Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Because we can use modern terms to more accurately define things in the past..

Did I say he claimed to be a neoconservative? Or that he started neoconservative weekly?
No, I said he more closely resembled a neoconservative.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

Because we can use modern terms to more accurately define things in the past..

Did I say he claimed to be a neoconservative? Or that he started neoconservative weekly?
No, I said he more closely resembled a neoconservative.

Your not doing yourself any favors.

Have fun telling them all about it.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Here.
I found someone that explains and pasting it is faster than my having to explain it for you.

Chancellor Hitler, in an effort to get out of the depression, basically did a whole host of massive spending efforts through government programs, and had he been killed in say 1935 or 36 by an accident or something, he would probably be remembered as one of Germany's great Chancellors. But Hitler took the "milk and cookies" of government spending and basically turned it towards MASSIVE military buildup, and in many instances, companies such as Daimler-Benz received very large government contracts and in a sense were "forced" in this way to produce war-materiel rather than consumer goods but it was - largely a means to the Chancellor's ends. In this way, the equation with the Reich's public spending and government influence on otherwise open unencumbered markets is absolutely true, but those markets were in BAD shape. In Hitler's case however, there was the combination of German / Junker Nationalism so corporations were very willing to do what was in the interests of the Reich. Importantly, what Chancellor Hitler was NOT was a social liberal, when we exclude the atrocities against Jews and other minority groups. It is not as if Hitler was mindful of other social ills and sought to correct them other than by use of work or extermination camps. This might seem obvious but this again bears mentioning - given the revisionism of some historians. So while there were social programs and benefits to be had - those benefits were to be had by Aryans only. Intellectually, Hitler and NAZI policies much more accurately resemble that of the Neoconservative line of Republican thinking (if one can consider that a party - rather than an ideological malady). Historically - as traditional conservatives will certainly point out, Neoconservatives were in many cases Liberal or even Trotskists. This is true. But they abandoned liberalism for a reason, and that reason was that beyond providing what the Australians refer to as a "fair go", modern liberalism is not predisposed to massive social engineering and certainly not the active avocation of the ideological beliefs which underpin modern Neoconservatism. While there are vaugue liberal concepts, there is no desire per se for the high levels of social control that various Neoconservative thinkers would like to see imposed, for that, Neocons went to the Republican party if not necessarily conservatism

answers.yahoo.com...

You aren't doing yourself any favors. You just make statements and no attempts to back them up. Hitler did resemble a neoconservative. Sorry, I guess.

And rather than using a lame tactic like denouncing that it is an answer on yahoo, argue it decently, because the guy knows what he is talking about and is right.

So is OP gonna change the thread title to "Hitler was a right leaning conservative!!!" now that he has been educated?

I didn't think so.
Also, OP why do you have to use three exclamations with your thread titles?

reply to post by thehoneycomb


I posted enough evidence in your other thread to keep you busy for ever.

The easy answer?

National socialism supports private ownership of the means of production. The Nazi party, and fascism, is capitalist.

Socialism is an answer to the problem of 'private ownership', and is a system of social ownership/worker ownership.

If you need more evidence of that, go back and read my replies that you ignored in your other post.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


You stated that Hitler was Far Right.

I believe this is the term that would best describe him.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Nazi Party and Nazism were presented by Hitler and other proponents as being neither left-wing nor right-wing but syncretic.[4][5] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying: "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms."[6] However a majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far right form of politics.[7]

So no, but as someone pointed out authoritarian, yes.

Socialist yes.

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
The common evil here is authoritarianism, it doesn't work no matter your political leaning.

Exactly.

Couldn't of put it better myself.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


You are laughable.
You take HITLER'S word for it. You ignore the last sentence.
Sorry still wrong. Also, nice leaving out the last sentence, I see that you have added it back in so you don't look as bad.

The Nazi Party and Nazism were presented by Hitler and other proponents as being neither left-wing nor right-wing but syncretic.[4][5] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying: "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms."[6] However a majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far right form of politics.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

Nice try though.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Why exactly?

reply to post by ANOK


That is indeed what can happen once socialism goes into affect. An authoritarian leader rises to power and then the so called public ownership is dictated by the government and becomes private and run by the authoritarian regime.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Because Hitler is dead and you are still buying his B.S.

Read the last sentence of the quote, and try to retain the information that his party was in fact far right.
You can't change the history, why do you want to? Is this whole thing about trying to allign left leaning politics with Hitler? Sorry, you just can't. It's pretty immature anyway. Left has Stalin, Right has Hitler. It's just the way things are.

BTW your avatar makes no sense. You can't say that Occupy is communist and Nazi socialist. Nazi's hated communists. One or the other, how does it feel dedicating so much of your brain power to bologna?

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Why exactly?

He already showed you...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
However a majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far right form of politics.

Remember? That one line that you conveniently left out of your earlier quote...

