lefties killed ~ 80 million last century, righties only 20. they have a lot of catching up to do

oh yeah and hitler was counted on both sides (was extreme nationalistic, extreme socialistic)

sounds like a winning combination

Sometimes it is hard to make a distinction between them as far-right parties often are some kind of labour / workers parties.

Imo far-right is just a buzzword made to sell magazines, I personally call far-right " the far left with guns and flags".

well stated

i cba to argue, so here's a wiki quote:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]
In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximise use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximising exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind; at least for the factors of production.[4]

explain to me in a few sentences why the nazis were (extreme) socialists, go.

nsdap, look it up

maybe you should look it up yourself.

The biggest reason why anyone would call them socialist is because they put it their name...
Or maybe you measured them by what they wrote in their program to get votes, as opposed to what they did when they actually got the votes.

you could argue along the lines of "rulers have alot of power", which is somewhat similar in far left/far right opinions.

i hate these types of discussions tho

it is like that in existing far-left system, yes.

But it is not the basic idea behind the systems, which sadly was never really established on a big scale.

nazi germany used the basic principles of socialism like government economic planning, government takeover of business, government employment, government health care & elderly care

plus, most importantly, the ideology that's characteristic for socialism (and it's later stage, communism), that every citizen has to subordinate himself for the greater good: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz"

nazi germany used the basic principles of socialism like government economic planning, government takeover of business, government employment,

that is only half true. Yes, they did all those things, but in a socialist system those part like economic planning and government takeovers are a "all or nothing" deal. The nazis didn't take over all businesses but only selected ones. OFten those owned by jew or people who opposed the nazis.
People who supported the nazis mostly got to keep what they had or got even more. Hardly socialist.

government health care & elderly care

The health care system was introduced decades before the nazis rose to power. What is correct is that they did not abolish it, but that would have been a very folish decision giving their agenda. Obedient population, don't worry about spending.

plus, most importantly, the ideology that's characteristic for socialism (and it's later stage, communism), that every citizen has to subordinate himself for the greater good: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz"

somehow I don't think the basic principle behind socialsm and communism was preparing for genocide and war.

The idea was rather to give more power to the lower classes and the common people, so they won't be abused by the elites.
Yeah, that sounds a whole lot like nazi Germany.

to the first paragraf you wrote, there were also the "gleichschaltung" which weren't limited to opposed or jewish establishments, and in it's sense sounds like a very "left"-ish act.

no, but that is exactly the difficulty many encounter, due to the less than perfect examples of wannabe socialist countries.

The (theoretical) left-ish approach would be, to take e.g. control of the media away from single persons / corporations who earn money with it and give that control to the people.
The nazis did not do that. They seized the control for themselves, so they just replaced one select group of people with another one.

If you want to argue that some of what they did was anti-capitalist then you have a point. But that is simply a necessary side-effect. How could you possibly form a dictatorship without seizing control of key elements of the state? Additionally, if one looks at it from that way, Monarchies where also had anti-capitalist elements. Didn't make them leftish, tho.

So, the main point is that when you want to put a system on the left-vs-right scale you have to look at the big picture, what it wants to and what it does achieve. Not at single elements.

no, why?

becks did the arguing, so i will only add:

no, communism is the "verein freier menschen" (marx, kapital band 1, 1. abschnitt, 1. kapitel, 92). the whole basic idea is a society without suboordination.

i dont doubt that'd be the idea

also, if you actually do count Hitler on both sides, I find it hard to believe that Stalin would be leftist only.

Sooner or later we all have to pick a side, it always goes back to cowboys and indians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec4IzowPYQ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjuux3UE7E

You must be a big fan of the Subhumans. Who's gonna fight in the third world war? Not me.

it's just Malmo and few surrounding villages.

TEY TUK RR JUBS

http://cavatus.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/summa...-campaign/

The real democracy.

funny how he goes on about how much adversary they are facing and how freedom of sppech is violated.

And yet there isn't a single comment on his blog that disagrees with him :P

"David von Arnold Antoni, a Democratic candidate for the Malmo council, claimed two masked, "Arab-sounding," men pinned him to the floor in his home and carved the Nazi symbol on his forehead.

But a medical examiner's report said: "The position and appearance of the injury provide strong indications that it was self-inflicted," and concluded there is 90 percent likelihood the story is a hoax, the Swedish news agency TT reported Sunday."

fail

medical examiner was clearly bribed

90%? Where the fuck did that come from?

it's science!

Was it a backwards swastika?

hahah probably, used a mirror

first, at least we have the practical difficulty, or social - as of living together; which doesn't seem easy to resolve, as people cluster up in china-town-esque segregation. if you live in the china-town-to-be it's about as xenophobic to vote against it as vetoing your mom living next door.

second there's a political dimension of influence, where prevailance of certain ideologies and predjudices seep into the broader culture, and then there's the question of potential to correct or digest these values.

then third there's the question of guilt or racial predjudice which is biasing the recieving culture to treat issues in strange ways.

fourth perhaps there's the question of "unholy" alliances between ideologies that at root are very different. for instance, racism and ideological difference might group together, or anti-capitalist with pro-palestina and so on.

maybe! tell me something or other you politically interested ones, is this, as a start, common sense and common ground?