• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the concept of "human rights" is a bourgeois idea, abused by the right wing

LowDown said:
Nope. Hitler and the Nazis came from the German left. Mussolini was actually a socialist leader when he organized the Italian Fascists. Many of the programs embraced by the Nazis were inspired by the leftist agenda. And they, like you, rejected the idea of individual rights. According to them each person had his place, either leading or following. They rejected egalitarianism, democracy, and liberty as being Western liberal, not German, values.

The US was founded on the idea the people have inalienable rights granted to them by God. They were trying to get away from the idea that the government controlled everything and gave people rights because the government was oppressive. All governments run by the left are nightmares of oppression, Venezuela being the most prominent example right now. It's ironic that we have crackpots here in the US pushing collectivist Marxist ideas when there are so many examples of how they don't work and put people in misery.

The only just means of censorship is the right not to listen. It's silly to say that some neo-Nazi group giving speeches somewhere oppresses anyone. Hardly anyone listens to them.
Click to expand...

Your stupidity speaks for itself
 
Wow. No way this thread sticks around.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
Your stupidity speaks for itself
Click to expand...

He should be re-educated or thrown in prison. Man I love your non-fascist utopian ideas. :doh

If you don't respect the tolerance of liberals they throw you in prison or kill you. :lamo

Yea, Socialists are nothing like Nazis.

Yea he's the stupid one .....
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...

It's hard to imaging someone so radical that me and you are on the same side .... but here we are. :party

I guess it can be worse than Hillary or Donald after all.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Okay, I can't resist any longer - I have to point out the massive, glaring flaw in this idea. Who decides what counts as hate, and what counts as criticism? What's to stop the governing elite from labeling unwanted criticism as hate speech and throwing people in prison for dissenting? Or for that matter, from the masses deciding that a certain minority religion or political organization is a "negative influence" and using the power of the government to shut down dissenting opinions? Individual freedoms exist in America to protect unpopular opinions and lifestyles from those who would rather people who are different from them be swept under the rug and forgotten.

You have to protect the unpopular opinions and lifestyles, because if you don't, then it's just a matter of manipulating public opinion to make anything unpopular - anything can be attacked, anything can be covered up... anything can be banned. Giving the mob the power to decide who gets to voice their opinion is the fastest route to hell, paved with all the good intentions in the world.
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious what hate speech and violence provoking speech is. I think you are just being facetious.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
Any speech which is offensive, insulting, or threatening to people of color, women, the LGBT community, or the working class.
Click to expand...

Black lesbian autoworkers smell like feet.

Come at me bro.
 
collectivism is the standard way that fascists explain to the populace that their reforms of state control of everything are for the best, until they have enough control to no longer have to hide behind it.

its a proven system for dictators throughout modern history.

whether they are truly socialist (or communist) or not doesn't matter.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
It's pretty obvious what hate speech and violence provoking speech is. I think you are just being facetious.
Click to expand...

Let me give you a recent (it's been about a year or so, but it's still somewhat relevant) example of a group of people twisting facts and information to discredit and disenfranchise critics: Gamergate. Gamergate was a consumer boycott and a call for ethical reform in gaming journalism, and was sparked by the discovery that a writer at Kotaku gave a game favorable coverage and made an undisclosed payment because of a relationship with the creator. After hard proof of this was revealed, support for #Gamergate started to build, which prompted numerous gaming news sites to release nearly identical articles stating that "gamers are dead" and that the gaming industry didn't need to pander to them. This went over horribly, and inflamed the entire situation, prompting a wide network of various consumers to email advertisers on these websites discussing their problems with the sites they were sponsoring, massive arguments across multiple social media outlets, and the reveal of larger and larger circles of corruption in gaming media.

According to gaming media, Gamergate was sexist in nature, and consisted solely of white-male virgins who hated female developers and any minorities who dared to develop games or become part of gaming media. Despite this being a clear case of outright lying and framing a group of people in order to disenfranchise their right to an opinion, #Gamergate is, to this day, popularly believed to be an example of rampant internet trolls pissing their pants at the thought of females having influence in video games.

Imagine if the fine, accountable, and noble folks at Kotaku and various other gaming media companies had been able to get their critics silenced for hate speech and bigotry - nobody would be any wiser on this situation, and #Gamergate's attempt to fix media corruption in their favorite industry would have been utterly devastated, in the name of the greater good for society. I can detail another industry that's weighed down by misinformation, censorship, lies, and corruption, but I'm afraid I won't be able to argue my case as well as I did on this one - gaming is one of my primary hobbies, and it's really one of my primary areas of expertise.
 
jmotivator said:
No doubt he was also a totalitarian, but he was a socialist totalitarian.

