, and not just because the word is right there in the name: National Socialism. If you read the speeches and private conversations of the Nazi hierarchy, it's clear they loved socialism and despised individualism and capitalism.

In his new book Hitler's National Socialism, the historian Rainer Zitelmann gives a penetrating look into the ideas that shaped men like Hitler and Goebbels. While it's clear they saw their own brand of socialism as distinct from Marxism (more on that later), there is no question they saw socialism as the future and despised bourgeoisie capitalism. ***

... These quotes represent just a smattering of Goebbels' views on and conception of socialism. One can see that in many ways the Nazi spoke much like Karl Marx.

Phrases like "we are a workers' party," "the worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces," "money... is the reverse with socialism," and "we are against the political bourgeoisie" could easily be plucked from Marx's own speeches and writings " yet it's clear Goebbels despised Marx and saw his brand of "national socialism" as distinct from Marxism.

So what sets National Socialism apart from Marxism? There are two primary differences.

The first is that Hitler and Goebbels fused their socialism with race and German nationalism, rejecting the international ethos of Marxism " workers of the world unite! " for a more practical one that emphasized Germany's Vlkischen movement.

This was a clever tactic by the Nazis. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek pointed out, it made socialism more palatable to many Germans who were unable to see Nazism for what it truly was.

"The supreme tragedy is still not seen that in Germany it was largely people of good will who, by their socialist policies, prepared the way for the forces which stand for everything they detest," Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom (1944). "Few recognize that the rise of fascism... was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies."

The second difference is that National Socialists were less concerned with directly controlling the means of production.
-----|

"We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state" - Joseph Goebbels (1928)

"Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion..." - Friedrich A. von Hayek

The main difference between fascism and communism is that communism required "total ownership of means of production" and fascism required "total control of means of production" - but both are socialist totalitarian (government above individual) regimes.

Nowadays we see it (fascism) in Vladimir Putin's imperial Russia and Xi Jinping's "communist" China.
__________

#50 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-17 07:36 PM | Reply

__________
***
|----- Consider, for example, these quotes from Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party:

"Socialism is the ideology of the future." - Letter to Ernst Graf zu Reventlow as quoted in Goebbels: A Biography

"The bourgeoisie has to yield to the working class ... Whatever is about to fall should be pushed. We are all soldiers of the revolution. We want the workers' victory over filthy lucre. That is socialism." -quoted in Doctor Goebbels: His Life and Death

"We are socialists, because we see in socialism, that means, in the fateful dependence of all folk comrades upon each other, the sole possibility for the preservation of our racial genetics and thus the re-conquest of our political freedom and for the rejuvenation of the German state. - "Why We Are Socialists?" Der Angriff (The Attack ), July 16, 1928

"We are not a charitable institution but a Party of revolutionary socialists." -Der Angriff editorial, May 27, 1929
"Capitalism assumes unbearable forms at the moment when the personal purposes that it serves run contrary to the interest of the overall folk. It then proceeds from things and not from people. Money is then the axis around which everything revolves. It is the reverse with socialism. The socialist worldview begins with the folk and then goes over to things. Things are made subservient to the folk; the socialist puts the folk above everything, and things are only means to an end." -"Capitalism," Der Angriff, July 15, 1929

"In 1918 there was only one task for the German socialist: to keep the weapons and defend German socialism." -"Capitalism," Der Angriff, July 15, 1929

"To be a socialist means to let the ego serve the neighbour, to sacrifice the self for the whole. In its deepest sense socialism equals service." - diary notes (1926)

"The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear. We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!" - Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)

"We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces." - Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)

"England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's state." - "Englands Schuld" (the speech is not dated, but likely was given in 1939)

"Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany." - Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (1932)

"The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions." - Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (1932)

"To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole. Socialism is in its deepest sense service." - as quoted in Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm

"We are a workers' party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. . . The value of labor under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to the whole community."-Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)

These quotes represent just a smattering of Goebbels' views on and conception of socialism. One can see that in many ways the Nazi spoke much like Karl Marx. ...
-----|
__________

#51 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-17 07:37 PM | Reply

__________
#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-17 04:07 PM |
Why is it that idiots like you think they know things about things they know nothing about?

Simple explanation?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble - it's what you know that just ain't so" - Mark -----
__________

#52 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-17 07:50 PM | Reply

@#43 ... I say "was" because, outside of a handful of extremists, neither socialism nor communism is recognized as a valid economic system. ...

Yet your comments here on this most august site have seemed to dwell excessively upon socialism as some evil being wrought upon the United States by Democrats?

So, what is it?

Is socialism just proffered by a handful of extremists, or is socialism an evil wrought by Democrats?

#53 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-17 07:59 PM | Reply

__________
www.vaholocaust.org - "25 points of Nazi Party" - "National Socialistic Yearbook 1941" - Published by: Central Publishing House of N.S.D.A.P. - The program of the NSDAP [PDF]

|-------
The program is the political foundation of the NSDAP and accordingly the primary political law of the State. It has been made brief and clear intentionally. ...

Since the taking over of control, the Fuehrer has succeeded in the realization of essential portions of the Party program from the fundamentals to the detail.

The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on the 24 February 1920 by Adolf Hitler ... and since that day has remained unaltered. Within the national socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points:
...

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

4. 4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. ...

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically.**

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.***

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. ... The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] ...

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness...

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. ...

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us...: common utility precedes individual utility.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. ...

*** Adolf Hitler proclaimed the following explanation for this program on the 13 April 1928:
Regarding the false interpretations of Point 17... the following definition is necessary:
"...land which has been illegally acquired or is not administered from the viewpoint of the national welfare. This is directed primarily against the Jewish land-speculation companies."
-------|

** "He who does not work shall not eat" - V. I. Lenin and the Bible.
__________

#54 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-17 09:29 PM | Reply

@#54

... and your point is.... what?

#55 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-17 09:43 PM | Reply

The Nazis Weren't Socialists " They Were Hypercapitalists

AN INTERVIEW WITH
ISHAY LANDA

Right-wingers love to insist that members of Adolf Hitler's party were socialists. But Nazism's real economic policies upheld hypercapitalist principles rooted in social Darwinist ideas about the value of human life. They weren't socialists at all.

In 2009, Israeli historian Ishay Landa published the book The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism, an extensive study of the economic and social interests the Nazis really pursued.

In this interview with Jacobin, he explains what the term "socialism" meant to Hitler, how his political and economic views were connected " and why we can see the dangers of economic liberalism in Elon Musk today.

jacobin.com

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-17 10:40 PM | Reply

scholar.google.com

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-17 10:45 PM | Reply

MadBomber doesn't believe trans women when they say they are women.

But he does believe Nazis when they say they're socialist.

It's funny like Anne Frank is funny.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-17 10:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But he does believe Nazis when they say they're socialist."

Well, in his defense, MB also believes North Korea is Democratic, and all of Saddam's guards were Republicans.

It's in the name!

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-02-17 10:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Right-wingers love to insist that members of Adolf Hitler's party were socialists."

It's important to point out they're morons. Hitler either assassinated or jailed Socialist leaders when he took power, and governed as a Socialist exactly ZERO days.

Remember when the Third Reich was all about returning the control of production to the workers?

NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-02-17 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

__________
#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-02-17 10:58 PM
Hitler either assassinated or jailed Socialist leaders when he took power

A version of "power-sharing" of right-wing Socialists (Nazi party) vs several German left-wing Communist/Socialist parties, similar to "power-sharing" version of Russian Bolsheviks (far-left faction of the original Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party [RSDLP] - Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, et al) which relied on small class of intelligentsia and eventually outlawed and eliminated Russian more bourgeois-socialist Mensheviks faction of the same RSDLP party (Axelrod, Dan, Trotsky, Martov et al).

Hitler also used his SD and Gestapo loyalist to purge his own paramilitary SA "Brownshirts" leaders when they became too powerful claiming it was part of preventing imminent SA coup / aka Rohm Putsch, in so-called Night of the Long Knives.

Or like Shi'a Muslims and Sunni Muslims for the last 14 centuries.

