Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas

[Black Dog]

Centralisation can mean more than simply mass nationalisation of industries. High levels of regulation and taxation are another form of centralisation of control. This was certainly the case in Nazi Germany. You don't need to abolish private property like a pure Marxist to centralise an economy, you can do so with regulation that strangles the market and prevents new entrants from coming in (for example, today's CRTC preventing foreign companies from competing in the telecommunications industry in Canada is a form of centralisation).

Another broad measurement for quantifying the degree of centralisation of the economy is to look at government spending as a share of GDP. At its peak, I think over 60% of Nazi Germany's economy was composed of government spending, but I will look for specific details later. I really can't recall off the top of my head.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that Nazi Germany didn't have a heavily regulated and taxed economy, as per leftist ideology.

That doesn't seem all that high when you consider that in the U.S , federal spending accounted for almost 50 per cent of the GDP (46.59% to be precise) in 1943.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Black Dog

[DogOnPorch]

Don't kid yourself into thinking that Nazi Germany didn't have a heavily regulated and taxed economy, as per leftist ideology.

Nazi Germany had the lowest personal income taxes of all the major European nations. Plus, I must stress that the Nazis were NOT centralized. Goering had his vast empire. Himmler had his even bigger empire. Bormann had his Nazi party empire. Goebbels had his propaganda empire. The Mufti had his Arab Bureau empire. Etc, etc, etc. The ecomomy was powered by rearmament and not much else. Vast amounts of slave labor was needed when this model came apart at the seams round about 1943 with most of the German men of fighting age being 'at the front' in one fashion or another.

Edited July 10, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[kraychik]

That doesn't seem all that high when you consider that in the U.S , federal spending accounted for almost 50 per cent of the GDP (46.59% to be precise) in 1943.

I will look for the data later, I cannot recall the number off the top of my head.

[Black Dog]

I will look for the data later, I cannot recall the number off the top of my head.

The exact amount is irrelevant. The point is this: Germany's massive government expenditures were completely due to military spending. They weren't doing it to redistribute wealth, provide social programs, invest in capital improvements beyond those needed for the prosecution of the war and so on. The entire machinery of the Nazi state was dedicated to conquest and enslavement. When you consider this fairly important feature (which was indeed the central tenant of Nazism), the equivalencies you are attempting to draw on with contemporary leftism are exposed (today's secret word!) for the risible, pitiful arguments they are.

[DogOnPorch]

The exact amount is irrelevant. The point is this: Germany's massive government expenditures were completely due to military spending. They weren't doing it to redistribute wealth, provide social programs, invest in capital improvements beyond those needed for the prosecution of the war and so on. The entire machinery of the Nazi state was dedicated to conquest and enslavement. When you consider this fairly important feature (which was indeed the central tenant of Nazism), the equivalencies you are attempting to draw on with contemporary leftism are exposed (today's secret word!) for the risible, pitiful arguments they are.

Agreement. Even the Autobahns were for quick movement of mechanized forces between east and west...oh, and you could drive your VW Bug on them too.

[Black Dog]

Agreement. Even the Autobahns were for quick movement of mechanized forces between east and west...oh, and you could drive your VW Bug on them too.

The classic mistake people like kraychik make when they copy and paste their arguments from whatever right-wing sewer generates these talking points is they only look at "what" and not the "why".

[GostHacked]

Since the state already has taken over much of the education industry, it stands to reason that various groups want their education funded as well (in line with the message of freedom articulated by folks like Adam Smith). It's entirely compatible with the classical liberalism of Adam Smith in the context of the current educational system, which is primarily state-run. In other words, considering the state has already hijacked most of the education system, what Republicans have been trying to do for many years now is to introduce market elements in the existing system. You are not providing the full context of this story, which is unsurprising.

Both elements on the left and right are leading us down the one path. Centralization has been goals of the government in general (that is what government is 'centralization of governance'. No matter what side of the political spectrum you find yourself in. Two things that are at stake is the integrity of the Republic and it's constitution. When you look at some of the things that have been implemented to essentially marginalize the rights of Americans, you have to ask yourself, 'is this just the work of the left or is something much bigger at play here.'