The National Socialist German worker's party was socialist. I am sorry if reality causes you discomfort.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. Not another "Hitler was a socialist thread" :doh
Nazism was fundamentally build around race while socialism is build around class and the class struggle. Hitler wanted to unite the right and left which included workers and their bosses. Socialism in contrast is build on class struggle aiming to build a workers state no matter what the race. When Hitler gained power he essentially did the complete opposite of what socialists are in favor of.

And what does Hitler himself have to say?
“there are only two possible options left; either to the left, which would spell our destruction, god help us, or the party of the right, who will finally grab the reins of power.”
"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" https://books.google.com/books?id=f...we must encourage private initiative"&f=false
"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." https://books.google.com/books?id=v...her the sole possible economic order.&f=false



The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party and the early presence of socialists in it. The party records dont record the name change but its generally accepted it was a decision to rename the party to attract workers. Socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party. The Nazi Charter of Labor gave employers complete power over the workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise" and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."

"Earlier, the Law Regulating National Labor of January 20, 1934, known as the “Charter of Labor,” had put the worker in his place and raised the employer to his old position of absolute master—subject, of course, to interference by the all-powerful State. The employer became the “leader of the enterprise,” the employees the “following,” or Gefolgschaft. Paragraph Two of the law set down that “the leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise.” And just as in ancient times the lord was supposed to be responsible for the welfare of his subjects so, under the Nazi law, was the employer made “responsible for the well-being of the employees and laborers.” In return, the law said, “the employees and laborers owe him faithfulness”—that is, they were to work hard and long, and no back talk or grumbling, even about wages.
Wages were set by so-called labor trustees, appointed by the Labor Front. In practice, they set the rates according to the wishes of the employer—there was no provision for the workers even to be consulted in such matters—though after 1936, when help became scarce in the armament industries and some employers attempted to raise wages in order to attract men, wage scales were held down by orders of the State. Hitler was quite frank about keeping wages low. “It has been the iron principle of the National Socialist leadership,” he declared early in the regime, “not to permit any rise in the hourly wage rates but to raise income solely by an increase in performance.”16 In a country where most wages were based at least partly on piecework, this meant that a worker could hope to earn more only by a speed-up and by longer hours." https://books.google.com/books?id=6...PAhUMJcAKHfodDoMQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q&f=false

Doesnt sound very socialist at all....
 
Jesse Booth said:
Let me give you a recent (it's been about a year or so, but it's still somewhat relevant) example of a group of people twisting facts and information to discredit and disenfranchise critics: Gamergate. Gamergate was a consumer boycott and a call for ethical reform in gaming journalism, and was sparked by the discovery that a writer at Kotaku gave a game favorable coverage and made an undisclosed payment because of a relationship with the creator. After hard proof of this was revealed, support for #Gamergate started to build, which prompted numerous gaming news sites to release nearly identical articles stating that "gamers are dead" and that the gaming industry didn't need to pander to them. This went over horribly, and inflamed the entire situation, prompting a wide network of various consumers to email advertisers on these websites discussing their problems with the sites they were sponsoring, massive arguments across multiple social media outlets, and the reveal of larger and larger circles of corruption in gaming media.

According to gaming media, Gamergate was sexist in nature, and consisted solely of white-male virgins who hated female developers and any minorities who dared to develop games or become part of gaming media. Despite this being a clear case of outright lying and framing a group of people in order to disenfranchise their right to an opinion, #Gamergate is, to this day, popularly believed to be an example of rampant internet trolls pissing their pants at the thought of females having influence in video games.

Imagine if the fine, accountable, and noble folks at Kotaku and various other gaming media companies had been able to get their critics silenced for hate speech and bigotry - nobody would be any wiser on this situation, and #Gamergate's attempt to fix media corruption in their favorite industry would have been utterly devastated, in the name of the greater good for society. I can detail another industry that's weighed down by misinformation, censorship, lies, and corruption, but I'm afraid I won't be able to argue my case as well as I did on this one - gaming is one of my primary hobbies, and it's really one of my primary areas of expertise.
Click to expand...

You mean the gamergate which is famous for death threats against female game developers solely on the basis of their political beliefs and gender?

Yup, sounds like a hate group to me.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
You mean the gamergate which is famous for death threats against female game developers solely on the basis of their political beliefs and gender?

Yup, sounds like a hate group to me.
Click to expand...

That's a handful of trolls, which are ****ing EVERYWHERE online. The vast majority of the subject matter of #Gamergate was ignored by the media in order to push an agenda and to disenfranchise their critics, while allowing them to maintain their corrupt business practices.

Did you read any of my links? Because I provided ample evidence that media entities misrepresented countless people, minorities and women included, in order to drive a narrative that resulted in silencing dissenting voices.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
"For us, human rights are contradictory to the rights of the people,
Click to expand...

I saw no point in reading further. Apparently the OP doesn't understand that people are humans.
 
Jesse Booth said:
That's a handful of trolls, which are ****ing EVERYWHERE online. The vast majority of the subject matter of #Gamergate was ignored by the media in order to push an agenda and to disenfranchise their critics, while allowing them to maintain their corrupt business practices.

Did you read any of my links? Because I provided ample evidence that media entities misrepresented countless people, minorities and women included, in order to drive a narrative that resulted in silencing dissenting voices.
Click to expand...

http://www.themarysue.com/will-prosecutors-act-on-gamergate-death-threat/

Deaths threats are the EPITOME of hate speech, and yet, you just handwave them away
 
fmw said:
I saw no point in reading further. Apparently the OP doesn't understand that people are humans.
Click to expand...

The idea of INDIVIDUAL human rights being "innate" is in direct opposition to the rights of the PEOPLE AS A WHOLE in society
 
poweRob said:
:yawn:

More right-wingers at war with the dictionary. It never seems to end.

In 1927, Hitler said: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."[10] Yet two years later, in 1929, Hitler backtracked, saying that socialism was "an unfortunate word altogether" and that "if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." Historian Henry A. Turner reports Hitler’s regret at having including the word socialism in the Nazi Party name.[11] Inclusion of the term socialism was probably in order to attract worker's and sindicate's votes.

In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[113] In 1931, during a confidential interview with influential editor Richard Breiting of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, a pro-business newspaper, Hitler said:

I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."

link...​
Click to expand...

Except that Hitler only veered from Marxist Socialism in the establishment of race as a important part of the social construct. The actual role of government in the lives of the people did not change. This is why it was called National Socialism, the economics is never changed, and therefor Hitler was a socialist.

Saying that Hitler was not a socialist is as non-compelling as saying that Democratic Socialism isn't socialism.

Read Mein Kampf sometime.

Again, the big irony here is that the OP is arguing that there are no inherent human rights and that rights are determined by the state, which is essentially the disagreement that Hitler had with the Marxist brand of Socialism. He still believed in the social ownership of the means of production and control by the state, he just wanted to choose who "the people" were.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Except that Hitler only veered from Marxist Socialism in the establishment of race as a important part of the social construct. The actual role of government in the lives of the people did not change. This is why it was called National Socialism, the economics is never changed, and therefor Hitler was a socialist.

Saying that Hitler was not a socialist is as non-compelling as saying that Democratic Socialism isn't socialism.
Click to expand...

yeaaahhhh no. nice try though.
 
jmotivator said:
Except that Hitler only veered from Marxist Socialism in the establishment of race as a important part of the social construct. The actual role of government in the lives of the people did not change. This is why it was called National Socialism, the economics is never changed, and therefor Hitler was a socialist.

Saying that Hitler was not a socialist is as non-compelling as saying that Democratic Socialism isn't socialism.

Read Mein Kampf sometime.

Again, the big irony here is that the OP is arguing that there are no inherent human rights and that rights are determined by the state, which is essentially the disagreement that Hitler had with the Marxist brand of Socialism. He still believed in the social ownership of the means of production and control by the state, he just wanted to choose who "the people" were.
Click to expand...

That's complete bull****. It is common knowledge that the Nazi's brand of fascism leaned more right than left.

Stop getting excited over the fact that "Socialist" was in their parties name. They also had "National" in there: do you want to abolish our Nation over that, too ??
 
poweRob said:
yeaaahhhh no. nice try though.
Click to expand...

Exactly true. As I edited into my last post, try reading Mein Kampf sometime. He spends a whole volume detailing the National Socialist social control of production. He differs from Marx only in that he has a different view of who the people are. Which is ironic because he only got to that place by adopting the philosophy of the OP who believes that human rights are an illusion.

Socialism didn't begin with Marx. Marx only detailed a certain version of Socialism that would be called "Marxism". Hitler opposed Marxism. That doesn't mean that Hitler was not a socialist.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
That's complete bull****. It is common knowledge that the Nazi's brand of fascism leaned more right than left.

Stop getting excited over the fact that "Socialist" was in their parties name. They also had "National" in there: do you want to abolish our Nation over that, too ??
Click to expand...

Well, first, you folks have a really screwy way of looking at "right wing" and "left wing", and it still doesn't change the fact that Hitler was a Socialist. You may argue that he was a right wing Socialist, but that wouldn't change the fact that he was a Socialist.

And again, the OP is a socialist that doesn't not believe in human rights... would you say the OP isn't a Socialist?

Hitler's Mein Kampf detailed a version the tenets of a version of Socialism in much the same way as Marx detailed a different version of Socialism that would be termed Marxism, or communism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom