Spotted in Berkeley, in the middle of downtown: a swastika and SS symbol written on the sidewalk.

I thought it bizarre enough that swastika graffiti cropped up in Richmond recently, but it’s even more strange — and unsettling — to see this in Berkeley, of all places.

61 Responses to “Swastika and "SS" symbol . . . in Berkeley?!?”

  1. 1Anonymous on Jun 10, 2009 at 7:01 pm:

    how un-Berkely can you be? tell me this Zombie, what’s the percentage of the people in bay area that are normal?

  2. 2Bakunin on Jun 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm:

    The Ultra-right is getting braver since Obamas election.
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/dc.museum.shooting.suspect/index.html

  3. 3Starless on Jun 11, 2009 at 5:35 am:

    The trouble with this kind of stuff is that you can’t really evaluate it without any context. Was the person who did this an actual neo-Nazi intent on furthering neo-Naziism? An agent provocateur? Someone who just wants to be provocative by using the most hateful symbol he or she can think? Drunk and stupid?

    The Ultra-right is getting braver since Obamas election.

    Anyone who imagined that the election of a black man to the highest office in the land wouldn’t give hardcore racists (including Jeremiah Wright) an excuse to crawl out of their holes was fooling themselves.

  4. 4buzzsawmonkey on Jun 11, 2009 at 8:07 am:

    #2 Bakunin says, “The Ultra-right is getting braver since Obamas election.”

    Nonsense. The lunatic fringe, left as well as right, is more to the fore. Leftist lunatics feel emboldened, right-wing lunatics feel desperate.

  5. 5Stone K on Jun 11, 2009 at 9:06 am:

    “The Ultra-right is getting braver since Obama’s election.” But fortunately they are not as big or as active as the Far left showed them selves to be for the last eight years. And I would argue that many (if not most) “white supremacists” are not typical far right, they are in the realm of anarchists well beyond the established idea of conservatism.

    Unlike those that fell for the Far left, most average people are too smart to fall for the idiocy that spews out of the mouths of those hate filled cretins.

    Zombie, I recall it was not long ago you wrote about some White supremacists spreading hate literature in Berkley, so it would not surprise me if there is a deep undercurrent of race hate going on up there. After all Berkley was a hot spot for similar groups all through the 60′s and 70′s.

    Btw, “Zo” from ZoNation, used one of your pics in his most recent videos, if you didn’t know you should check it out.

  6. 6Stone K on Jun 11, 2009 at 9:09 am:

    Opps forgot to mention it was this pic. http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_2515.JPG

    and also that I love the play on the Berkley farms milk commercial you use in the title, hehehe.

  7. 7Bakunin on Jun 11, 2009 at 9:43 am:

    5Stone K on Jun 11, 2009 at 9:06 am:

    “The Ultra-right is getting braver since Obama’s election.” But fortunately they are not as big or as active as the Far left showed them selves to be for the last eight years. And/ I would argue that many (if not most) “white supremacists” are not typical far right, they are in the realm of anarchists well beyond the established idea of conservatism/.”

    That doesn’t really make sense if you know anything about anarchist theory. White Supremacists want ultra-nationalist, (most often) Christian, white only government. They want to use the states power to kill and enslave people of color, gays, jews, and “race traitors”.

    Anarchists want to abolish governments, replacing it with a non-state “communism”. It’s an idealists crack pipe dream, but it is much different then the neo-nazi vision of a white dictatorship. Think of the political compass. Anarchism is left-libertarian. White Supremacy/Nazism is right-authoritarian.

  8. 8Bakunin on Jun 11, 2009 at 9:51 am:

    4buzzsawmonkey on Jun 11, 2009 at 8:07 am:

    “Nonsense. The lunatic fringe, left as well as right, is more to the fore. Leftist lunatics feel emboldened, right-wing lunatics feel desperate.”

    I don’t really see the leftist lunatics being emboldened any more then when Bush was president. Most of the extremists on the left have denounced Obama, or are turning there back on them as soon as they realize that he is more conservative then they originally thought he was.
    (Unless I’m reading that sentence wrong and totally missed the point.)

  9. 9Starless on Jun 11, 2009 at 10:04 am:

    Bakunin, the trouble is that since Obama’s election, phenomena like the Tea Parties are being conflated with the actions of people like von Brunn. Von Brunn may have indeed gotten “braver” seeing people out protesting taxes but I imagine that Ted Kaczynski found inspiration seeing environmental and anti-nuke protesters in the ’70s and ’80s. I don’t recall blame falling on them for his violent acts.