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Yeah.. he added it back in it threw me for a second, but I knew I checked it.
It's worse than FOX news up in here tonight.
His last thread was closed for trolling, I imagine this one is on the same track.
So.. while it's still here I would just like to say to everyone reading.. don't buy this non sense. It only takes a second of searching to figure things out for yourself.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

Whether he was a socialist is up for debate. He more closely resembles a neoconservative and he was a fascist.
What is for certain is that he was NOT the type of socialist that the right leaning people and organizations like FOX want to attribute to him. Fascism is against several types of socialism (liberal socialism and communism). So what is for certain is that Hitler was in fact far right.

You may want to google the definition of Neoconservative, you may be in for a surprise.

democraticpeace.wordpress.com...

It is an interesting debate.

Originally posted by madhatr137

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Chrysalis

 

Yes, it's too bad that one only needs to visit wikipedia to see the truth of such a controversial figure as Hitler.

Actually, what Wikipedia says is that Hitler was a member of the National Socialist(Nazi) Party in Germany. However, this is merely a name of a party. Ideologically, the Party was anti-Marxist and anti-Communist; which means it was anti-Socialist. It was named as it was named, implying the opposite, because at the time of its formation Communism was gaining significant popularity throughout the region and naming it such, implying it was a ideologically socialist party, was an effort to fool the ignorant.

Therefore, because the party that Hitler was the leader of was inherently anti-Socialist, ideologically, Hitler was anti-Socialist.

If you want to argue that because the name of the party implied socialism in the ideology it followed, we can argue that the Chinese are Republicans; after all, they are the People's Republic of China...

edit on 30/11/11 by madhatr137 because: Finishing a thought

edit on 30/11/11 by madhatr137 because: Spelling

For the last time hopefully, being anti-marxist has nothing to do with being anti-socialist, as true socialism has nothing to do with communism or capitalism. IT IS A SYSTEM OF ITS OWN!!!!!!!!!! Let that sink in properly.

That is why hitler hated COMMUNISTS, gypsies and jews. Jews were viewed as capitalist pigs!

It is not rocket science but some people like talking fiction...to be polite here.

reply to post by theovermensch


Again.. that was written by someone that didn't understand the degrees of socialism.
His party was a socialist party.. that said, he was anti-liberal, anti-marxist, anti-communist.

He was far right. So whether he was a socialist or not is debatable. Whether he was far right or not.. not so much.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

Because Hitler is dead and you are still buying his B.S.

Read the last sentence of the quote, and try to retain the information that his party was in fact far right.
You can't change the history, why do you want to? Is this whole thing about trying to allign left leaning politics with Hitler? Sorry, you just can't. It's pretty immature anyway. Left has Stalin, Right has Hitler. It's just the way things are.

What the hell are you talking about? Hitler was NOT far right. He was an imperialistic socialist, just like stalin was an imperialistic communist, just like bush was an imperialistic capitalist. Just because you are militant does not indicate "far right" in economics, only nationalism aka imperialism.

Stalin conquered all of eastern europe and central asia. Hitler and Mussolini attempted to conquer europe. Bush and Blair attempted to conquer iraq and afghanistan.

BTW your avatar makes no sense. You can't say that Occupy is communist and Nazi socialist. Nazi's hated communists. One or the other, how does it feel dedicating so much of your brain power to bologna?

edit on 30-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Where did he say that Occupy is communist? I see a hitler avatar. Maybe you need to look closer at it.........

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yeah, look closer at the sign hitler is carrying.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Yeah, look closer at the sign hitler is carrying.

I looked at it really close. No where do I see a hammer and sickle which is the classic communist emblem.

Instead I see a clenched fist overlayed over an orange star, which I am pretty sure is socialist oriented.

Next I see hitler with a swastika emblem on his uniform which denotes nazism, which means national socialist workers party.

Then 99% and Global Workers United which can be either socialist or communist.

Taking everything into account the OP's avatar is spot on.

Again nothing wrong with socialism despite national socialism giving socialism a bad name. But I could say that national capitalism under bush and blair gave capitalism a horrible name also, since we are fighting at least four wars now and spending trillions for BS!

Don't let the jewish genocide and militaristic nature act as propaganda against national socialism. Any historian will tell you that germany and italy were prime for war because of inflation, unemployment, lack of raw materials, lack of new world colonies, etc.

England, Spain, Portugal, Holland, France and Belgium were dominating the markets at the time.

Please lets support the truth and boycott ignorance!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Sorry.. you are wrong.
Scholars consider him and the Nazi Party far right. I can't change that. You might think you are smarter than world scholars, but I doubt it.

Visit here: en.wikipedia.org...
Now read down through the box on the far right.. (no pun intended )

I said that about the avatar because everyone on the right has been calling Occupy communists and marxists. Are you being selectively ignorant? I mean that as nice as possible, but it seems that way.