Within the USA we saw centralization under Bush with the creation of the DHS and the entities that came out of that. Obama just added to it and expanded it. I am sure past leaders had done some of the same.

Thinking in terms of left and right will prevent you from seeing both sides are leading towards this centralization.

[DogOnPorch]

The classic mistake people like kraychik make when they copy and paste their arguments from whatever right-wing sewer generates these talking points is they only look at "what" and not the "why".

As mentioned earlier, the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied...Germany's Nazi anthem...pretty much spell out the differences between National Socialists and Communists in no uncertain terms.

[guyser]

the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied...Germany's Nazi anthem...pretty much spell out the differences between National Socialists and Communists in no uncertain terms.

Thanks!

Learn something new everyday !

[DogOnPorch]

Thanks!

Learn something new everyday !

You're welcome. The Nazis were huge on their brand of music. The catchier, the better.

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

[guyser]

The Nazis were huge on their brand of music.

...and their clothing.

Always think when I see pics, damn good looking well dressed bunch of a-holes.

[Moonlight Graham]

I've explained how centralisation of control in both the economic and social spheres are values that are virtually exclusive to the left.

This argument is false. "Centralisation of control" in social spheres is certainly not immune from the right. What about social conservativism? From wikipedia:

Social conservatism is a political ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values. Social conservatism is a form of authoritarianism often associated with the position that the national government should have a greater role in the social affairs of its citizens, generally supporting whatever it sees as morally correct choices and discouraging or outright forbidding those it considers morally wrong ones.

...

As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion; oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;[3] support abstinence-only education, school prayers, gun ownership and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage; support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs; oppose prostitution and brothels, polygamy, gay adoption, premarital sex (and birth control), and non-marital sex; and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency and promiscuity. Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools, preferring creationism.

[DogOnPorch]

...and their clothing.

Always think when I see pics, damn good looking well dressed bunch of a-holes.

Pretty much. I had an uncle in the SS...not the most gracious man. But when it came time to run from the Reds, he was quick to doff the spiffy uniform and high-tail it to the Swiss border.

[cybercoma]

So you derailed the the thread, I challenged and wrecked your false assertions, and now you're criticising me for being off-topic? That's rich.

The derailing happened when I challenged your ridiculous and off-topic assertion that Hitler implemented Marxist ideology.

[cybercoma]

risible

You're winning at English.

[guyser]

Pretty much. I had an uncle in the SS...not the most gracious man. But when it came time to run from the Reds, he was quick to doff the spiffy uniform and high-tail it to the Swiss border.

Anything of his make it here> Unis, insignia's , guns etc? Fascinating from a histotical angle

[DogOnPorch]

Anything of his make it here> Unis, insignia's , guns etc? Fascinating from a histotical angle

Only his Iron Cross 2nd Class and a few of his Party Rally pins. He served POW time in Alberta and never went back to Germany.

[kraychik]

The exact amount is irrelevant. The point is this: Germany's massive government expenditures were completely due to military spending. They weren't doing it to redistribute wealth, provide social programs, invest in capital improvements beyond those needed for the prosecution of the war and so on. The entire machinery of the Nazi state was dedicated to conquest and enslavement. When you consider this fairly important feature (which was indeed the central tenant of Nazism), the equivalencies you are attempting to draw on with contemporary leftism are exposed (today's secret word!) for the risible, pitiful arguments they are.

It is entirely relevant, because centralisation of control over society in both the economic and social spheres is what connects Nazism to other leftist ideologies. The broadest measurement of centralisation of government control over an economy is to look at government spending as a share of GDP. What is irrelevant is what the stated objective is, whether is be redistribution of wealth, so-called "social programs", militarisation, or anything else.

[kraychik]

As mentioned earlier, the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied...Germany's Nazi anthem...pretty much spell out the differences between National Socialists and Communists in no uncertain terms.

