Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

reply to post by Semicollegiate


Because it wasn't really a socialist system.. but I am really tired of arguing about it. Need evidence read the thread from the start.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

So you saying Hitler was not a socialist because of what he said or wrote at varios times.

Wouldn't Hitler be a socialist because he was the leader of a socialist system that he put the entire energy of his life into creating and directing?

I agree with this, but you have to understand back in those days there was no capitalism in europe, so you were either for socialism or monarchism. Hitler combined socialism with nationalism to create national socialism, and because of this MANY PEOPLE THINK he was right wing.

Some traits were right wing and some left wing. No political system is 100% pure anyway especially during transition periods. Plus the fact he killed 3-6 million jews during the holocaust puts a big stain on socialism!

Originally posted by azulejo

Centric stuff are good, balance and everyone is happy.. truth is with us humans, thats impossible because power corrups, absolute powers corrups absolutely...

I could be wrong but I am going to assume central and south america have *a spanish conquistador versus native american outlook problem*. Pretty much what happened in mexico and the usa as well. When the european colonials arrived in the new world(some would call it atlantis) they exploited the locals for labor and material goods.

Most of the european settlers are right wing oriented and most of the native americans are left leaning. Hugo Chavez is trying to balance everything which is not easy and on top of everything else has to deal with the nwo embargo of goods and services to that country. Cuba under castro could not even export cigars which was the prime export for them.

The world is complicated but that does not mean I have to pick sides. I would rather explain everything and let the chips fall as they would. In other words I feel no hate for past "crimes". Humanity evolves one way or another.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I agree with this, but you have to understand back in those days there was no capitalism in europe, so you were either for socialism or monarchism.

Where do you get your history from? Europe has had capitalism since before feudalism. Socialism wasn't even heard of until the 1800's industrial revolution.

Monarchism has nothing to do with the economic system of capitalism, other than the Royals being capitalists, private owners who higher labour.

Hitler combined socialism with nationalism to create national socialism, and because of this MANY PEOPLE THINK he was right wing.

Hitler was right wing. He didn't combine socialism with anything. Hitlers version of fascism was based on the fascism of Mussolini.

Again Hitler advocated private ownership, which is capitalism. Socialism is worker ownership, and he did not support that. Thus Hitler could not be socialist.

Nationalism and socialism can not be combined, one being a system of government ownership, and the later being worker ownership. It's an oxymoron, that only morons could miss.

Some traits were right wing and some left wing. No political system is 100% pure anyway especially during transition periods. Plus the fact he killed 3-6 million jews during the holocaust puts a big stain on socialism!

What has killing anyone got to do with the workers ownership of the means of production? You are just making things up based on propaganda, and your misunderstanding of economic terms.

I find it hard to believe you are actually being serious in what you say, how can someone get it so wrong?

capitalism
[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] [[dictionary.com]]   Example Sentences Origin
cap·i·tal·ism
   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] [[dictionary.com]] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

dictionary.reference.com...

fascism
[fash-iz-uhm] [[dictionary.com]]   Origin
fas·cism
   [fash-iz-uhm] [[dictionary.com]] Show IPA
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

dictionary.reference.com...

Nazi
[naht-see, nat-] [[dictionary.com]]   Origin
Na·zi
   [naht-see, nat-] [[dictionary.com]] Show IPA noun, plural -zis, adjective
noun
1.
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.

socialism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] [[dictionary.com]]   Origin
so·cial·ism
   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] [[dictionary.com]] 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.

Which definition fits Hitler the best?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I agree with this, but you have to understand back in those days there was no capitalism in europe, so you were either for socialism or monarchism.

Where do you get your history from? Europe has had capitalism since before feudalism. Socialism wasn't even heard of until the 1800's industrial revolution.

I never said capitalism is new to the 21st century. I did say DURING THAT TIME there was no capitalist system in place IN EUROPE!

Monarchism has nothing to do with the economic system of capitalism, other than the Royals being capitalists, private owners who hire labour.

Do you know any monarchy with socialism or communism? I do NOT! All monarchies advocate a capitalist economic system with a tiny and priviliged government. If you are not a nobleman, then you are a commoner.

Hitler combined socialism with nationalism to create national socialism, and because of this MANY PEOPLE THINK he was right wing.

Hitler was right wing. He didn't combine socialism with anything. Hitlers version of fascism was based on the fascism of Mussolini.

Fascism is national socialism italian style. Nazi is german national socialism. Both were virtually the same thing!

Both fascism and nazism combined socialism with nationalism, just like stalin combined communism with nationalism.