Just simple disagreements on "power-sharing" among 'birds of a feather'...
__________

#61 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-18 12:32 AM | Reply

"The problem here is that rwingers are loath to admit that Hitler was an rwing conservative nationalist, and a Fascist backed by wealthy crony capitalists... much like most of today's Republican Party."

Here is a link to the National Socialists 25 Point Plan.

en.wikipedia.org

Some of it is definitely right-wing. Much of it is left of Bernie Sanders.

And why do we keep doing this? It's literally a historical fact that Hitler was an officer in the Bavarian Soviet Republic. I just don't see why you would want to argue against historical facts.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-18 04:17 AM | Reply

"Was that word salad of disjointed thoughts your brain shutting off?"

YOu just don't know what you are talking about? So why talk about it?

You're one of those low-information people who doesn't realize the fact. But honestly, do you really care? Isn't it mostly about feeling anyways?

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-18 04:19 AM | Reply

"Socialism and communism aren't the same and are mostly theoretical concepts, especially communism."

He threw you a bone. read the ------- link and then maybe try and re-enter the discussion.

------.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-18 04:20 AM | Reply

"Yet your comments here on this most august site have seemed to dwell excessively upon socialism as some evil being wrought upon the United States by Democrats?"

Some democrats may say they support socialism, but it's only because-like Clownshack-they don't know what socialism is. It's just and edgy position to support when you want to be contrarian. It's like saying "from the river to the sea." Most of the young people screaming that don't understand that they are calling for genocide. If they knew what their slogans meant, most would likely be ashamed of themselves.

Socialism is a system where the workers own the means of production. The few experiments with similar systems never took off.

Left-wing dems may be the most fervent supporters of capitalism. They need the free market in order to create wealth so they can take it. That's not socialism, although a system designed by Snoofy or Clownshack would almost certainly run into the same problems that plagued the USSR and other socialist countries.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-18 04:43 AM | Reply

#56

Oh, you provided a link from the Jacobin.

Nice werk, Champ.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-18 04:48 AM | Reply

"MadBomber doesn't believe trans women when they say they are women."

Because they're not.

It's not me. It's a biology.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-18 04:50 AM | Reply

"But he does believe Nazis when they say they're socialist."

I've never actually talked to a Nazi, but I would tell them they are full of ----. Socialism is a system where the workers own the means of production. That did happen in the Greater German Reich, or anywhere else.

The National Socialist Government would have been more aptly named the National Corporatist government. It was a government that had ultimate authority over everything, but still permitted the efficiencies of the market, when it did not conflict with the goals of the state.

If you're being honest, you might be one of the biggest proponents of a corporatist state. You just have to find a way to ensure that non-progressives never have a say in how that state is managed. But Putin figured it out. I'm sure you would too.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-18 04:54 AM | Reply

"Hitler either assassinated or jailed Socialist leaders when he took power, and governed as a Socialist exactly ZERO days."

You mean, other than when he was an officer in the Bavarian Soviet Republic.

National Socialism and other radical left-wing movements weren't at odds because of their differences, but because they were competing for the same hearts and minds. German workers who were middle-class or lower.

Later, Hitler was able to expand his base of support to include those who felt (probably correctly) that Germany had been shafted at the end of WWI. His bogeyman was the jews. Today's bogeyman is the billionaire.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-18 04:58 AM | Reply

Classically bad timing by tin-earned preppy dork Carlson. Two words,Tuckums: Alexei Navalny.

#70 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-02-18 05:48 AM | Reply

Back in 2014-15, could anyone have imagined Republicans would become such an openly pro-Russia party? It seems like something almost any American would privately admit is horrendous, yet Republican voters just shrug it off and pretend like it isn't happening.

#71 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-18 08:08 AM | Reply

Today's bogeyman is the billionaire.

#69 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I thought it was that brown man walking down the street MAGA can "just tell" is "wet".

#72 | Posted by Zed at 2024-02-18 08:56 AM | Reply

To me, a more concrete definition of socialism is that the benefit of society as a whole is prioritized over the individual benefit.

