"Joe Biden" #fundie

"Joe Biden" #fundie moonbattery.com

"Once in power Hitler abolished trade unions, the right to strike and collective bargaining."

are some kind of an idiot or what? What does the "workers" in National Socialist "Workers" Party stand for?

Just like you commies of today, Hitler, Musosolini, and all you leftist fascists USED unions as a tool to bring down free and productive societies, and once you fascists got control only THEN did you turn on the useful idiots (brainwashed union drones for example) that put you there. Unions, welfare, etc. are all tools used by fascists to implement your Marxism utopias, after which they are no longer useful to you (and actually now are a burden to YOU) and the result has always been massive brutality in the aftermath.

Shall we talk now about how your precious Islamo-fascist governments treat their citizens and particularly those who aren't Muhammadans, you shameless hypocrite?

77 comments

old comment by Passerby

Adolf was playing on the popular belief that immigrants were stealing everyone's jobs and ruining Germany. He had the communists hunted down, the unions disbarred, the socialists locked up, and the immigrants run out of town. His biggest fear was communists, and he approached the American government hoping to gain an ally against Russia before and during WWII.

Amongst Mussolini's earliest public statements was: "We reject trade unionism, communism, and socialism, we are Republican."

Both had many previous ties to the Socialist party hoping to use their popularity with underpaid workers, but broke away before their personal power plays and immediately fed the parties to the dogs.

And you lecture us on history?

Edit: The 'Socialist' in Nationalist Socialist basically stood for sign up now and I'll hunt you down later. At the beer hall meetings full package socialists (as opposed to those who were in it for workers rights only - with 'workers' defined as full-blooded white Germans of Christian faith) were singled out and had their names taken down quietly. After their vote was secured, they got disappeared.

old comment by chaosof99

@GodotIsWaiting4U

Actually "Joe Biden" is right. It was called "Nationalisozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (NSDAP) which translates to "National Socialist German Worker's Party".

However, of course the "rose by any other name" principle applies here and this is merely a name, not necessarily a description, as it was chosen for the implications and appeal of the name and not necessarily as a representation of the principles when they were applied.

That names of a party don't necessarily describe their activities, and that is widespread in politics. Many conservative parties around the globe call themselves "liberal party of [insert country here]" for example. In austria, where I live, the far right party is called "Freedom Party of Austria" and they want to close up the borders and more or less turn austria into a christian theocracy. Some freedom that is.

Of course, this idiot "Joe Biden" wouldn't get that just purporting to be for worker's doesn't necessarily mean that they are pro-worker. And of course, he has no clue about history.

old comment by Whore of Spamylon

First They came... -by Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

@Raised by Horses

Libertarians are fascists? I learn something new every day.

In all seriousness, it frustrates me that the contemporary right and left are so busy trying to make the other own the fascist label when fascist economics are not that black and white.

old comment by thelivingguano

I'm trying to look at this a bit objectively, which I realise may be a lost cause, and a couple of you have already dealt with your man here's main misconceptions, however, my two bits:

1) The "workers" in National Socialist German Workers' Party doesn't "stand" for anything; it's just a word being used, in this context in order to appeal to a wide political audience. You'd have to be very naive indeed to imagine that self-applied names by political entities have anything to do with their core ideologies; our own UK Liberal Democrat party is shedding liberal policies at an alarming rate in order to maintain its coalition with the Conservatives.

2) As Passerby pointed out from the off, Hitler was a savvy politician and realised he could gain power very quickly by a) adopting a national socialist rhetoric to appeal to the masses and b) playing on the ever-present "those foreigners are coming to take our jobs" shtick - and despite having a worldwide conflict essentially kicked off by this kind of shameless fearmongering we still keep falling for it now. Thankfully he was a shit military strategist.

old comment by thelivingguano

cont'd

3) Political aspirants may be drawn to politics by any number of factors - a desire to help their fellow humans, a sense of moral duty, or naked greed and power-lust among them - but once there, in the vast majority of ostensibly Democratic systems in the world today, they can only really have one concern if they want to survive - getting in power and staying in power. It's the way the system is configured to work, because the business of politics has become a career structure as opposed to a public service. It's been privatised, more or less. I don't imagine even the most liberal politicians are immune to this. Obama may be a breath of fresh air in the Whitehouse, but he's as entrenched as the next man in the politics and business network. He's a member of the elite; he couldn't have become President if he had not been. That said, he's a notch down from the previous Daddy Warbucks of an incumbent. I gave the example of the UK Lib Dems above, and a decade ago the same thing happened to the UK Labour Party with the advent of Tony Blair - he knew that in order to keep Labour in power he had to cut deals with the business world even if they flew in the face of established Party policies, and he did so quite happily. He now earns billions as a private political consultant. The UK on the other hand is not so well.