  10. 10Bakunin on Jun 11, 2009 at 10:59 am:

    Starless, I’m not saying that the tea parties and a resurgence in neo-nazi/fascist activity are interconnected, and anyone who thinks that are wrong. Rather, I am saying with a black president, the current economic times and the political climate are fueling a resurgence in radicalization and recruitment of ultra-right extremists. It doesn’t help that “mainstream” conservatives like Glann Beck are spouting fear-mongering nonsense about “FEMA re-education camps” and others spouting on about how Obama is a “secret Muslim”.

    On the other hand, when it comes to tea parties, there are three sorts of people who attend: Moderate conservatives who have a legitimate beef with the Obama policies, right-wing Conservatives who are just whining about how they lost, and far-right white nationalist/paleoconservative/Ron Paulites who wish to use the tea parties to advance there political agenda. The first two need to make sure they distance themselves from the last, lest the protest movement of conservatives becomes dominated by extremists like the protest movement of the left.

  11. 11GWB on Jun 11, 2009 at 11:59 am:

  12. 12Kristopher on Jun 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm:

    Bakunin: ” … and far-right white nationalist/paleoconservative/Ron Paulites who wish …”

    And there you go … generalizing.

    Paleocons do not equal Nazis
    Paleocons do not equal Ron Paul-bots
    Paleocons do not equal 9-11 Troofers

    You can legitimately disagree with us Goldwater conservatives … but do try to stick to actual policies, not strawmen or false associations.

  13. 13CattusMagnus on Jun 11, 2009 at 12:30 pm:

    Bakunin,
    I don’t think a swastika on a Berkeley sidewalk and the Holocaust Museum shooting are indicative of some uber right-wing movement prompted to violence by the election of Barack Obama. Von Brunn looks to be a racist, anti-Christian and Jewish, 9/11 truther nut, hater of neocons and is now rumored to be a member of the democrat party. He was also carrying the address of the Weekly Standard which is in close proximity to the Holocaust Museum. And random Sharpie graffiti on a sidewalk shouldn’t scare anybody either. Now if the swastika was on a synagogue, that would be a cause for alarm. I don’t think George Tiller’s murder is the result of a resurgence in right-wing extremism due to the election either. Attempts were made on Tiller’s life during a different administration as well. I don’t think these incidents can make a case for a big threatening right-wing movement just yet. But I’ll bet that the MSM wants you to see these incidents as reason to fear right-wingers.
    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Holocaust-Museum-shooter-von-Brunn-a-911-truther-who-hated-neocons-Bush-McCain
    http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/antichristian_white_supremacis.html
    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/holocaust-museum-killer-van-brunn.html

  14. 14Ken on Jun 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm:

    I would say that 99% of all swastika graffitti is probably scrawled by dumbass teenagers trying to shock people. I don’t think real Nazis draw swastikas on sidewalks. They usually display them with pride.

  15. 15Bakunin on Jun 11, 2009 at 2:48 pm:

    12Kristopher on Jun 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm:

    “You can legitimately disagree with us Goldwater conservatives … but do try to stick to actual policies, not strawmen or false associations.”

    Paleoconservative Pat Buchanan has a relationship with neo-nazis (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30663). Paleoconservative Lew Rockwell wrote Ron Pauls racist newsletters. Alex Jones, the conspiracy nut, describes himself as a paleoconservative.

    I am, of course, generalizing and picking out the worst of the group. I also don’t think that Goldwater conservatives = paleoconservatives. Allot of the people who describe themselves as paleoconservatives are ultra-traditionalists verging on the Christan theocratic, like Chuck Baldwin. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention, thought gays should be allowed to be open in the military, and believed religion in government should be downplayed.

  16. 16CattusMagnus on Jun 11, 2009 at 3:23 pm:

    #14 Ken,

    You are so right.

  17. 17DangerousNate on Jun 11, 2009 at 7:46 pm:

    “The Ultra-right is getting braver since Obamas election.”

    Actually, nazism is more ultra-left than right. Ultra-right is more anarchy.

  18. 18Starless on Jun 12, 2009 at 4:36 am:

    10 Bakunin

    Starless, I’m not saying that the tea parties and a resurgence in neo-nazi/fascist activity are interconnected

    Fair ’nuff. But with the current MSM climate, if you drop a link with little explication (as you did in post #2) readers are going to assume that you’re echoing the MSM/Janeane Garofalo position on the subject.

