RE: Hitler was a socialist?

RE: Hitler was a socialist? (Full Version)

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

Message

variation30 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:49:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Seeks, the USA and just about every European country had similar policies as they tried to get out of the depression. Was the FDR Hitler's brother? yes, fdr's new deal (and a lot of the things wilson did) were as socialist as they could be. these programs also made things worse for america...

kittinSol -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:50:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 and just because hitler, like mussolini, overthrew the old left, doesn't mean he's a right-winger. This is a sensational discovery. Would you please extrapolate that idea, and explain how the Nazi party has become known as the most extreme right-wing political movement of modern history, and why any self-respecting skinhead has a copy of Mein Kampf on his bookshelf, a Hitler's moustache tattoo on his arm, and a Swastika on his forehead?

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:56:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 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. You're peddling rubbish again. Private property was wide spread in NAZI Germany. Most companies were privately owned and profited from government contracts just as American companies profit from government contracts like Haliburtoon, Blackwater and all those American military equipment manufacturers. The German economy had remarkable similarity to the American military-industrial complex.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 11:58:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Seeks, the USA and just about every European country had similar policies as they tried to get out of the depression. Was the FDR Hitler's brother? yes, fdr's new deal (and a lot of the things wilson did) were as socialist as they could be. these programs also made things worse for america... Sure. Have you noticed lately how old and run down American public infrastructure is? That's free enterprise for you.

flatliner15 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 12:03:55 PM)
take it from a european history graduate: hitler was a socialist, he had it all planned out he in his own crazy mind wanted to create a social utopia where everybody would be prosperous and even had some revolutionary ideas about environementalism that would even still be called extreme in this day and age, he thought that he could create this utopia by controlling europe and the world. it's that simple, and socialists everywhere love to deny it, bcause they're the worst kind of populists and liars, but hitler was in most aspects a socialist in his day and age. i also want to point to people calling bush a dictator that the economical crisis happening today would have happened 4 years earlier if it hadn't been for the war and the enormous industry it generates in the us, almost 75% of all americans profited directly or indirectly from the war trough paychecks, industry, iraqi contracts,... also i don't understand why people would join the army, navy,.... if they are not prepared to lay down their lives for their country, i mean if you joined you did it for a reason, and if you die you die for your country, and your family sure wasn't complaining when the pay came in, so as much as i feel for the people who have lost someone i don't think they have to keep milking it as murder by president, it's crazy extremist iraqi people who kill your soldiers along with dozens of their fellow countrymen, and if you leftists would have seen it on the news you would have been the first ones to condemn whatever president for not sending troops down there and help those poor people.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 12:05:07 PM)
another crazy or is that you variation in another guise?

MadAxeman -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 12:13:14 PM)
*Maybe Al Quaeda should bomb themselves and cause further economic problems to the U.S*

variation30 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 12:23:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol This is a sensational discovery. Would you please extrapolate that idea, and explain how the Nazi party has become known as the most extreme right-wing political movement of modern history, and why any self-respecting skinhead has a copy of Mein Kampf on his bookshelf, a Hitler's moustache tattoo on his arm, and a Swastika on his forehead? could you define 'right-wing'. I've yet to have anyone do this for me. as it appears it means something different to everyone, I would like for the language we use to be precise. and as far as the skinheads, let's take russian skinheads (I think they are, ironically, the most numerous), it's not a political ideaology so much as it is a racial lighthouse for collectivists who can only gain validation and self-worth by leeching off the accomplishments of others who happened to have similar melanin contents in their skin.

variation30 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 12:28:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You're peddling rubbish again. Private property was wide spread in NAZI Germany. Most companies were privately owned and profited from government contracts just as American companies profit from government contracts like Haliburtoon, Blackwater and all those American military equipment manufacturers. The German economy had remarkable similarity to the American military-industrial complex. it's interesting that you compare america to nazi germany. I agree, private property is treated very similarly. the companies that the government didn't care about were privately owned. but the ones they did care about were socialized by government decree. but all companies were under the governments restrictions. they had to offer certain wages, certain hours, etc. so they are not really in private hands...they are in private hands so long as you do exactly what the government tells you to do with them. if you don't, then they take it from you. I think what is really interesting is the social issues nazi germany started. they were the first to institute smoking bans for health reasons. they immediately instituted universal sufferage, they lowered retirement age and increased pensions, they lowered the maximum hours in the work week, they were the first to outlaw foie gras as it was inhumane to geese. I really wish I could find my resource on nazi social programs as it lists a LOT of very interesting progressive laws that are most certainly 'leftist'.

variation30 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 12:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Sure. Have you noticed lately how old and run down American public infrastructure is? That's free enterprise for you. um...are you suggesting that american public infrastructure is controlled by free enterprise? really? are you sure you don't want to edit that post.

variation30 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 12:33:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flatliner15 i also want to point to people calling bush a dictator that the economical crisis happening today would have happened 4 years earlier if it hadn't been for the war and the enormous industry it generates in the us, almost 75% of all americans profited directly or indirectly from the war trough paychecks, industry, iraqi contracts,... I'm going to have to disagree with you. the resources this war is taking up, and the money we are spending on it (which we don't have and are borrowing and inflating to pay for) is going to end up hurting us much, much, much more than any possible gains we would ever have. quote: also i don't understand why people would join the army, navy,.... if they are not prepared to lay down their lives for their country, in most cases, naivete. is a lot of cases, 40,000$'s towards college.

Marc2b -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 12:40:48 PM)
quote: Have you noticed lately how old and run down American public infrastructure is? That's free enterprise for you. Emphasis mine. Also, only the run down infrastrucutre gets squawked about. Nobody sqawkes about the perfectly fine infastructure. I can't speak for the whole country but in my area most of the infastructure is fine and what needs to be replaced is getting replaced. In my town we just had a new bridge put in and three others re-furbished. Now, if we could just get the bureaucrats to move their asses on a new bridge across the Niagara River.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 1:18:33 PM)
Um, sorry to everyone, but Hitlers number one goal was control. I don't think he cared all that much which economic philosphy he used to get that. Thus saying he is a socialist, or otherwise as if that has any bearing on anything is sorta worthless. I mean, if your goal is control, you would pick which economic policy at a particular time that would weaken your enemies like picking out the idea gun to assasinate someone with, even if you prefered one particluar brand or type over the other, it really doesn't matter in battle. If the circumstances and the perceived enemies were different he might have taken another route. Anyway, no scholar here, but those obsessed with power and control rarely care about anything else, other than ways to get that. Bush, for example is just doing what he can do to get what he wants done. There is no real philosphy backing his actions, at least on an economic level,he's just doing what he can do to get what he wants. Power for some is the philosphy, nothing more.

NorthernGent -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 1:38:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jack45 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. All paid for by an extremely profitable armaments programme directed by big business; the same big business that socialists opposed. Tell you what, here's a challenge for anyone reading this: Hitler was a man imprisoned for leading the Munich Putsch a year before writing Mein Kampf. His co-conspirators weren't socialists, they were rabidly anti-socialist veterans of the army and monarchists: the very same people who murdered the leaders of the Socialist Spartacist Revolution: Karl Leibnicht and Rosa Luxemburg. So, if Hitler was a socialist, then why did he lead the army/monarchist (i.e conservative) uprising and not the socialist one?

flatliner15 -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 1:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Jack45 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. All paid for by an extremely profitable armaments programme directed by big business; the same big business that socialists opposed. Tell you what, here's a challenge for anyone reading this: Hitler was a man imprisoned for leading the Munich Putsch a year before writing Mein Kampf. His co-conspirators weren't socialists, they were rabidly anti-socialist veterans of the army and monarchists: the very same people who murdered the leaders of the Socialist Spartacist Revolution: Karl Leibnicht and Rosa Luxemburg. So, if Hitler was a socialist, then why did he lead the army/monarchist (i.e conservative) uprising and not the socialist one? all due respect, but that's like saying why lenin had trotsky killed if they were all communists. the spartacists are overrated now, the way they were going they were doing more bad then good, hitler manipulated all layers of society, layers that were in fact opposed against one an other but nevertheless united behind him. one could say that it was one of hitlers brightest tactical plans

NorthernGent -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 2:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b 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. You mention Alan Bullock - add any one of Ian Kershaw's books on the rise of the Nazi Party to your list. You're right, he did seek radical change to German civilisation, so let's examine it. He cynically manipulated Darwin and Nietzsche, and he was a massive fan of Wagner (the conservative, romanticist anti-semite that he was). Basically, he took bits from each to arrive at his survival-of-the-fittest, Ayran supremacy, Germans v Slavs battle for survival mess of a theory. He bought into Nietzsche's idea that European civilisation was weak, and he took it a step further: only Germany could save continental Europe from the ravages of Russian Bolshevism. But the change he sought wasn't particularly innovative; he was a romanticist to a large extent, just like Neitzsche and Wagner, and he sought a return (as far as possible in the modern world) to the Holy Roman Empire, where Germans farmed the land. If you've ever seen German propaganda posters of the time, you'll know they're filled with German giants farming the land with their wives and 39 children in toe - all rosey cheeked and as happy as pigs in shit. His expansion into Eastern Europe provided the necessary resources for his war effort, so he fully intended to make use of established industry in places such as Czechoslovakia, but he wasn't intending to improve the industries in these countries: he was intending to settle Germans who could farm the land and fulfill his romantic visions of the 1,000 year Reich full of German farmers. Another challenge for anyone reading this: Martin Heidegger was the philosophical spokesman for the Nazi Party. Now, if the Nazi Party was a socialist party, then what on earth was this staunch conservative doing anywhere near it - a man who believed that living in cities (i.e. socialist heart-land) was a recipe for weakness and disorder. Edited to add: All of Hitler's 'heroes' were right wingers - Wagner, Nietzsche, Ludendorff, Hindenburg etc. Does this not tell you on which side of the divide he sat? He had no time for Lenin - the hero of the German left.

LadyEllen -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 2:16:59 PM)
The way I see it, national socialism varies from socialism as it is commonly understood in one key way. National socialism makes no appeal for and has no concern for those who are not part of the Nation. It seeks to produce socialist conditions for its own people only, and to do that at the expense of other peoples for national socialism sees the world as a place where rivalry and hostility between peoples is natural, where it is for each people to triumph in the struggle with other peoples if it wishes to survive and prosper and be able to build and maintain its own internal socialist agenda. We could divide socialism in this light into national socialism as per the third Reich and international socialism which is the socialism that has been more commonly found, which makes appeal for people in general to stand together leaving nationality to one side and which concerns itself with all peoples of all nations. However at the same time it is important to understand that the third Reich was intended to last a thousand years and the period which we have to study, being necessarily shortened by defeat in the great struggle against other peoples and nations and being necessarily coloured primarily by the preparation for war and the war itself, is not necessarily indicative of national socialism as a domestic socio-economic model. E

tweedydaddy -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 3:57:08 PM)
You are equating National Socialism with Communism and Communism with Socialism, they are all completely different doctrines with differing philsophies and different structures, poles apart. The Aristocrats had no problem with the Nazis as they saved them from the Communist movements that were rife in pre war Germany and they regarded the Nazis hierarchy as an egalitarian elite. The Nazis used the Aristocracy as one of several tools to legitismise their rule and played many different groups against each other. The tense to focus on when studying this period of history is the world National, which indicates that Hitler had more in common with Milosovic and Karadic in the balkans in the last decade than he ever did with Lenin or Trotsky, rather than Socialist which would hint that he did. If a few more of the Vienna elite had bought his pictures we wouldn't have had a second world war.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 5:33:58 PM)
Ok, the thread has been cleaned up. As you were. XI

Lordandmaster -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 6:09:55 PM)
Maybe the point is that words like "socialism" are essentially meaningless because people use them to refer to whatever they wish? To most audiences today, the connotations of "socialism" are leftist, but the word has been used by so many different parties to mean so many different things that it's virtually devoid of meaning. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Hitler was not a socialist, he was a national socialist. A self-proclaimed description means absolutely nothing where actions are not aligned with the label.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875