old comment by thelivingguano

cont'd again

4) Here's where I begin to (marginally) understand what might be underpinning "Joe's" concerns. People who get into power can utilise the political entities at their disposal to manipulate individuals or large groups of people. In fact, when you bring it down to basics, that is pretty much what politics is. Of course trade unions and welfare CAN be misused by those who influence them. Ask anyone on benefits in the UK - they're getting slashed to ribbons to shore up the deficit while we're still pouring money into the defunct Trident nuclear program. What worries me is Joe's rather nebulous conception of "Free and Productive" societies, by which I rather think he means deregulated free markets, which are not the same thing at all. And the fact is that unregulated businesses can abuse their free reign to oppress and control people just as much as the "Islamofascist" State which Joe is so concerned about - and indeed have, and continue to, and will if they are not regulated. Enron anyone? It seems to me that Joe fails to see large corporations for what they are i.e. political and economic entities which affect world populations as much as and sometimes more than civil governments. As long as we entertain this childish notion that market economics is somehow free of political skullduggery it will be business as usual (forgive the awful pun).

In summary, yes, this guy is an idiot, but only because he's not thinking about it enough; I don't think he's a bad man, he's just scared of what big groups of people making collective rules might do to him. Just human really. And therefore, perfect fodder for politicians.

old comment by Raised by Horses

@Whore of Spamylon

Libertarianism is a type of laissez-faire Capitalism, whereas Fascism is more akin to corporatist Capitalism. The former simply seeks freedom from the state regarding business transactions, the latter is all about specifically making government and big businesses an oligarchy, with a Capitalist engine driving economic growth. (i.e. it's okay for the working class to engage in Capitalist behaviour, so long as it possesses no true means of upending the dominant class order).

Yes, there is some overlap. These things are never 100% black and white. My point is that Fascism and Marxism are complete opposites, whereas the OP, for some reason, seems to think that they are one and the same. Which means that all this is is more political flapdoodle from someone who has never bothered to examine the terms involved.

old comment by Giveitaday

What does the "workers" in National Socialist "Workers" Party stand for?

Pretty much nothing.

Just like you commies of today, Hitler, Musosolini, and all you leftist fascists

Are you ignorant of history or just fucking stupid? Hitler and Mussolini were, like all good fascists, rabid in their opposition to communism, marxism/leninism, and stalinism.

USED unions as a tool to bring down free and productive societies

There is a fatal flaw to your assertion, the fact that it didn't happen. You don't get to make shit up whole cloth and then call it history.

and once you fascists got control only THEN did you turn on the useful idiots (brainwashed union drones for example) that put you there. Unions, welfare, etc

I thought we wee commies? I would as you to make up your mind wee I not already convinced you don't have one. You are regurgitating talking points about things you oh-so obviously don't understand in the first fucking place.

Fascists are, and have always been, opposed to to trade unions, welfare, and the like. Fascists have always been in bed with big business, in fact a close relationship with big business is the defining characteristic of fascism.

are all tools used by fascists to implement your Marxism utopias

Marxism and fascism are POLAR FUCKING OPPOSITES on the political spectrum. Each one is inherently opposed, and indeed anathema to, the other. One cannot be both a fascist and a marxist without having multiple personality disorder. Anyone who tried would choke to death on the cognitive dissoncnce alone.

Shall we talk now about how your precious Islamo-fascist governments treat their citizens and particularly those who aren't Muhammadans, you shameless hypocrite?

Why anyone would engage in a dialogue with someone so obviously, and more disguxting, arrogantly ignorant about the basic facts of the subject as yourself is simply beyond me. I'd much rather be a "shameless hypocrite" than proudly wear my ignorence on my sleeve as if it were badge of fucking honor.

old comment by Anon

Wait a minute, "Hitler, Musosolini, and all you leftist fascists"? do you even know what left and right even mean in political terms? The nazi party were about as far opposed to the political left as possible, hence their hatred for communism, a position that seems entirely logical, as communism is a far-left ideology, and nazism is a far-right one.
But then as you're clearly told what to think by television, and Fox 'News' in particular, you probably just think that left=bad, so anything you disagree with is on the left, while only people like yourself occupy the right of the political spectrum.
Democracy's greatest failure illustrated, because this moron gets to vote, despite clearly possessing insufficient intellect or understanding to make a decision of such a magnitude.