Again Hitler advocated private ownership, which is capitalism. Socialism is worker ownership, and he did not support that. Thus Hitler could not be socialist.

Patently false and you know it! People have given you examples of public ownership of some means of production.

Nationalism and socialism can not be combined, one being a system of government ownership, and the later being worker ownership. It's an oxymoron, that only morons could miss.

Government runs a nation. That means both private and public sectors!

Some traits were right wing and some left wing. No political system is 100% pure anyway especially during transition periods. Plus the fact he killed 3-6 million jews during the holocaust puts a big stain on socialism!

What has killing anyone got to do with the workers ownership of the means of production? You are just making things up based on propaganda, and your misunderstanding of economic terms.

You are certainly spreading propaganda because you lack a thorough understanding of what you are talking about.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Fascism is national socialism italian style. Nazi is german national socialism. Both were virtually the same thing!

Both fascism and nazism combined socialism with nationalism, just like stalin combined communism with nationalism.

According to the The Doctrine of Fascism

Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century.

And if Hitler followed this example then the name of his political party was just marketing because the real plan was not socialist.

reply to post by daskakik


The only one that was "marketing" was stalin with his leninist approach to marxism, which was totally national communism under a dictatorship, and convienently called Union Of Soviet Socialist Republic. There was NOTHING socialist about the ussr!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Actually communism and socialism are quite the same in a lot of aspects.
Here is one example.

www.datehookup.com...

As I've said: The entire "destruction of the family" courts are socialist-Marxist entities. They were derived from Marxist ideology, that has been adopted by the radical women's groups (i.e., N.O.W., National Association of Women Lawyers, battered women's programs, child support advocacy groups, etc.). N.O.W. was started by Betty Friedan, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party.

Child support enforcement in the United States comes directly from Soviet Family Law, Article 81 (currently Article 55 et seq. under the new Russian Family Law which adopted the Soviet Family law). Child support enforcement in the U.S. was adopted from Soviet Family Law and is now known as the "Wisconsin Child Support Model". Under Soviet Family law, child support was apportioned as follows: 1/3 of the man's income for one child; 1/2 for two children; 2/3 for 3 children and more. That is currently what occurs in the United States. (Alimony under Soviet Family Law could be the man's entire wages if the woman claimed disability because she had to to stay home and raise the children [that's a disability?]).

Enforcement Soviet Union was done by garnishment, and then arresting and jailing. Fathers who shirked their child support responsibilities (whether intentional or not) were labeled "deadbeat dads" in the Soviet Union. Hence, the adoption of that moniker in the U.S. Men in the Soviet Union could have all their assets seized by an administrative court of the government. Centralized systems and, later, computer systems kept track of child support payors.

That's why men in the Soviet Union wouldn't give their real names in one-night stands or short-term sexual relationships. There were a lot of children without fathers that they did not know. There were a lot of children on the state welfare dole. And, those that married and divorced, made up a large population of alcoholics because they were working for nothing.

Sounds like the United States child support enforcement industry. Based on the quotes below, we have a liberal (read: socialist-Marxist) bar association approving liberal, socialist-Marxist judges. Is it any wonder why Law Day is celebrated on May 1st of every year. (May 1st is known as "May Day" and refers to several public holidays. In many countries, May Day is synonymous with International Workers' Day, or Labour Day, a day of political demonstrations and celebrations organized by the UNIONS, COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, and SOCIALIST groups.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


No. They are very different!

It has been explained a billion times, mostly by me.

Believe whatever you want though, as your avatar says "mood: troll like".

It is like saying .32acp is similar to .22lr because both are small...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


No, both in fact overstep their bounds in important issues such as the one above. That was the only point I was trying to make. I realize they have their differences.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


I understand it is easy to get confused with so much misinformation in this thread, especially from people on the left who should know better. I am more frustrated at them then at you! Yes some traits/characteristics are similar but overall the two systems are entirely seperate.

Think of socialism as half-way communism. That should be easy to remember! Hitler hated communists/gypsies/jews which means he had both left and right ideals to go with. I don't care about marxism as karl marx, vladmir lenin, joseph stalin and leon trotsky were prominent COMMUNISTS!

When you hear about marxism, the communist warning bells should start ringing. We have LOTS of communist sympathisers on this board, which IS SCARY considering all the atrocities and genocides those dictators have accomplished. I want nothing to do with communism as it is a make believe "equality for all" zombie status quo.

Sorry for being harsh with you.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


No worries, that is why I started the thread after all.

