What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hitler was not a Socialist.

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
35,536
Reaction score
4,482
Points
1,130
Hitter was a fascist. Why is that even up for discussion?

Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

It's pretty emotional politics.

The reality is far-left and far-right are much closer to each other than far-left is to left and far-right is to right. But then the average person doesn't know and is easily manipulated with this emotional crap.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
71,391
Reaction score
17,168
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
OP
S

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
24,861
Reaction score
11,965
Points
1,118
Fascism is generally defined as a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government.

So the only difference is nationalism?

Nationalism is usually far right, aggressive and racist.... and authoritarian.

Right.
Socialists are the same as fascists, except for the nationalism.

Hitler HATED Socialists and Communists.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
71,391
Reaction score
17,168
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

Hitler was just another small government right-winger?

so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

Nobody on the left was ever dangerous.....

1617931651631.png
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
71,391
Reaction score
17,168
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Fascism is generally defined as a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government.

So the only difference is nationalism?

Nationalism is usually far right, aggressive and racist.... and authoritarian.

Right.
Socialists are the same as fascists, except for the nationalism.

Hitler HATED Socialists and Communists.

He hated competition......just like Stalin.
Who killed more Communists, Hitler or Stalin?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
77,301
Reaction score
50,326
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Hitter was a fascist. Why is that even up for discussion?

Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

It's pretty emotional politics.

The reality is far-left and far-right are much closer to each other than far-left is to left and far-right is to right. But then the average person doesn't know and is easily manipulated with this emotional crap.

Because fascism is far left, and the left wing see the word "left" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far right in order to make it look like the right is dangerous.

Fixed.
 
OP
S

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
24,861
Reaction score
11,965
Points
1,118
Fascism is generally defined as a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government.

So the only difference is nationalism?

Nationalism is usually far right, aggressive and racist.... and authoritarian.

Right.
Socialists are the same as fascists, except for the nationalism.

Hitler HATED Socialists and Communists.

He hated competition......just like Stalin.
Who killed more Communists, Hitler or Stalin?

I don't know.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
77,301
Reaction score
50,326
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I would like to see this error settled and I invite anyone who is educated in Modern European history to step in and help.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist - Vox
...
Adolf Hitler was not a socialist A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions. By Jane...


Excerpt:


On Monday, after the end of the Mueller investigation, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks took to the House floor to denounce the probe as “the big lie” — and to link it to what he said was another of history’s greatest lies.

Discussing special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, Brooks said, “socialist Democrats and their fake news allies … have perpetrated the biggest political lie, con, scam, and fraud in American history.”

Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”

And Brooks was somehow not alone in making the “Nazis were socialists” argument in Congress this week. Rep. Louis Gohmert did the same, during a House Judiciary Committee meeting about a GOP resolution on the Mueller probe in which he said the Justice Department could, in the future, enable “another socialist like Hitler to come along.”

There are many, many, many things wrong with Rep. Brooks’s and Rep. Gohmer’s understanding of Nazism, from a basic misunderstanding of Nazism and Nazi ideology to what I term the ‘Americanization’ of Nazism: an effort to put Nazi Germany somewhere on the American political axis, where it very much does not belong.

But one of their core assumptions — “Nazis were socialists” — has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.
Nazism, socialism, and history
From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)
And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.
Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.
But despite joining what would be called theNational Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.
Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.
Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaftthat would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.
What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”
The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.
But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:
“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”
And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”
In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.
Hitler was a fascist. Fascism had elements of many different philosophies, including socialism. Naziis believed in big central government that was all powerful not unlike the Soviet Union. Naziis did not seize contol of corporations but heavily regulated them, a form of capitalism. Naziis ran major social programs and built roads and other infrastructure, not unlike socialism.

Like most societies, Nazisim was a collage of ideologies as whatever you label them you're right. And you are wrong.

i believe Hitler was a collage of philosophies and I also think he was somewhat fluid in moving the mob to his will.

I know Hitler courted the Industrialists and provided them with free labor.

Was Hitler a corporatist, and if he is, what is ...
...
Hitler was an extreme productivist and a laissez-faire capitalist. Every other form of fascism believes in some form of economic corporatism. Corporatism is a political philosophy and method of organisation for an economy which advocates for large powerful interest groups to have complete control over the state and society.


So much bullshit------------Hitler was a socialist promised free chit for everything including FREE RADIOS for entertainment and to get the daily word from Hitler/Goebbles--aka propaganda. He provided free slave labor-----in order to get Germany's basic needs met along with the FREE CHIT that he was promising for distraction/propaganda/war effort etc. Netflix has a shitload of videos about Hitler--my current favorite has to do with the People around HITLER---what a bunch of power hungry propaganda driven back stabbing fucking SOCIALISTS. It implied that it wasn't hitler who hated the jews btw but Goebbles wanting to find someone to BLAME for the mess that the socialists were making---so they went for the Jews like the current crop of socialists are doing with white males.

In 1933 Hitler purged Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.
Hitler purged Nazis too....You've been told that numerous time in the last couple hours, and keep ignoring the fact.
 
OP
S

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
24,861
Reaction score
11,965
Points
1,118
I would like to see this error settled and I invite anyone who is educated in Modern European history to step in and help.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist - Vox
...
Adolf Hitler was not a socialist A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions. By Jane...


Excerpt:


On Monday, after the end of the Mueller investigation, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks took to the House floor to denounce the probe as “the big lie” — and to link it to what he said was another of history’s greatest lies.

Discussing special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, Brooks said, “socialist Democrats and their fake news allies … have perpetrated the biggest political lie, con, scam, and fraud in American history.”

Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”

And Brooks was somehow not alone in making the “Nazis were socialists” argument in Congress this week. Rep. Louis Gohmert did the same, during a House Judiciary Committee meeting about a GOP resolution on the Mueller probe in which he said the Justice Department could, in the future, enable “another socialist like Hitler to come along.”

There are many, many, many things wrong with Rep. Brooks’s and Rep. Gohmer’s understanding of Nazism, from a basic misunderstanding of Nazism and Nazi ideology to what I term the ‘Americanization’ of Nazism: an effort to put Nazi Germany somewhere on the American political axis, where it very much does not belong.

But one of their core assumptions — “Nazis were socialists” — has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.
Nazism, socialism, and history
From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)
And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.
Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.
But despite joining what would be called theNational Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.
Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.
Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaftthat would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.
What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”
The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.
But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:
“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”
And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”
In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.
Hitler was a fascist. Fascism had elements of many different philosophies, including socialism. Naziis believed in big central government that was all powerful not unlike the Soviet Union. Naziis did not seize contol of corporations but heavily regulated them, a form of capitalism. Naziis ran major social programs and built roads and other infrastructure, not unlike socialism.

Like most societies, Nazisim was a collage of ideologies as whatever you label them you're right. And you are wrong.

i believe Hitler was a collage of philosophies and I also think he was somewhat fluid in moving the mob to his will.

I know Hitler courted the Industrialists and provided them with free labor.

Was Hitler a corporatist, and if he is, what is ...
...
Hitler was an extreme productivist and a laissez-faire capitalist. Every other form of fascism believes in some form of economic corporatism. Corporatism is a political philosophy and method of organisation for an economy which advocates for large powerful interest groups to have complete control over the state and society.


So much bullshit------------Hitler was a socialist promised free chit for everything including FREE RADIOS for entertainment and to get the daily word from Hitler/Goebbles--aka propaganda. He provided free slave labor-----in order to get Germany's basic needs met along with the FREE CHIT that he was promising for distraction/propaganda/war effort etc. Netflix has a shitload of videos about Hitler--my current favorite has to do with the People around HITLER---what a bunch of power hungry propaganda driven back stabbing fucking SOCIALISTS. It implied that it wasn't hitler who hated the jews btw but Goebbles wanting to find someone to BLAME for the mess that the socialists were making---so they went for the Jews like the current crop of socialists are doing with white males.

In 1933 Hitler purged Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.
Hitler purged Nazis too....You've been told that numerous time in the last couple hours, and keep ignoring the fact.

Sure, if they were socialists or communists.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
77,301
Reaction score
50,326
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I would like to see this error settled and I invite anyone who is educated in Modern European history to step in and help.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist - Vox
...
Adolf Hitler was not a socialist A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions. By Jane...


Excerpt:


On Monday, after the end of the Mueller investigation, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks took to the House floor to denounce the probe as “the big lie” — and to link it to what he said was another of history’s greatest lies.

Discussing special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, Brooks said, “socialist Democrats and their fake news allies … have perpetrated the biggest political lie, con, scam, and fraud in American history.”

Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”

And Brooks was somehow not alone in making the “Nazis were socialists” argument in Congress this week. Rep. Louis Gohmert did the same, during a House Judiciary Committee meeting about a GOP resolution on the Mueller probe in which he said the Justice Department could, in the future, enable “another socialist like Hitler to come along.”

There are many, many, many things wrong with Rep. Brooks’s and Rep. Gohmer’s understanding of Nazism, from a basic misunderstanding of Nazism and Nazi ideology to what I term the ‘Americanization’ of Nazism: an effort to put Nazi Germany somewhere on the American political axis, where it very much does not belong.

But one of their core assumptions — “Nazis were socialists” — has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.
Nazism, socialism, and history
From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)
And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.
Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.
But despite joining what would be called theNational Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.
Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.
Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaftthat would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.
What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”
The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.
But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:
“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”
And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”
In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.
Hitler was a fascist. Fascism had elements of many different philosophies, including socialism. Naziis believed in big central government that was all powerful not unlike the Soviet Union. Naziis did not seize contol of corporations but heavily regulated them, a form of capitalism. Naziis ran major social programs and built roads and other infrastructure, not unlike socialism.

Like most societies, Nazisim was a collage of ideologies as whatever you label them you're right. And you are wrong.

i believe Hitler was a collage of philosophies and I also think he was somewhat fluid in moving the mob to his will.

I know Hitler courted the Industrialists and provided them with free labor.

Was Hitler a corporatist, and if he is, what is ...
...
Hitler was an extreme productivist and a laissez-faire capitalist. Every other form of fascism believes in some form of economic corporatism. Corporatism is a political philosophy and method of organisation for an economy which advocates for large powerful interest groups to have complete control over the state and society.


So much bullshit------------Hitler was a socialist promised free chit for everything including FREE RADIOS for entertainment and to get the daily word from Hitler/Goebbles--aka propaganda. He provided free slave labor-----in order to get Germany's basic needs met along with the FREE CHIT that he was promising for distraction/propaganda/war effort etc. Netflix has a shitload of videos about Hitler--my current favorite has to do with the People around HITLER---what a bunch of power hungry propaganda driven back stabbing fucking SOCIALISTS. It implied that it wasn't hitler who hated the jews btw but Goebbles wanting to find someone to BLAME for the mess that the socialists were making---so they went for the Jews like the current crop of socialists are doing with white males.

In 1933 Hitler purged Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.
Hitler purged Nazis too....You've been told that numerous time in the last couple hours, and keep ignoring the fact.

Sure, if they were socialists or communists.
Ernst Rohm and the SA brown shirts were devout Nazis, you bloody knucklehead.
 
OP
S

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
24,861
Reaction score
11,965
Points
1,118
I would like to see this error settled and I invite anyone who is educated in Modern European history to step in and help.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist - Vox
...
Adolf Hitler was not a socialist A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions. By Jane...


Excerpt:


On Monday, after the end of the Mueller investigation, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks took to the House floor to denounce the probe as “the big lie” — and to link it to what he said was another of history’s greatest lies.

