ralis

@Apech, I hope you will continue with your discussion of European Socialism. That is of great interest to me!

I did my best in providing some reference material with a very generalized overview, but was not well received by some here. Thanks!

I was responding to Karl's request to define fascism and I used examples that I felt were appropriate. Godwin's law is more about comparison as well as accusations. However, providing references to discuss how fascism evolves, is not a violation of this so called law.

I have made coherent arguments in this thread. In particular regarding systems theory as one example. Perhaps you didn't understand the concept?

Sibling rivalry? No! That is not an answer. There are factual reasons that the Nazis hated communists and Jews. Think and research for yourself. Regarding your accusations of positing fallacious arguments; arguments in which references are used to underpin a point are perfectly acceptable in any academic setting. This is hardly an academic venue, but I will always back up my arguments with facts.

I learned much regarding systems theory by reading, asking questions and hanging out with a group of ecologists in the Nevada desert several years ago. My career field is dependent on a knowledge of systems.

My measured IQ is in the upper 1%. I guess that is why some of the bums here don't like me. I took the MENSA test, but I do the whole thing backwards and still qualify.

Seven years at the university in which I had many discussions of a critical nature. Also being married for ten years to a woman who was completely brilliant in which there were many critical discussions. She argued from sound logic and could have been a trial lawyer. BTW, the logical fallacy you accuse me of is entirely different than providing references to historical documents as a basis for discussion.

Deferring to authority is absolutely appropriate. That is part of the peer review process.

No! He is talking in regards to systems theory and in this case complex non linear dynamic systems in which the main characteristic is change and such systems are sensitive to initial conditions. So called pure capitalism would have no basis in which to function, given the myriad variables such as human behavior, planetary environment (a complex system), resources and so forth. What you are proposing is a perfect system which can never happen given the complex variables that I just stated.

Professional academics in your opinion are no better than you are in regards to academic research and publishing? I take exception to that notion if that is your premise. If you are self taught and possibly home schooled, you are not well versed in having critical discussions within a peer group and are unwilling to receive constructive criticism, especially, when a person such as myself references historical peer reviewed documentation as a foundation for an argument.

Well said!

As I stated before that name was given at the beginning of the movement in which he included various groups for the purpose of gaining power. Do you understand that he dissolved the unions and put in work camps anyone that he considered a threat. Therefor, there was no socialist, but fascist, period! Your ideas are made up from revisionists and cranks such as Rush Limbaugh. Further, every text and academic on the subject, including historical documents, are in disagreement with you! Personal opinions are worthless and have nothing to do with history. I assume you may be under thirty years of age? Ever been to college?

Reference for the graph please?

You have missed the historical point and no, Hitler was not advocating a better form of communism. Where do you find these ideas? I will give you a hint. Munich elections.

Most people can't answer that question regarding his hate for communists and yes, it did cost him the war. The insane invasion of Russia and the slaughter that ensued that cost the Russians dearly along with Hitler losing his entire sixth army. It is in Kershaw's first volume around page 48 if I remember correctly. http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393320359/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1437429191&sr=8-4&keywords=Ian+Kershaw

You did state "all" and that was why I was critical of your statement.

It was not socialist as you believe. The party started out as a workers party and even Hitler supported the unions in the beginning. However, once these groups joined the party, Hitler killed Ernst Rohm the leader of the SA who helped bring Hitler to power. Put the union leaders in work camps and disbanded all unions. Any group that was a perceived threat to the power of the state was disbanded. Please get your facts straight before arguing on this topic. There are myriad documents online for anyone to read. Hitler was an avowed right wing anti-communist. Can you answer as to why?

I agree with thelerner in that there is a major confusion with European style socialism and the failed communist form which is not socialist, but totalitarian.

All the learned professors without exception? That is hardly true. No, I don't support torture and enslavement of other humans

You missed my point entirely.

Ad hominems? I am talking about critical analysis as opposed to everyday thinking. There is a vast difference!

The evidence is already there for anyone willing to think. What is your point?

'The Authoritarians' by Bob Altemeyer. Explains the authoritarian underpinnings of right wing extremism. I am providing this and the last few links by request of Karl. The pdf link was provided by Mr. Altemeyer. http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

For Karl or anyone interested, linked here are English translations of Goebbels speeches which is a way to understand how propaganda operates .Of course there are myriad examples, but in one speech he discusses the importance of propaganda. Very sinister to say the least. I am providing this link so that the underpinnings of authoritarian manipulation can be studied. http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goebmain.htm