Not to debate wether Hitler was right or left, but to show how one thing can lead to another.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


The marxists have communism as the end goal and like TO HIDE behind socialism.

Joseph Stalin was the prime hypocrite of all, who embodied Vladmir Lenin's version of communism to create the worst dictatorship the world has ever known.

Adolf Hitler was a national socialist just llike the party implies. For a marxist/communist it is not left enough and hence they call that capitalism, which it is not. I guess everything is a matter of perspective and porportions.

Thanks for starting the thread!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Bingo!


And thank you for participating!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Being a murder , yes they all had that in common , however Hitler wasnt a socialist .
He was a facist through and through and was best friends with those italian facists!

yes they were all murderers but Hitler not in any way a socialist.

reply to post by ANOK


To the extent that the pure socialistic ideal in the definition is possible, then socialism has never exsisted as a government on Earth, and Hitler was not a socialist.

However, to implement a socialist ideology, something has to coordinate the will of the people to the needs imposed by life on Earth, most agree that this would be a government. So all socialist systems have a single regulating body controlling every aspect of ownership.

During the Third Reich, the NAZI party controlled every aspect of ownership in the name of the people of Germany, and so could be called socialist.

Hitler was a socialist.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


Control over resources for the nation is a facist ideal as well as a socialist ideal.
Its parts of facism , to have state control over resources and production in order to provide full support to the waging of war !

you cant wage war on full scale under facism without full control of your countries resources and people.
while the two ideals share this property , they are still seperate ideologies.

Facism and Socialism both have full control over the countries resources.
However socialist states do not actively seek to engage in war to promote national identity and unification through patriotism and war.

in my opinion , without intervention from an outside party a socialist state would thrive. However with the existance of non socialist states , a socialist state is therefore punished , by sanctions and trade embargo , and political pressure.

Im just asking the question , where would socialism be without foreign aggression and sanctions ?

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Pretty sure it was the whole genocide and the whole "try to take over the world" thing that made Hitler evil.

Whether he was a Socialist or not is entirely irrelevant.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


The party's title is a misnomer. The actual socialist party of Germany had an almost identical name, but was actually socialist. I think a lot of them fled Germany.

See difference:
Socialist Workers Party of Germany

and

National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi's/Hitler's party)

Hitler wasn't socialist he just lured in citizens and politicians with his parties title. Actual socialists that were aware of what Hitler was up to would have been in the Socialist Workers Party of Germany. The National Socialist German Worker's Party was a misnomer and weren't actually socialist once Hitler came to power. Hitler was a fascist and nationalist NOT a socialist.

and more evidence of Hitler being right wing:

The Harzburg Front (German: Harzburger Front) was a short-lived right-wing political alliance in Weimar Germany, formed in 1931 as an attempt to present a unified opposition to the government of Chancellor Heinrich Brüning. It was a coalition of the conservative German National People's Party (DNVP) under millionaire press-baron Alfred Hugenberg with Adolf Hitler's NSDAP Nazi Party, the leadership of the Stahlhelm ("Steel Helmet", a hawkish, paramilitary veterans' association) under Franz Seldte and the Alldeutscher Verband (Pan-German League) organization.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by daskakik

It seems to me that it is a matter of definition. People who advocate real socialism define it as "workers owning the means of production". According to what you posted above it doesn't fit that definition. If Hitler owned the means of production then it wasn't real socialism. Just like the economic model in the US isn't "real capitalism".

People can call themselves anything they like. They could also be lying. I mean was Jim Jones a "real christian" just because he called himself one? His actions said otherwise. Same deal with Hitler.

edit on 6-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

It does fit the definition because socialism/communism encompasses many different types of socialism/communism. They are ALL real socialism because in one way or another a group of people CLAIMING to represent "everyone" get all the power to them.

The main attribute of ALL socialist ideologies is CENTRALIZATION OF ALL POWER. From central banks, a central corporation, or group of corporation, one man.

In socialism ALWAYS either one man, or a group of people claim to represent the "workers" and they claim to do what is best for ALL workers, but the facts tell a different story.

I even gave the definition of socialism from a LEFTWINGER source wikipedia, and in fact showed other LEFTWINGER sources ALL which corroborate what I have been saying.

It is extremely telling how some people, like you, claim that because socialist dictatorships don't follow 100% YOUR perceived idea of how they should rule that they are not socialist/communist...yet the FACTS tell a different story.

HItler not only proclaimed to be socialist but he lived like one. Heck, he was one of the first vegetarians, and wanted all Germans to follow a vegetarian diet, not to mention that he was a radical environmentalist, all which proves he was a leftwinger/socialist.