    It doesn’t help that “mainstream” conservatives like Glann Beck are spouting fear-mongering nonsense about “FEMA re-education camps” and others spouting on about how Obama is a “secret Muslim”.

    The Democrats and their MSM lackeys seriously need to man up. Whisper campaigns and smearing are par for the course. This is politics at the national level — it’s dirty, always has been and always will be.

    13 Ken

    Agreed. I’d expect an actual neo-Nazi to leave some sort of identifying mark. Terrorists invariably want to get credit for their terrorizing.

  19. 19Starless on Jun 12, 2009 at 4:49 am:

    Bakunin, I forgot to add this FYI link (assuming you haven’t seen it already): The Brown Scare of ’09

    The take-away: It’s [DHS report on righty extremism] to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right, just as the most substantial effect of a red scare was to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the left.

  20. 20Bakunin on Jun 12, 2009 at 8:06 am:

    17 Starless
    “The Democrats and their MSM lackeys seriously need to man up. Whisper campaigns and smearing are par for the course. This is politics at the national level — it’s dirty, always has been and always will be.”

    What I am saying is that sort of dirty politics will lead to crazy people doing crazy things. What If an ultra-right extremist decides that Obama is a secret muslim, and because we are in a war with Islamic terrorism it is perfectly fine for him to take individual action against him? Words have power, and political pundits should/need to understand when there rhetoric goes overboard, it can/will reach a dangerous audience who will use it as justification for there violence. (but, I am not saying that it the political pundits faults for the violence. It’s the fault of the extremist, but again, folks need to know how to turn down there rhetoric.)

    I think the right is a little tardy to the party when it comes to a “brown scare”. While I agree with reasons… reasoning, most conservatives would be willing to justify the red scare, and unlike reason, use the fact that communist spies really existed to justify Joseph McCarthy’s antics. These tactics are going to be used agienst any protest movement: see green is the new red (http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/), where peaceful environmental and animal activists are being called “Eco-terrorists” because of ALF/ELF.

    Also see: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/conservatives-and-terrorist-label/1180/

  21. 21Frank White on Jun 12, 2009 at 9:06 am:

    “Starless, I’m not saying that the tea parties and a resurgence in neo-nazi/fascist activity are interconnected, and anyone who thinks that are wrong.”

    I think it is worth mentioning, however that white supremacists are taking advantage of things like tea parties in order to try to recruit more people. There are several places on the Internet you can find where people have found a lot of forum activity on the Internet, places such as stormfront, where white nationalist types are talking about attempting recruiting there – and that some already have. Though, anyone with any sense would realize that the vast majority of people at tea parties aren’t white nationalist, neo-nazis, and so forth – so their efforts really are fruitless. But, most neo-nazis have no doubts about eventually taking over the US, in fact the NBP won two seats in Parliament in England for the first time ever, this can only help but embolden white nationalist groups further, even outside the UK.

    # 16
    “Actually, nazism is more ultra-left than right. Ultra-right is more anarchy.”

    I’ve been hearing this kind of stuff a lot on talk radio. Mark Levin especially likes using the classic argument “National Socialism has the word Socialism in it, therefore it’s on the Left”, and that’s simply not true. You can’t find any real political analysis of Nazi Germany or National Socialism that would put it on the left.

    When I was in college there was a discussion in a history class of mine about the Irish Republican Army, Irish Republic, and so forth. There were several people who were confused and thought “Republican” referred to the same kind of conservative party as the GOP, because the names were similar – despite the fact that it’s on the left, you can find Sinn Féin on the libertarian-left, around where the US Green Party is. This is a prefect example of why names don’t explain everything about what an organization does or stands for – especially when those views aren’t clear.

    Also, I’ve noticed on the Internet in the last decade or so there’s been a huge, sort of revisionist mindset about anarchism and what it is. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be the whole truth to many people now, and they ignore that most anarchist theories are socialist, not capitalist – but that hasn’t stopped ultra-little-L-libertarians from using the word “anarchism” to described their doctrine, which most of the fathers of modern anarchism (i.e. the last 150 years or so), wouldn’t really agree with.

    Though of course, me saying this could bring a poop storm of epic proportions about what Proudhon, Bakunin, Emma Goldman, etc /really/ said, what they /really/ meant – or perhaps just a bunch of quote mining from the likes of Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises without any real personal ideas. Went off topic there for a second, but it’s the kind of stuff I’ve been dealing with on IRC, Usenet, and forums for years when it comes to these topics.