old comment by G.Fieendish

Re: Where did the term "Workers" in the Nazi Party stand for...?
Where to begin with this rant from Fuckwittery...?
Firstly, the term "Workers" in National Socialist German Workers Party (NS-DAP) came from the party (Deutsche Arbiets Partie/"German Workers Party" or DAP for short) that Hitler effectively destroyed in order to create the Nazi party...
Basically at the time that Hitler joined the DAP in 1920, he was effectively a paid informant, operating under orders, for what was left of the post-Treaty of Versailles German Army...
His assignment was to infiltrate a small political party (the DAP), which had a membership at the time, of less than 100 members, and to report on it's activities...
He then proceeded to take the DAP over, by various methods, & added the prefix "National Socialist", to the DAP's name thus creating the National Socialist German Workers Party (NS-DAP or Nazi for short).
It can be argued the lenient sentence that Hitler received after the failure of the Munich "Beer Hall Coup" of 1923, in which the Nazi Party tried & failed to take over the State of Bavaria, was partly due to political pressure from the German Army, as it would have been massively embarrassing to them, had it been revealed in court, of his work as a paid informant for the Army...
As for the rest of "Joe Biden's" rant, isn't that what ultra right wing political groups, in the U.S currently want, given the recent activities of certain "Right Wing" state governors in the U.S, sympathetic to the above...?
You can make the argument that the Tea Party in the U.S.A ,is now going going down the DAP's route, in that it has been effectively "taken over" by ultra right wing political extremists...
And finally, it's "Marxist" not "Marxism" in reference to "Marxist Utopias"...

old comment by Xotan

So this is not, after all, a defence of trade unions. Rather it is an attack that would find favour with the historical ogres 'Joe Biden' mentions.

Well, America is certainly less unionised than Europe. Here we have a month's holidays with pay, handsome sick leave arrangements, helath care from the state, and are generally better off as individuals because of/thanks to unionisation. If 'Joe Biden' is happy to in a workers pre-history, then so be it. He misses the point that happy workers are productive workers. Unhappy ones are far less productive.

I know some Americans that envy us our higher social standards in Europe. They might not agree with 'Joe'.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

Wow. I can hardly make sense of this, not only because he is conflating communists, fascists, and Islamists (though admittedly there is some connection between the latter two) but also completely ignoring the fact that, you know, Hitler did abolish trade unions just like the government of Wisconsin is doing. He didn't even try to deny it.

The next time anybody conflates liberals with socialists and those with communists (which are inevitably conflated with fascists) I am just going to lose my cool, because this connection has been proved wrong so many times that those supporting it can only be willfully ignorant. Now I see why a lot of conservatives are creationists.

old comment by farpadokly

Here we see again the strange confusion between fascism, communism, and Islam. Three very separate and different things. I think this confusion must have been deliberately fostered and encouraged for propaganda purposes, to discredit any criticism of the status quo. Are the wealthy and those in power trying to take us back to a sort of Victorian robber baron boss utopia? Then stifle any complaints by shouting "NAZI COMMIE MUSLIM TERRORIST!" as loud as you can, then settle back and watch some more Glenn Beck.
This ignores the fact that a union in 1930s Germany is a different thing from a union in the United States in the year 2011. It's just not subject to the same historical conditions. But, by this person's tortuous logic, ANY social democratic legislation or institution of any kind must be fascistic. Ironically, this leads him to a position almost identical to the one he is seemingly opposed to. Such is the strange psychology of the conservative; since he believes in absolute moral dichotomies, then everything that he considers bad MUST BE ALL THE SAME THING.

old comment by Often Partisan

The Nazi party, although it did contain some manual workers, contained a high proportion of petty-bourgeois who felt caught in between the proletarians and big business. Of course once in power Hitler did very little to change the economic system and what he did actually made the bourgeois more powerful and the workers' position weaker, not the other way around.

" Unions, welfare, etc. are all tools used by fascists to implement your Marxism utopias, after which they are no longer useful to you (and actually now are a burden to YOU) and the result has always been massive brutality in the aftermath. "

This position makes no sense. "I know! we'll make a workers' utopia...and then we'll destroy the workers!"?!

"Joe Biden" #fundie moonbattery.com

77 comments

Confused?