#73 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-02-18 09:48 AM | Reply

a society in which a very small percentage of the population owns a very large portion of the real assets, is doomed. Lending money at interest and real estate speculation, for example, are poison to a healthy society.

#74 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-02-18 09:55 AM | Reply

A ruling class that makes its own rules to benefit themselves is anathema to a happy and durable society. Why, for instance, are our 'lawmakers' without exception suddenly inordinately wealthy? Why do they never go into medical debt? What effect does this have on the rest of us?

#75 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-02-18 10:00 AM | Reply

"You mean, other than when he was an officer in the Bavarian Soviet Republic."

No, I mean once he had power. You're always avoiding those facts.

Did you miss the part where, once in power, he killed or jailed all the leading Socialists?

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-02-18 10:27 AM | Reply

"National Socialism and other radical left-wing movements..."

You can stop right there.

The leaders in Germany made ZERO steps to be Socialists once they attained power. ZERO.

Calling the persecution of jews, gays, and intellectuals "leftist" is moronic.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-02-18 10:29 AM | Reply

Once in power, tyrants usually try to eliminate their leading competition, whether they're of the same ideology or not..

#78 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-02-18 10:31 AM | Reply

- Here is a link to the National Socialists 25 Point Plan.

What's amazing is that Hitler's Propaganda still works on Mythbomber.

Of course the publication was meant to attract voters by miming popular socialist memes.

And Cutiepie's author/real estate agent was right in one respect, Goebbels was a true believer, Socialist through and through.... well, up until the point that Hitler took power and put all of Goebbels' best buds in concentrations camps and or murdered them outright.

.

"Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler's rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting,

"I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life."

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a "people's community" " the volksgemeinschaft " that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity.

Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of "National Socialism" to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state."

www.vox.com

This is actually a well-sourced wiki on Nazism.

en.wikipedia.org

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-18 11:02 AM | Reply

Moscow and Saint Petersburg are showcase cities where all the money goes. They are where tourism exists. The rest of Russia is not so fortunate. More than 20% of Russians don't have access to indoor plumbing. Access to hot water is even worse.

If you're in rural Russia that number goes to over 65%.

Tucker Carlson is an enormous ----. Hideously stupid. Pathetically in need of domination. He cries out for a fascist father figure. How is he even relevant? What an embarrassment to anyone that follows him.

#80 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-18 11:37 AM | Reply

The inner core of Moscow is beautiful but when you get 2-3 miles out Moscow looks disheveled.

#81 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-02-18 02:00 PM | Reply

The response to Carlson is so obvious that it almost goes without saying. If you like it in Russia so much, stay there. For a long time now he has already been showing a deeper love for than he does for the .

#82 | Posted by moder8 at 2024-02-18 02:30 PM | Reply

"Tucker Carlson is an enormous ----."

No wonder people are always trying to squeeze him.

#83 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-02-18 02:46 PM | Reply

__________
#79 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-18 11:02 AM
Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a "people's community" - the volksgemeinschaft - that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity.

This just confirms what I posted. That's exactly what is described by Goebbels (the only "true believer" of "national" Socialism in the Reich, really??) - as opposed to "international" Marxism / Leninism / Stalinism / Communism "real" ("good") socialism(s)?

From your www.vox.com article: "Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today - a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. (really??)

Here's a little bit of history: There was a period of "NEP / New Economic Policy"** from 1921 until 1928 in Soviet Union, proposed by none other than Lenin - to allow private property and business, particularly agricultural and industrial - as a way to meliorate economic devastation brought by the Great October Revolution of 1917 and Bolsheviks' economic policy of "War Communism (1918-1920)" i.e., expropriation of private business, the nationalization of industry throughout Soviet Russia and the forced requisition of 'excess' grain and food products...