  22. 22Starless on Jun 12, 2009 at 9:47 am:

    19 Bakunin

    What I am saying is that sort of dirty politics will lead to crazy people doing crazy things.

    I’m saying that crazy people are going to do crazy things regardless and they’ll find whatever rhetoric they can to justify their actions. And that the call (primarily from the Left) to “tone down” the rhetoric is a call to (self) repress speech. If Rush Limbaugh is to STFU, then Al Gore/Jimmy Carter/Jeremiah Wright have to do the same. Suggest that to the Left and all you’ll hear in response is crickets.

    peaceful environmental and animal activists are being called “Eco-terrorists” because of ALF/ELF

    I should have added earlier that I don’t quite buy the Red Scare analogy but I’m glad you brought up the environmentalist angle. That, IMO, is a good example of contrast. While there may be plenty of talk in the righty blogosphere equating peaceful environmental activists with the violent extremists on their wing, you sure don’t see that kind of equivalence in the MSM. When ELF torched those million dollar houses in Colorado(?), did the MSM smear the whole environmentalist movement? No, I don’t think so. Whereas you are seeing that kind of smearing going on in the case of the DHS righty extremist report and the MSM reporting on the Holocaust Museum shooting.

    Violence in the name of a “good” cause (say, pro-environmentalism) is regrettable but somewhat understandable (especially if it’s against a bunch of rich bastards who don’t deserve their money and are Gaia rapists anyway), but violence in the name of a “bad” cause (say, anti-abortion) calls for a condemnation of every single person who ever agreed with any of the positions held by the offender.

    #20 Frank White

    I think it is worth mentioning, however that white supremacists are taking advantage of things like tea parties in order to try to recruit more people.

    Yeah, they may be trying and they may succeed in pushing/shouting down the sane people (a la ANSWER and pretty much every single Lefty cause out there) but they haven’t yet. Most notably, I think, they haven’t succeeded in using the demonstrations as cover for violent acts (again, a la ANSWER and every Lefty cause out there).

  23. 23Bakunin on Jun 12, 2009 at 11:28 am:

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33915_Von_Brunn-_Leftist

    “Some classy argument tactics from people still seething about the DHS “right wing extremism” report, and pissed off at me because I wouldn’t join the chorus: The James W. von Brunn “Thing” (UPDATED) | Democrat = Socialist….

    You can’t make “right wing extremism” vanish by playing word games and redefining it out of existence, sorry. Von Brunn is a creature of the right.”

  24. 24Kristopher on Jun 12, 2009 at 12:13 pm:

    Pat Buchanan is not a Paleocon. He has no problem with big government, as long as he and his little fascist friends get to call the shots.

    He’s a populist, and an anti-semite and very close to an outright Fascist.

  25. 25GWB on Jun 12, 2009 at 12:20 pm:

    #22 Bakunin

    “Von Brunn is a creature of the right”

    Oh really.

    Christian hater
    Jew Hater
    FOX News’ O’Reilly hater
    Weekly Standard hater
    Bush hater
    Neo-con hater
    9-11 was an inside job nut
    artist
    Stated that “SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West”
    Stated that the Apostle Paul destroyed Rome by undermining its pagan virility.
    Hated corporations

    creature of the right indeed

  26. 26Kristopher on Jun 12, 2009 at 12:22 pm:

    I have a suggestion, people: Can we agree that there are authoritarian loons out there? That they call themselves all sorts of things, but that they are still dangerous loons?

    Von Braun is a creature of racism … they will say anything to try to get others to follow along with them or coopt more successful movements.

    They know that if they just tell people what their core values are, they will be driven out … so they lie and dissemble, and join other groups in an attempt to either recruit, or to slowly take them over.

    The neo-nazis call this process “entryism”.

  27. 27Dave Surls on Jun 12, 2009 at 1:53 pm:

    “National Socialism has the word Socialism in it, therefore it’s on the Left”

    LOL. The Nazis were socialists because they controlled the government and the government controlled the means of production and the distribution of goods.

    The name means nada. Their acts means everything.

    Nazis are left wing…not right wing.

  28. 28Anonymous on Jun 12, 2009 at 2:22 pm:

    this is the full platform of the nazi party: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

    in our modern day usage of the phrase “left wing”, a party that advocates “nationalization of all trusts”, “profit-sharing in large industries”, and “a generous increase in old-age pensions”, among other things that would necessitate a large increase in the power of the state, would most definitely be considered far-left. therefore, the nazis were indeed a movement of the far-left.

