DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea
German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
People's REPUBLIC of China
So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.
I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.
The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.
What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?
You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title
The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.
Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist
The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.
The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.
Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.
Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.
The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.
When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.
...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.
The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the
broad objectives of socialism are
"to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.
Hitler said he was a socialist, but he hated socialism? Where do you get this crap?
I provided sources.
North Korea says it's a "Democratic" Republic. Is it?
And as I said, socialism is CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING. As I've repeatedly said, fascism is where industry is technically in private hands, but all business decisions must follow government economic objectives and all major decisions must be approved by government.
And that is why it is fascism NOT socialism. Socialism is anti-private ownership. That is a KEY tenet. Not just government control, but private ownership.
There is a car in your neighbor's driveway. It has a title in your name. The keys are in your neighbor's house and you can only drive the car where your neighbor directs you to drive it, like getting their groceries and picking up their kids from school.
Who's car is it ... really ???
Bad analogy.
It's about the degree of government regulation/control. For example: You have a car, you own the car, but you can't drive it without a valid license. Fascism takes that control further but doesn't own it.
You're a servant to your neighbor, the car is theirs. That is fascism. The only difference between that and socialism is that the title is in your neighbor's name. You're still a servant. That difference is irrelevant.
Fascism = socialism. Hitler knew that, you don't. Those damned government schools ...
The difference is VERY relevent - private ownership of property and industry vs. no private ownership. You also are completely excluding the other defining characteristics of fascism and socialism - they aren't only economic systems.