Remember, I am not saying that the Nazis were communists. What I'm saying is they're unified with communists under the broader umbrella of leftist ideology. The belong to the same ideological family. Even if you state the more obvious point of them going to war with one another, which is much more significant that propaganda they each used against the other, it doesn't change the common underlying themes that connect their ideologies.

Shiahs have gone to war with Sunnis, but they're connected as Muslims. Same goes for Kurds against Iraqis and Turks. If we go a lot further back we can see a Jewish civil war between Hasmoneans and Judeans. Just because you have intrafactional conflict doesn't mean that there aren't important ideological commonalities shares between the various conflicting factions.

[DogOnPorch]

It is entirely relevant, because centralisation of control over society in both the economic and social spheres is what connects Nazism to other leftist ideologies. The broadest measurement of centralisation of government control over an economy is to look at government spending as a share of GDP. What is irrelevant is what the stated objective is, whether is be redistribution of wealth, so-called "social programs", militarisation, or anything else.

Soviet Russia: 84,000 T-34s plus 10s of thousands of assault guns using the T-34 chasis.

Nazi Germany: 8,800 Pz Mk-IV, 6,000 Panthers, 1,300 Tiger Is, 500 Tiger IIs (all in production at the same time)

Can you explain why?

[DogOnPorch]

Remember, I am not saying that the Nazis were communists. What I'm saying is they're unified with communists under the broader umbrella of leftist ideology. The belong to the same ideological family. Even if you state the more obvious point of them going to war with one another, which is much more significant that propaganda they each used against the other, it doesn't change the common underlying themes that connect their ideologies.

Shiahs have gone to war with Sunnis, but they're connected as Muslims. Same goes for Kurds against Iraqis and Turks. If we go a lot further back we can see a Jewish civil war between Hasmoneans and Judeans. Just because you have intrafactional conflict doesn't mean that there aren't important ideological commonalities shares between the various conflicting factions.

I was taught that the political spectrum is, infact, a circle. Perhaps it was a 1960s thing....

[kraychik]

I was taught that the political spectrum is, infact, a circle. Perhaps it was a 1960s thing....

I was taught the exact same thing. With communism on the far left with Nazism on the far right. It's a very misleading spectrum considering that statism in today's context is almost a leftist exclusive. Not entirely, but largely.

[Shady]

They weren't doing it to redistribute wealth, provide social programs, invest in capital improvements beyond those needed for the prosecution of the war and so on.

Complete and utter nonsense. The National Socialist German Workers' Party had a very socialist domestic agenda. You and your ilk would have been quite proud.

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

– From the political program of the Nazi Party

[kraychik]

Soviet Russia: 84,000 T-34s plus 10s of thousands of assault guns using the T-34 chasis.

Nazi Germany: 8,800 Pz Mk-IV, 6,000 Panthers, 1,300 Tiger Is, 500 Tiger IIs (all in production at the same time)

Can you explain why?

I understand the point you're trying to make and it's well-taken, but there's much more to it than what you're getting at. The Soviet Union has several advantages over Nazi Germany that allowed it to have a greater output. The first is perhaps the most obvious: its greater population. This greater population also allowed it to feed many more individuals in the Gulag slave labour system. How many slaves were doing forced labour for the Nazis over this period of time? A fraction of the amount working in the Gulag network of prisons. There were also geographic advantages that the Soviet Union enjoyed, one being greater access to natural resources at a cheaper rate and the other being its greater distance from the war. While of course Western Russia/Eastern Europe was consumed in war, Russia enjoyed a certain buffer zone which allowed it to continue its industrial production with less interruptions due to direct conflict/destruction than Germany. There's more to this but I originally typed out a longer post and then accidentally closed my browser window. I am now too frustrated to type it all out again.

[DogOnPorch]

I was taught the exact same thing. With communism on the far left with Nazism on the far right. It's a very misleading spectrum considering that statism in today's context is almost a leftist exclusive. Not entirely, but largely.

There wasn't much difference between the methods of the Gestapo vs the NKVD. But, if you can answer my first query re: tank production it will illustrate the difference between the ideologies. The fighting methods of the Red Army vs the Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS also illustrate this difference.

Edited July 11, 2012 by DogOnPorch