RE: Hitler was a socialist?

RE: Hitler was a socialist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:06:19 AM)
You are the one providing one extremely limited idealized definition of what is and isn't socialism apparently based on TV and Hollywood stereotypes, in direct contrast to the dictionary, history, and every academic standard. Pointing out your Twuisms isn't meant to 'do me justice', it is supposed to expose your fallacy by comparison to a well understood example of the same fallacy, and has worked quite nicely judging by your reaction. I've already said that Hitler was not a socialist, although he is often catalogued as such because he led the National Socialist German Workers Party. You have gone on to claim that the National Socialist Workers Party itself was not socialist because they didn't match your idealized definition, and that is where your fallacy lies. It is quite correct that the Third Reich was not socialism in action, but you didn't make that distinction, you claimed that the pre-war members of the party were never really socialists. You claim they weren't really socialists because they had an anti-liberal bias, but when it is pointed out that other socialist groups also failed to match up to the same idealized standard, suddenly you are struck unable to 'understand', and anyway its irrelevant? You claim they weren't socialist because their leader was a hypocrite... conveniently ignoring that being pretty much the norm in politics. You claim that they weren't socialist because they opposed the Bolsheviks, conveniently ignoring the fact that in the part of Germany where they had the strongest support, the workers were largely opposed to the Bolsheviks, blaming them for loss of jobs among other things.... so the workers joined the worker's party.... the same workers who according to you were the 'elite' who's only goal was to 'smash Socialism'. Fallacies all. Bottom line is, you are employing the same tactic as those who fallaciously try to equate all socialists with Nazi ideology, by trying to define socialism with only the best parts of liberalism... and that is simply not true.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:13:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado I've already said that Hitler was not a socialist, although he is often catalogued as such because he led the National Socialist German Workers Party. Alumbrado, you mischievously miss out one vital point. He EXTERMINATED socialists. I suppose you are going to say Hitler was a Jew next because he exterminated Jews.

philosophy -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:14:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave By the way he also imposed state control of the arts. Is that conservative? I dont think so. ....only in order to implement censorship. A characteristic shared by both extreme left and right wing governments. The arts are dangerous to any government that seeks to homogenise thought.

NorthernGent -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:16:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado You are the one providing one extremely limited idealized defintion of what is and isn't socialism apparently based on TV and Hollywood stereotypes Let's knock this on the head - end of chat.

Alumbrado -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:17:39 AM)
quote: ....only in order to implement censorship. A characteristic shared by both extreme left and right wing governments. The arts are dangerous to any government that seeks to homogenise thought. Exactly. Both The USSR and the PRC were well known for implementing strict controls on artistic freedom of expression, lest it interfere with state doctrine... that may be some folks idea of 'liberal' but as an artist, it sure as hell isn't mine.

Alumbrado -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:19:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado You are the one providing one extremely limited idealized defintion of what is and isn't socialism apparently based on TV and Hollywood stereotypes Let's knock this on the head - end of chat. OK, won't hurt my feelings if you run away again, instead of addressing the logical errors in your OP.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:21:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave By the way he also imposed state control of the arts. Is that conservative? I dont think so. ....only in order to implement censorship. A characteristic shared by both extreme left and right wing governments. The arts are dangerous to any government that seeks to homogenise thought. Actually, the CIA promoted American abstract expressionism throughout the 40s and 50s, claiming it represented freedom. Well, it added colour to blank modernist walls but I'm not sure about its content being about freedom because I'm not sure there was any content in the art but that doesn't matter, it didn't matter to the CIA anymore than it mattered to Hitler or communism in response to their chosen art forms.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:23:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Exactly. Both The USSR and the PRC were well known for implementing strict controls on artistic freedom of expression, lest it interfere with state doctrine... that may be some folks idea of 'liberal' but as an artist, it sure as hell isn't mine. America promoted its version of art too.

