Dear Steele,

My parents lived in Germany during the war.
I have two brothers born
there. One died during the war. Once again
Thank You for setting the record straight
and for your well reasoned postings. I have
decided to be more selective in whose posts
I read and respond to. I admire your patience
though.

I have heard this all before e.g. Peter van O. claiming the Nazis were socialist (due to nominative determinism); no, simply because socialist was a misleading descriptor. Meanwhile, the Nazi's pre WWII obsession and sworn enemy was Soviet socialism or communism yet now Russia is held up by many conservatives as a shining example of Christian conservatism and family values.....

Further, in addition to the Nazis having much German business support from sole through SME to big business, also included some US subsidiaries i.e. Ford, GM, IBM, Standard Oil etc. for whom a state controlled economy was nirvana e.g. precluding significant competition and also opening up opportunities.

Like the latter, how often do we see Australian corporates or sectors, whether public co. or otherwise, refuse socialist state subsidies or indirect support e.g. via influenced policies? Never....

mhaze- You did the work mate. I merely waved the pom poms. Foxy is just a vanilla ideologue- just needs to open her mind a little- most of us have been where she is- blind spots.

The central tenet of socialism is the control/ownership of the means of production. As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.

While many industries were privately owned and run, the state largely directed who was hired, what was produced, and the profit that the company could make.

Canem Malum re Foxy.

What I find fascinating about Foxy is her blatant fabrication. She clearly has no understanding or depth of knowledge about the issue but tries to pretend otherwise. She does a quick search and finds reference to a few books which she hopes to pass off as being the basis of her 'research' and then, having this pretend research, she then tries to claim a superiority of knowledge.

The fact however is that she just made all this 'research' up.

Unfortunately for her, I'm quite familiar with all the books she found on her 10 minute internet 'research' and know that her claims were rubbish and therefore her claims to have studied those books was equally rubbish.

We've been here before and her usual process is to now claim she doesn't want to discuss it any longer. A better person would own up but alas....

mhaze- I can relate to your fascination.

I don't have an issue with Foxy having an opinion or view based on a quick search even one that is different than mine. But it's not "the truth". Is this what people do talking in the imperative- maybe there's a word for it.

There are always going to be people that know more about something than myself- I'm still entitled to my opinion.

When it's an issue of tradition then people can choose to associate with people and create communities that are consistent with the principles of that tradition and bring up their children in the same.

It seems obvious that mediocrity and tyranny and conflict results if there isn't some management of the complexity and borders between philosophies. The philosophies are created in order to create stability- if the borders are broken down it can result in fear. And there are valid reasons for this fear.

At some point you have to question whether certain philosophies belong within a superset- and it may be necessary to separate the interests of the superset and the subset- so that both groups can develop in a way that ensures their own self determination without being destroyed.

This is known as Cultural Relativism- supposedly part of Postmodern Deconstructivism- but I think it's the solutions that I disagree with not the observation so much.

________

It seems that certain people believe that they are entitled to lie and cheat because others are more powerful than themselves and would hurt them otherwise. It might actually be valid in a sense- but it seems that sometimes it just undermines a relationship that would have been ok if it wasn't for their own insecurity.

I've brought the Hierarchy of Disagreement up a few times which outlines how to disagree constructively.

I don't think we will ever feel warm and fuzzy talking with Foxy- that's not what we are trying to achieve here. We aren't looking for Foxy's approval.

Sometimes it's helpful to poke the bear.

I've enjoyed your comments mhaze. Thanks again