  29. 29Bakunin on Jun 12, 2009 at 3:13 pm:

    27 Anonymous

    “in our modern day usage…”

    Maybe that’s the problem. You need to put the fascist movement of the 1920s/30s in historical perspective. While the nazis did favor profit-sharing of industry, nationalizing trusts, providing an extensive welfare state, which is seen as “the left”, they also where ultra-nationalistic, anti-communist, anti-liberal, and favorable to big businesses which where favorable to them.

    While contemporary right-wing ideologies and movements support a free market, historical European right-wing ideologies and movements had little or no problem with government intervention into the economy. The “left” of the time where socialists and free maket liberals, while the “right” where monarchists, reactionaries (those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism and socialism) and nationalists. Thus, historically speaking, the Nazi here and now are the extreme wing of traditional European right-wing politics.

    like I quoted from the LGF guy said, you can make “right wing extremism” vanish by playing word games and redefining it out of existence.

  30. 30Bakunin on Jun 12, 2009 at 3:15 pm:

    EDIT: Should say the Nazis THEN and now.

  31. 31Dave Surls on Jun 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm:

    ‘The “left” of the time where socialists and free maket liberals’

    Right. Two groups who believe in the exact opposite approach to governance are on the same side of the spectrum.

    Makes no sense.

    However, putting communists and Nazis on one side of the spectrum, that does make sense.

  32. 32Dave Surls on Jun 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm:

    “Amazingly, the talking point on which some bloggers seem to have settled is that Von Brunn was actually a leftist — despite a lifelong affiliation with causes and ideologies that are far more associated with the extreme right”–CJ

    Racism (for example) is associated with the extreme right ONLY because liberals in the media (mouthpieces for the Dems, for the most part), and in the Democrat Party aren’t too keen on the idea of people associating leftist ideology and the Democrat Party with the kind of racism exemplified by: defense of slavery, Jim Crow, or packing innocent Japanese-American citizens off to concentration camps; therefore they’ve been engaging in a non-stop propaganda campaign in which they constantly associate racism with right wing ideology, for longer than you’ve been alive.

    Too bad most people are ignorant enough to buy into that hogwash.

  33. 33Frank White on Jun 12, 2009 at 8:22 pm:

    #26 Dave Surls on Jun 12, 2009 at 1:53 pm:

    “LOL. The Nazis were socialists because they controlled the government and the government controlled the means of production and the distribution of goods.”

    Socialism is the people controlling the means of production, not the government. Secondly, they didn’t control the means of production, they had businesses compete for exclusive contracts in most areas. If they were socialist, why were there so many car companies, chemical companies, and so forth within Nazi Germany? If they were socialists, they were really terrible at it.

    “The name means nada. Their acts means everything.”

    Exactly, and they acted on the opposite side

    “Nazis are left wing…not right wing.”

    Just because you don’t want them occupying a section of the political spectrum you’re on, doesn’t make you right. The “nazis were left wing” is a very recent concept. Refer to comment #28 by Bakunin for further information. Also, just because Nazism may be on the same side of the spectrum as (I assume) you are, and myself, doesn’t make us any more Nazi than people on the left. Nazism is a very specific set of nationalist and racialist theories combined with various other things.

  34. 34Dave Surls on Jun 12, 2009 at 8:34 pm:

    Same thing with anti-semitism, supposedly associated with the right wing (according to lefties), but the most egregious example of anti-semitism in U.S. history was:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

    …surprise, surprise, the work of the socialists in our own lovely Democrat Party.

    Our great, great President Roosevelt personally ordered that Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis NOT be admitted to the United States, thus causing a large number of them to subsequently die in Nazi death camps…but, it’s we right wingers who are supposedly anti-semitic.

    Yeah, right.

  35. 35Jeff on Jun 12, 2009 at 8:43 pm:

    I’m just going to come out and say it: you’re all wrong. All this talk about doctrine and words is meaningless because all extremists and extremist ideologies are ultimatly the same. The difference between Hitler and Stalin was a difference of style over substance. One talked about the struggle between workers and capitalists while the other talked about the struggle between Aryans and non Arayans. But in the end they only cared about one thing: power. All extremists talk about great struggles and try to create an us vs them mentality but that is just window dressing for their lust for power. Zombie has said multiple times that left/right spectrum is outdated and I completely agree. I propose a new political spectrum: lebertarian/totalitarian. This I think is the best spectrum because this is the major dividing line between ideologies. Nazism, Communism, and Islamic extremism are both clearly totalitarian, in that they seek full power vested in the state and complete political and social conformity, while classical liberalism is libertarian, in that it stresses individual rights and limited state power.

  36. 36Dave Surls on Jun 12, 2009 at 8:45 pm:

    “Socialism is the people controlling the means of production, not the government.”

    Capitalism is the people controlling the means of production, socialism is the state controlling the means of production.

    You might want to invest in a dictionary, bud.

    “Just because you don’t want them occupying a section of the political spectrum you’re on”

    On the contrary, I would love it if Nazis and communists and liberal Democrats would abandon their totalitarian ideas, and more importantly their totalitarian practices, and move to my side of the political spectrum.

  37. 37Dave Surls on Jun 12, 2009 at 9:08 pm:

    “I’m just going to come out and say it: you’re all wrong.”

    Actually, a lot of us are saying EXACTLY what you’re saying, Jeff.

    “I propose a new political spectrum: lebertarian/totalitarian.”

    And, we’ve been saying exactly that, for a long, long time. Sorry, but that’s not new.

  38. 38Bakunin on Jun 13, 2009 at 3:55 am:

    The political compass still uses left/right, as well as authoritarian/libertarian. So, Communists would be left-authoritarian, while anarchists would be left-libertarian. Free Market conservatives would be right-libertarian, while nazis and other assorted fascists would be right-authoritarian.

    If you look at the 2008 elections politcal compass, pretty much every mainstream candidate running was some level of right-authoritarian.
    http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

  39. 39Starless on Jun 13, 2009 at 4:46 am:

    Left/right, right/left, blah, blah, blah. That terminology sits on a shifting landscape. Von Brunn’s position on the political spectrum is Utter and Complete Sociopathic Nutbar. That is to say, his politics are almost irrelevant when compared to his obvious psychological damage.

    The neo-Nazi notion of National Socialism is an idealized fantasy version, just as the modern (what I’ll call) neo-Communist notion of Communism is an idealized fantasy. It would be better to call people like von Brunn “Hitlerites” than anything else.

  40. 40Frank White on Jun 13, 2009 at 8:52 am:

    #35

    I double checked my dictionary:

    so⋅cial⋅ism  [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
    –noun
    1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

    I don’t see “owned by the state”, interesting! The first one is owned by the community, i.e. people, and the second one is a part of that. The third is a part of Marxist theory, which is specific to Marxism which is characterized by state management, but there production is still owned by the people. Yet, I don’t see how you define it.

    if socialism were simply state-owned, then a lot of people on the right wouldn’t flat-out deny that the police, fire departments, roads, and so forth were socialism – but they do claim it isn’t socialism because they don’t want it to be, they don’t want to associate anything they have with socialism. They just want some imaginary meaning they can apply to something they don’t like. Just like fascism, communism, etc – there really are no meanings of these words anymore, it’s just “something undesired”.

    FDR wasn’t the only leader to deny the entry of Jews into their country, nearly every country also denied them, including Cuba and so forth. Anti-Semitism is still alive and well today, on the left and right, but as we’ve seen from Zombie’s web site, it seems to be coming back stronger on the left because of the state of Israel and the hatred of the people there in by the left.

    -
    There you go, Bud

  41. 41Frank White on Jun 13, 2009 at 8:58 am:

    Even if we believe socialism simply means “state ownership of the means of production”, that wasn’t that common in Nazi Germany. As I pointed out, there were thousands of chemical companies, many car companies, factories, and so forth. There wasn’t collectivisation, nothing of the sort – yet somehow modern ignorant people claim that Nazi Germany and the USSR were exactly the same economically because they want to dissociate the right with Nazism – but lying and changing history isn’t worth that – that’s what the left does and the extreme right.

  42. 42Anonymous on Jun 13, 2009 at 3:36 pm:

    “1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”

    That’s about right. And when a community exercises control of something it does so via the mechanism of government (as opposed to a boy scout troop or a privately controlled company exercising control).

    Another definition:

    “socialism”

    “An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.”–The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

    “yet somehow modern ignorant people claim that Nazi Germany and the USSR were exactly the same economically”

    No, no one’s claiming that. In national socialist countries government control is typically exercised indirectly (the government tells a business owner: do as we say or we’ll kill you), in communist countries control is typically exercised directly by the agents of the state.

    In capitalist countries the government has no interest in control, and a business can do as it pleases.

    In practice of course, ALL countries use a mix of these approaches, but those that stress the third method are pretty much always much more prosperous and much less tyrannical than those that wish to control economic activities (or non-economic activities for that matter).

    “police, fire departments, roads, and so forth were socialism – but they do claim it isn’t socialism because they don’t want it to be”

    Well, there’s no production of goods involved, so it’s not really socialism by any dictionary definition I’ve seen. Same general idea though, just applied to a service instead of a good. I’d be willing to call the provision of police services socialistic, since they usually aren’t privately controlled. Same for public schools, the military, etc. I don’t have any emotional problem with that definition, and I’m pretty right wing.

  43. 43Dave Surls on Jun 13, 2009 at 3:38 pm:

    #41 was my post, btw.

    If you’re keeping score.

  44. 44Ken on Jun 13, 2009 at 6:45 pm:

    I’ve been trying to stay out of this argument mostly because I think the notions of “left/right” are just plain stupid. There is now, as there always has been, considerable overlap in the spheres of “left/right.” As a Marxist I would usually be considered “left.” However, I think of myself as a very conservative Marxist and hold a very conservative view on some issues in that movement (the need for a “violent revolution” in all cases to make any movement truly “Marxist”, for example, is something that I do not believe in). So, generally speaking, I would be to the right of other leftists but still a “leftist.” With examples like that I think anyone can see that labels of “left” or “right” are pretty useless and needlessly sectarian. Furthermore, many individuals that are usually considered “left” or “right” may have done things that were inconsistent with their position on that spectrum. Dave Surls pointed to FDR, usually considered a “liberal” (I wouldn’t say “leftist”), and his decisions about Jewish refugees and Japanese-Americans that could be seen as “right.” Similar examples exist on the other side, too. John Rabe would be considered “right” as a Nazi, but his decisive actions in saving the lives of many Chinese might be considered “left.” Same thing with Sugihara Chihune. I just point these out because I think it serves to strengthen the point that no person or movement is truly “left” or “right,” there’s always a section of overlap and there are always compromises to be made. At least that’s how I see it.

    “Capitalism is the people controlling the means of production”

    Dave, now that you and I have found some common ground I hope we can move past all the childish insults, name calling, and uncivilized rancor that existed between us before. To that end I will address this point respectfully. I can’t possibly imagine how you could see Capitalism as the people controlling the means of production. Workers produce for a market and are basically kept as a pool of exploitable labor: used when needed, discarded when not needed. In what ways do they control the means of production? I don’t think that many workers in industrialized Capitalist countries are given any real say in the business they work for. Nor do I think their ideas are taken into consideration by the bosses. The workers certainly don’t own the tools they use or the factories they work in. They have no say in how the profits generated by their labor are used. I’ve been away from the US for a long time, but I don’t see worker’s self management going on there on any large scale. Please elaborate a bit more for me on your ideas about this.

    It’s inaccurate and historically ignorant to claim that Nazis and Communists are the same because they both profess to be “Socialists.” There are many kinds of Socialism: National Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Marxist Scientific Socialism, Baath Socialism, Nasser’s Pan-Arab Socialism, Gaddafi’s Islamic Socialism, Christian Socialism, Labor Zionism, and on and on. It’s like saying that the Democratic Party and the North Koreans have something in common because they both have the word “democratic” in their official names! I was always of the opinion that Communists and Nazis were both “Socialists” because they both included large social reforms and social welfare programs in their platforms. That doesn’t mean, however, that they are one and the same. Nazism derives its base from the monied classes and the petty bourgeoisie, Communism from the masses of common people. Also, the morality of their respective ideologies is completely different: Communism speaks of equality for all, Nazism for equality of only one kind of person and the inequality of others. Therein lies the morality of Communism and the inherent immorality of Nazism. Of course, in practice, as we’ve seen that was not always the case of every Communist or Nazi, but generally speaking those are the major differences.

  45. 45DangerousNate on Jun 15, 2009 at 12:25 am:

    #20

    “You can’t find any real political analysis of Nazi Germany or National Socialism that would put it on the left.”

    Well, technically, Nazism and Fascism is basically anti-left and right. It’s its own entity, But it actually emerged from more left-winged/liberal view points of the time. I recommend Liberal Fascism the book for more information on that.

  46. 46Dave Surls on Jun 15, 2009 at 11:42 am:

    “In what ways do they [workers] control the means of production?”

    Well, for one thing in a capitalist system workers have control over their own labor.

  47. 47Dave Surls on Jun 15, 2009 at 12:05 pm:

    “The workers certainly don’t own the tools”

    I do. I own my own tools.

  48. 48berzerkster on Jun 18, 2009 at 2:19 pm:

    THE NAZIS ARE COMING FOR YOU, ZOMBLOG!!! THEY WANT TO EAT YOUR BABIES!!!!

  49. 49NH on Jun 20, 2009 at 4:55 pm:

    This is the persian symbol of the ‘greens’. Hitler was a green socialist after all.

    You people need to get with the Constitution and stop this violence crap.

    Zombloggers ARE nazis apparently.

  50. 50seguin on Jun 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm:

    “The Nazis had…many car companies”

    As a car guy, I can’t let that pass as a method of proving that Nazis weren’t socialist. Even fullbore Communist countries had multiple car companies (or “groups”, if you prefer). Russia had ZIM, ZIL, GAZ, AvtoVAZ, Zaporozhets, Moskvitch, UAZ…and I think I’m missing one or two. Czechoslovakia had the incomparable Tatra, Skoda, Aero, and for a short time Jawa. Even Poland had FSO and Pobeda. East Germany had EMW, Wartburg, and Trabant at least.

  51. 513ABXO3 on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:27 am:

    Joseph Goebbels: “Der Idee der NSDAP entsprechend sind wir die deutsche Linke! Nichts ist uns verhaßter als als der rechtsstehende Bürgerblock.” 06.12.1931

    Joseph Goebbels: “According to the idea of the NSDAP, we are the german Left! Nothing is more abhorrent to us than the right-wing burgeoisie.” 06.12.1931

  52. 52Elin on May 4, 2010 at 8:37 am:

    Swastikas have been appearing regularly at the Berkeley campus this year

    http://www.dailycal.org/article/109366/demonstrators_on_upper_sproul_protest_drawings_of_

  53. 53شات كتابي on Sep 27, 2010 at 11:13 am:

    Rich, the Intel group in Haifa also does all of the integrated wireless stuff on most modern laptops, so they can’t use that, either. I toured the facility; it was very nice!

  54. 54Michael on Jun 1, 2011 at 1:45 am:

    “The Ultra-right is gettin braver since Obamas election.”

    In the past month I’ve heard Muslims say “Death to Israel”, “Israel doesn’t exist”, and various anti-semitic comments specifically directed against Jews during what is known as the “Arab Spring,” although, they say have been saying this kind of thing on Youtube and FaceBook all the time. But guess which spectrum supports these anti-semitic fucks? Oh, just the left. Not just the far-left mind you, but any typical lefty drone that thinks his/her shit doesn’t stink while ripping into the right with ill-informed remarks, and of course Obama. The American conservative is probably the most Pro-Israel in the world.

    “White Supremacy/Nazism is right-authoritarian.”

    Not even close, considering fascist economics are centre-left to left, and authoritarianism is upwards. Mussolini’s fascism, which Hitler borrowed, entirely agrees with Keynesian economics, which the left in this country are all about. You really need to stop talking out of your ass and educate yourself because you sound like a fool, Bakunin.

  55. 55binkw32.dll yahoo answers on Nov 26, 2013 at 2:10 pm:

    Great information. Lucky me I found your site by accident (stumbleupon). I have book-marked it for later!

  56. 56Rolf Fenniman on May 19, 2014 at 10:03 pm:

    Just because they call it advanced doesn’t mean it is.

  57. 57Ofelia T. Ikner on Sep 20, 2014 at 10:50 am:

    Touche. Outstanding arguments. Keep up the great effort.

  58. 58Agnes Q. Shoat on Sep 23, 2014 at 3:56 pm:

    Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website
    before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it’s
    new to me. Anyways, I’m definitely happy I found it and I’ll be book-marking and checking back often!

  59. 59Clarine K. Reap on Sep 24, 2014 at 3:11 pm:

    I have read so many articles or reviews about the blogger lovers however this
    article is in fact a good piece of writing, keep it up.

  60. 60Cristine R. Clausing on Oct 4, 2014 at 4:55 pm:

    With havin so much written content do you ever run into any
    issues of plagorism or copyright infringement?
    My site has a lot of exclusive content I’ve either created myself or outsourced but it appears a lot of it is popping it up all over
    the web without my authorization. Do you know any ways to
    help protect against content from being stolen? I’d really appreciate it.

  61. 61tv amr on Oct 20, 2014 at 11:50 pm:

    Hey very cool site!! Man .. Excellent .. Amazing .. Ill bookmark your online site and consider the feeds alsoI am thrilled to find a great number of useful info through the post, we need exercise more strategies in this connection, thanks for sharing. . . . . .