** "NEP allowed a limited amount of free-market capitalism to promote a more efficient transition of socialism to communism, as was outlined by Karl Marx. Lenin hoped this would stabilize the Soviet economy until they could achieve more state control over the economy."
...
__________

#84 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-18 06:13 PM | Reply

__________
...

All your links are just confirming what I posted - that "right-wing" Socialism (Nazism) is somewhat different from "full-scale" "left-wing" Marxism/Communism, but is nonetheless a [totalitarian] socialism ("total control vs total ownership"), just like Russian Bolsheviks were different from Russian Mensheviks, even though they were of the same party... for a while... or many other forms of socialist parties or factions. Just like there are Shi'a Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Ibadi Muslims, Ahmadiyya Muslims, Sufi Muslims (who can be also Shi'a or Sunni), Salafi Muslims, Wahabi Muslims, Druze, just as there are so many Christian and pseudo-Christian movements / sects, as well as some Jewish Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular sects. Thanks.

It's like saying that Communism was not really "socialist" or Marxist because it became "authoritarian" but initially it was "for the people" - just a form of "a political organizing mechanism for the ... [Russian / Chinese ...] people more broadly: a way of creating a "people's community" - the [volksgemeinschaft / "Sovety" | "Soviets"] - that would bring everyday [Germans | Russians | Chinese] (and businesspeople) together.

Yes, Nazism doesn't outlaw ownership of "means of production" (i.e., "private property and business") like Communism does but it strictly controls them and can appropriate them for "the good of the state / people / volks" at a moments notice. Yes, that makes fascism more economically efficient as Communist countries everywhere, including Russia and China, found out.

Control is not only economically but also politically more efficient than ownership of "means of production" as politicians can blame all their problems on private businesses and "record profits."

This is actually a well-sourced wiki on Nazism. en.wikipedia.org

Exactly! Thanks. A lot of "socialist" flavors (Marxist and alternates) were going around those days, especially in Germany. It didn't hurt the Nazis that leaders of many of those parties were Jews. The fantasy of non-totalitarian / "democratic" socialism ("for the people") is just that - a fantasy... like Barbieland.

Read those 25 points of NSDAP again. And read/watch "Animal Farm" again, written by an self-described socialist "George Orwell" (Eric Blair) - was the "Farm" communist, fascist or "socialist"?

That's enough on this.
__________

#85 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-18 06:13 PM | Reply

__________
#84 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-18 06:13 PM

** "NEP allowed a limited amount of free-market capitalism to promote a more efficient transition of socialism to communism, as was outlined by Karl Marx. Lenin hoped this would stabilize the Soviet economy until they could achieve more state control over the economy."

Was NEP a "betrayal" of socialism? Was initial Russian "socialism" insincere, just a "hook" to get Russian "people's community" (volksgemeinschaft in German) to organize on the way to "better future" under communism? Is that why Russian leaders in 1970s - before Gorbachev's "glasnost" ("transparency") and "perestroika" ("rebuilding") stopped calling their system "Communism" and started calling it "Advanced Socialism" or "Full-scale Socialism"?
__________

#86 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-18 06:25 PM | Reply

85

As Goebbels noted in his diary, Hitler rejected socialism in lieu of nationalism in 1926, except as a conveniently popular recruiting tool.

My posts on the subject are do to MBs constant claims, ad nausem for years now, that Hitler was a socialist, Period, just like Lenin and Stalin as he said above, and that Nazis were socialists and left-wingers.

Obviously that's not the case, and never was.

#87 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-18 06:28 PM | Reply

"as was outlined by Karl Marx"

So what parts of Germany from 1933 to 1945 were outlined by Karl Marx?

It sounds like you're equating the application of government authority with socialism. TSA is socialism, pre 9/11 airport security was Capitalism.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-18 08:15 PM | Reply

TSA is socialism fash ism.
Capitalism does not lead to social anything.

#89 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-02-18 08:27 PM | Reply

__________
#87 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-18 06:28 PM
As Goebbels noted in his diary, Hitler rejected socialism in lieu of nationalism

No, you didn't even read your own reference correctly, and you are mixing terms : "national[ism]" and "international[ism]" are just different flavors / forms of "socialism" - Hitler clearly rejected the Marxist / Communist "international" one - "workers/proletariat of the world, unite!" - (didn't hurt that many of those, like some leaders and intelligentsia of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia's "socialism on the way to communism" were Jews) - and then-popular conspiracy theory that "Communism was a Jewish plot."

Even from that Vox article, again:
|------- Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today - a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. [my comment: "power" as "total ownership" or as "total control"? Maybe Hitler and the Nazi leadership understood the economics of "socialism" much better (see reference to Lenin's Soviet NEP in my previous posts) than Marxists? After all, as "25 Points" - and especially Hitler's 'clarification' to point 17 - make issue of "private property and business" in NSDAP-run German "national socialism" abundantly clear.]

He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist [my comment: author's terminology - clearly not "socialist" then and now, but "Marxist / Communist"] reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party's ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist "communist-inspired movements."
-------|

"Right-wing" / "left-wing" terminology depend on current-day arbitrary assignment of "political Cartesian coordinates"... at least according to Horseshoe Theory, which seems more and more like an almost full circle today. Any flavor / sect of "socialism" - whether "national" or "international" may be considered "left of" capitalism.

For example, "right-wing" Trump- / Putin- / authoritarians-loving MAGAts are no different from "left-wing" authoritarians-loving "liberals" in 1970s-1980s who loved and supported with various legal tactics Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and various other Communist movements and parties in LatAm and elsewhere.

We learn from history that we learn nothing from history. - Georg Hegel
__________

#90 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-18 08:40 PM | Reply

Baby steps...

Is Fascism always Socialism to you guys? Like peas in a pod.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-18 08:43 PM | Reply

"Any flavor / sect of "socialism" - whether "national" or "international" may be considered "left of" capitalism."

That's a lot of words for Capitalism is Right-Wing.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-18 08:44 PM | Reply

__________
#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-18 08:44 PM
That's a lot of words for Capitalism is Right-Wing.

Stupendous observation... and a fallacy, just like betting on both red and black in Las Vegas roulette will in the long run lose you money (0 and 00), your "logic" again fails you.

Capitalism in and of itself, as an economic system is neutral, in the "center" of politics - not in and of itself a political / political-economic system.

IMF: Capitalism is an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.

But if you want to "assign" a right angle / "right wing" to Capital, and "'right-wing' bad, 'left-wing' good" works for you and makes you happy - fine.

Good night.
__________

#93 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-18 09:23 PM | Reply

"Capitalism in and of itself, as an economic system is neutral, in the "center" of politics - not in and of itself a political / political-economic system."

So, uh, how do you square that with

"Any flavor / sect of "socialism" - whether "national" or "international" may be considered "left of" capitalism."

You don't, because it's just a bunch of babble.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-18 09:25 PM | Reply

__________
"Capitalism in and of itself, as an economic system is neutral, in the "center" of politics - not in and of itself a political / political-economic system."

------ So, uh, how do you square that with
"Any flavor / sect of "socialism" - whether "national" or "international" may be considered "left of" capitalism."

Do you even understand what "center" or purely economic, IOW apolitical / agnostic is? I gave you an example right before!

What a waste of $50K in student loans!

Good night.
__________

#95 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-02-18 09:40 PM | Reply

"Do you even understand what "center" or purely economic, IOW apolitical / agnostic is?"

Like I said, how do you square this with also asserting Capitalisms exists to right of every flavor of Socialism.

How can it be center, but also be to the right.

What would be more to the right of Capitalism, is that also where we find Socialism?

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-18 09:56 PM | Reply

"student loans!"

Student Loans. Is that Capitalism, or Socialism, or is it apolitical and agnostic.

Does it change based on the interest rate, who originated the loan, what the education was?

We used to have laws against usury. Was that Socialism?

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-18 09:59 PM | Reply

Capitalism is a system that naturally flows money upwards.

If you really want to get complicated about it, lol, the rich get richer.

Or, if you are sitting in a poker game, and one player has a million cash, while all the others have a hundred bucks, the rich guy will always win.

And if it's crony capitalist poker, he's also already paid off the Dealer... even when he didn't have to.

.

And CP nitpicking my point to MB is a distinction sans any difference to the point.

#98 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-19 10:37 AM | Reply

"Capitalism is a system that naturally flows money upwards."

I guess that answers my question about student loans being Capitalism or Socialism!

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-19 01:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort