Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.
You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.
Fascism
- Thread starter Wry Catcher
- Start date
Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.
You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.
owebo
Gold Member
Who did you vote for?
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
True about modification, but since I mentioned using it as a source of references, your point is moot.
"Any Wiki article that is well references with links to easily viewed resources is good. If it isn't, then skepticism is warranted."
Example, the Wiki article on the Second Amendment. While any "tom, dick, or harry" can write that only means a militia can be armed, unless that statement is backed up with proof, it's just unsubstantiated opinion. As it is, the article has over 264 numbered references and dozens more of unnumbered ones. Wiki should be considered a starting point, not an end point.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
....The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state....
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
For the first time since 1972, I voted for nobody at all.
I would have voted for Jim Web had he gained any traction, though.
You have to first disabuse yourself of the notion that collective governments are not authoritarian. ALL collectivist government types are authoritarian. They have to be. That's how they exist. The question is only how severe is that authoritarianism. The Fabian Socialists have spent decades teaching you the beliefs that you have now. It is a level of propaganda that has never been seen before and the reason for that is they want power. Thus, if they can convince you that fascism is right wing, and soviet style socialism is left wing, they win regardless of which government "type" wins the election.
You must return to the original concept of government, which IS linear. It's a simple teeter-totter, one side is total government control. And the opposite side, therefore must be, anarchy. That is the fundamental basis from which any philosophical discussion about government, and being governed must begin from. Government is NOT circular. That is a carefully constructed lie that has been promulgated to convince you that the only choices are between leftwing socialism, and rightwing socialism.
I hope you noticed that socialism is the one common denominator. The fabians don't care which variety of socialism wins, they just care that at the end of the day you are under socialist rule.
"Fabian Society, socialist society founded in 1884 in London, having as its goal the establishment of a democratic socialist state in Great Britain. The Fabians put their faith in evolutionary socialism rather than in revolution.
The name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured his ultimate victory over stronger forces. Its founding is attributed to Thomas Davidson, a Scottish philosopher, and its early members included George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Annie Besant, Edward Pease, and Graham Wallas. Shaw and Webb, later joined by Webb’s wife, Beatrice, were the outstanding leaders of the society for many years. In 1889 the society published its best-known tract, Fabian Essays in Socialism, edited by Shaw. It was followed in 1952 by New Fabian Essays, edited by Richard H.S. Crossman.
The Fabians at first attempted to permeate the Liberal and Conservative parties with socialist ideas, but later they helped to organize the separate Labour Representation Committee, which became the Labour Party in 1906. The Fabian Society has since been affiliated with the Labour Party.
The national membership of the Fabian Society has never been very great (at its peak in 1946 it had only about 8,400 members), but the importance of the society has always been much greater than its size might suggest. Generally, a large number of Labour members of Parliament in the House of Commons, as well as many of the party leaders, are Fabians, and, in addition to the national society, there are scores of local Fabian societies."
Fabian Society | socialist society
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,368
- 2,180
As I already explained, your "four square" model is horseshit. The axis don't measure anything real. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's how it works. The items on your list are nothing but opinions expressed by leftwing humbugs.
I already quoted Hitler saying that Fascism had much in common with communism, yet here you are claiming they are exact opposites.
owebo
Gold Member
Then don't bitch....
That's worse than voting for Hillary......and saddens me greatly....
More communist blather.
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.
Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.
You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.
You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.
You don't take someone seriously who says Hitler and Mussolini respect private property? Hmm ... me either ...
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
and in Coyote's world, mass-murdering Islamists are heroes, so anything she says should be taken with a grain of salt.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
How is it worse? I saw nobody I respected enough to earn my vote.
No. My point still stands. There are many other sources for factual information. Wiki still has problems with the references as well. That's the point.
Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.
Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.
I agree - the state was the ultimate authority - but that makes it authoritarian, not socialist. I think it's inaccurate to label everything in which the state or a specific leader through the state controls aspects of economy and society as "socialist" because socialism has some very specific defining characteristics.
When you state:
In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.
Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.
Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.
I remember reading about that - but it points out two things. One is that the Nazi's were rather unique in ideology. Historians have frequently identified them as neither left nor right, but a bastard born of Hitler's schitzophrenic mind. Nazi ideology was race based, not class based. It's nationalism was race based - centered on the racial superiority of the Germans and "Aryan" racial stock. It was horrible in that women were encouraged and in some cases forced to be breeders for the state. That is not socialism however - the relationship of the people to the state in that fashion is fascism.
Stalin departed somewhat from socialism/communism into a strict authoritarian state and his way of enforcing his authority was to dilute minorities with Russians through forced transfer of people. Entire communities of people for forceably moved to Siberia and entire communities of ethnic Russians were moved to Ukraine, Georgia etc. That's in addition to the mass killings.
Both of those represent authoritarian extremes of different ideologies - fascism and communism.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
I'm not bitching at the outcome at all. I just think it's silly how many extremely stupid leftists cast me as some sort of member of the right simply because I don't goose step to every conceivable authoritarian leftist talking point.
Capitalism can exist under fascism -
More communist blather.
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.
Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.
You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.
You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.
Which doesn't occur in fascism.
Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression
Communism controls the people through ownership of industry...
Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.
Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.
Fascism controls industry through ownership of the people....
Your post is spot on and it is really that simple, and it drives the fascist left nuts....
Great point, with one correction: it drives the fascist right nuts.
owebo
Gold Member
I voted America.....there were two qualified candidates in contention, not participating cracks the foundation of America.....
owebo
Gold Member
There is no such thing....Communism controls the people through ownership of industry...
Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.
Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.
Fascism controls industry through ownership of the people....
Your post is spot on and it is really that simple, and it drives the fascist left nuts....
Great point, with one correction: it drives the fascist right nuts.
Capitalism can exist under fascism -
More communist blather.
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.
Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.
You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.
You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.
Which doesn't occur in fascism.
Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression
Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?
Wrong.No shit....that's not even open for debate....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.
Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....
And that my friend, is left wing....
Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.
Prove it.
How were Russia, North Korea, Cuba or China less nationalistic than Germany. You are just making it up
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
Which country?Great point, with one correction: it drives the fascist right nuts.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The US and China have agreed on a deal to help resolve the trade war- Started by Jroc
- Replies: 7
-
BLM and radical feminist ideology a threat to the west - Young black men are more likely to be single and lonely than any other group in America- Started by Andrew_Jackson_FTW
- Replies: 1
-
Gallego campaigns in Pennsylvania- Started by TroglocratsRdumb
- Replies: 1