philosophy -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:23:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Exactly. Both The USSR and the PRC were well known for implementing strict controls on artistic freedom of expression, lest it interfere with state doctrine... that may be some folks idea of 'liberal' but as an artist, it sure as hell isn't mine. ......we're going through a similar thing here in Canada at the moment. The current conservative regime is seeking to control what projects get state financial help. Their criterion appears to be 'if it's challenging in any way then no...but if you want to make a populist piece of fluff have at it'. Now, populist fluff has its role to play.....but so does work that challenges the assumptions society is making. As a theatre practitioner who has studied the history of the art form, the very best work doesn't necessarily agree with the status quo...often it questions it. Even Shakespeare, despite being patronised by the establishment, held a critical mirror up to it.

Alumbrado -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:31:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Exactly. Both The USSR and the PRC were well known for implementing strict controls on artistic freedom of expression, lest it interfere with state doctrine... that may be some folks idea of 'liberal' but as an artist, it sure as hell isn't mine. ......we're going through a similar thing here in Canada at the moment. The current conservative regime is seeking to control what projects get state financial help. Their criterion appears to be 'if it's challenging in any way then no...but if you want to make a populist piece of fluff have at it'. Now, populist fluff has its role to play.....but so does work that challenges the assumptions society is making. As a theatre practitioner who has studied the history of the art form, the very best work doesn't necessarily agree with the status quo...often it questions it. Even Shakespeare, despite being patronised by the establishment, held a critical mirror up to it. It was a defining and very disappointing moment for me when young, to find out that the governments in socialist countries were banning the same music that J. Edgar Hoover wanted banned in the US. My metier is music, but my son deals with the balance between blue hairs, avant garde, etc. on a daily basis in his profession.

Owner59 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 9:51:35 AM)
I remember this, when cons where seeking to control artist`s work through arts funding. All extremists seek to control art,thought,opinion.Sometimes in the most ham-handed ways and at times,with devastating affect. This is a huge part of the culture war here,today,which is being waged on liberal values.

philosophy -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 10:05:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 All extremists seek to control art,thought,opinion.Sometimes in the most ham-handed ways and at times,with devastating affect. This is a huge part of the culture war here,today,which is being waged on liberal values. ..it's not just liberal values under attack.....it's dissent that is under attack. We mischaracterise the culture war you refer to when we perceive it in narrow partisan terms.

kdsub -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 10:38:52 AM)
I think you are all over analyzing this man...He was another in a long line of megalomaniacs...plain and simple. He was very charismatic at a time of national stress... His style and personality fooled good people into performing horrendous atrocities. This behavior is nothing new... It is going on in Iran..Korea..even the United States today. Bush in my opinion is a megalomaniac and he has fooled Americans into throwing aside our constitution. Butch

Jack45 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 10:56:36 AM)
The National Socialist German Workers Party was socialist. Read what Hitler and his party did to revive Germany when it was in the tank after WW1. It wasn't just a name it was really socialism. Just one example: They built millions of homes with gardens for people. If the couple had one child 1/4 of the mortgage was forgiven, so if a family had 4 kids the entire mortgage was forgiven and they owned it, outright. It is really a fascinating look at maverik economics and worth reading about. The autobahn, the barter system. Evil as they may have been the times we live in now the economists should study that period.

Alumbrado -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:05:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I remember this, when cons where seeking to control artist`s work through arts funding. All extremists seek to control art,thought,opinion.Sometimes in the most ham-handed ways and at times,with devastating affect. This is a huge part of the culture war here,today,which is being waged on liberal values. It is expected from the likes of J. Edgar Hoover, Ashcroft, Helms... it is an insidious betrayal when waged by 'liberals' in name only against anyone who dares, or even might dare to point out their fallacies and foibles, or who might encourage others to impede the quest for power. Like the PMRC for example.

Marc2b -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:06:35 AM)
Hitler was a vegetarian – which is all the proof we need that vegetarians are evil slime. Okay, seriously, the key to understanding Hitler is this: He believed in TOTAL subordination of means to ends. The ends were power. His power over the Nazi Party. The Nazi party’s power over Germany. Germany’s power over Europe. Europe’s power over the world. Hitler was not a socialist. The Nazi party when it was founded did have many socialistic items in its agenda (it wanted to break up the estates of the wealthy and give the land to the poor) but when Hitler took over the party he acted to suppress those elements – something he didn’t completely succeed at until the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler was not a conservative either. He sought radical change in both German and European civilization including government control over virtually every aspect of people’s lives. To better understand this truly unique, and uniquely evil, person, I recommend the following book – Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, By Alan Bullock. Hands down the best biography of Hitler I have ever read. Until you read this book, you do not really understand the meaning of the phrase, the banality of evil.

MissSCD -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:14:12 AM)
*In my opinion, Bush is a close to Hitler as the US has ever come to having one. He is a dictator worse than Sadam.* *Not only that he steals from his own people while having the rest of the killed at a very young age for his glory or now demise. Too bad his own party doesn't take him out.* *Regards, MissSCD*

variation30 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:41:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent At their core, Hitler and the Nazis believed the world was a battle for survival; the battle lines were drawn on the grounds of blood/race. On one side you had the Germanic peoples; on the other side you had the Slavs. Now, the Jews were deemed to be the enemy within so had to be removed to maintain the strength of the Germanic peoples for the forthcoming battle for survival. You would have to come up with a conjuring trick of which Houdini would be proud to equate this to Socialism. so because they are patriotic and xenophobic...they cannot be socialist? I thought socialism had more to do with the state owning the means of production... quote: Furthermore, Hitler was backed by conservatives, rather than socialists; these conservatives being the conservative elite: big business, the military, the aristocracy. Now, this elite despised Hitler; they thought he was an uncouth, little Austrian not fit to tie their shoe-laces. Yet they backed him for one reason: he could help them smash Socialism and maintain their position as the elite, which, of course, he did (in the short term). first off, I'm going to need you to define conservatives, as I find it difficult to belief that a conservative would back a person defining themselves as a national socialist and someone who rails against the evils of capitalism and it's threat to the working class of germany. did big business and the aristocracy support hitler? I find it hard to believe that they would support someone who supported taking all substantiative power over private property away from private hands and into the hands of the state? and does having the military on your side mean you have a conservative entity on your side? you are trapped into thinking the military is a 'conservative' tool...which it is not. was the soviet military a conservative tool? and just because hitler, like mussolini, overthrew the old left, doesn't mean he's a right-winger. in america during the 60's, the old left was overthrown by groups like the sds...does that mean the sds is a right wing organization? of course not. it just means they are a new type of leftist movement. the same can be said about mussolini's fascism and hitler's national socialism.

variation30 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:46:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent A self-proclaimed description means absolutely nothing where actions are not aligned with the label. For example, Hitler and the Nazis railed against Bolshevism; they believed Bolshevism to be the ideological enemy and German propaganda of the day was filled with the "evil" of Bolshevism. It's fair to say Socialism and Communism are related. Furthermore, socialist was included in the party name for one very good reason: they wanted to appear to be all things to all people, so they concocted this utterly meaningless label. as I've stated numerous times, they railed against capitalism more than they did marxism... and again, socialism, in the end, is determined by how they government approaches private property. the nazis approached it as socialists. and as I also said, the nazi's didn't have a firm ideaology as the fascists had...they were more opportunistic. so they said what they had to to get power when they needed it. that having been said... the lady who posted above you, referring to them as national socialists is as accurate as you are going to get. everything about them was socialist...they just kept it within their (ever expanding) borders.

variation30 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:47:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSCD *In my opinion, Bush is a close to Hitler as the US has ever come to having one. He is a dictator worse than Sadam.* *Not only that he steals from his own people while having the rest of the killed at a very young age for his glory or now demise. Too bad his own party doesn't take him out.* *Regards, MissSCD* read up on lincoln, wilson, and fdr...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625