Discussing special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, Brooks said, “socialist Democrats and their fake news allies … have perpetrated the biggest political lie, con, scam, and fraud in American history.”

Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”

And Brooks was somehow not alone in making the “Nazis were socialists” argument in Congress this week. Rep. Louis Gohmert did the same, during a House Judiciary Committee meeting about a GOP resolution on the Mueller probe in which he said the Justice Department could, in the future, enable “another socialist like Hitler to come along.”

There are many, many, many things wrong with Rep. Brooks’s and Rep. Gohmer’s understanding of Nazism, from a basic misunderstanding of Nazism and Nazi ideology to what I term the ‘Americanization’ of Nazism: an effort to put Nazi Germany somewhere on the American political axis, where it very much does not belong.

But one of their core assumptions — “Nazis were socialists” — has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.
Nazism, socialism, and history
From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)
And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.
Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.
But despite joining what would be called theNational Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.
Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.
Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaftthat would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.
What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”
The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.
But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:
“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”
And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”
In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.
Hitler was a fascist. Fascism had elements of many different philosophies, including socialism. Naziis believed in big central government that was all powerful not unlike the Soviet Union. Naziis did not seize contol of corporations but heavily regulated them, a form of capitalism. Naziis ran major social programs and built roads and other infrastructure, not unlike socialism.

Like most societies, Nazisim was a collage of ideologies as whatever you label them you're right. And you are wrong.

i believe Hitler was a collage of philosophies and I also think he was somewhat fluid in moving the mob to his will.

I know Hitler courted the Industrialists and provided them with free labor.

Was Hitler a corporatist, and if he is, what is ...
...
Hitler was an extreme productivist and a laissez-faire capitalist. Every other form of fascism believes in some form of economic corporatism. Corporatism is a political philosophy and method of organisation for an economy which advocates for large powerful interest groups to have complete control over the state and society.


So much bullshit------------Hitler was a socialist promised free chit for everything including FREE RADIOS for entertainment and to get the daily word from Hitler/Goebbles--aka propaganda. He provided free slave labor-----in order to get Germany's basic needs met along with the FREE CHIT that he was promising for distraction/propaganda/war effort etc. Netflix has a shitload of videos about Hitler--my current favorite has to do with the People around HITLER---what a bunch of power hungry propaganda driven back stabbing fucking SOCIALISTS. It implied that it wasn't hitler who hated the jews btw but Goebbles wanting to find someone to BLAME for the mess that the socialists were making---so they went for the Jews like the current crop of socialists are doing with white males.

In 1933 Hitler purged Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.
Hitler purged Nazis too....You've been told that numerous time in the last couple hours, and keep ignoring the fact.

Sure, if they were socialists or communists.
Ernst Rohm and the SA brown shirts were devout Nazis, you bloody knucklehead.


Ernst Röhm | German army officer | Britannica
Ernst Röhm, Röhm also spelled Roehm, (born November 28, 1887, Munich, Germany—died July 1, 1934, Munich-Stadelheim), German army officer and chief organizer of Adolf Hitler ’s Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung, or SA; Brownshirts). Feared as a rival by Hitler, he was murdered at the Führer’s order. A soldier from 1906, Röhm was wounded three times in World War I, during which he attained the rank of …

Ernst Röhm, The Highest-Ranking Gay Nazi | JSTOR Daily
Mar 27, 2017 · Ernst Röhm, the highest-ranking gay Nazi, presents an interesting study in the construction and containment of masculinity by the right. ... (SA, the Brownshirts), the Nazi paramilitary wing. Instrumental in the rise of the party via the street-fighting and extra-judicial murders of the late 1920s and early 1930s, Röhm’s sexual orientation ...
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
77,301
Reaction score
50,326
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I would like to see this error settled and I invite anyone who is educated in Modern European history to step in and help.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist - Vox
...
Adolf Hitler was not a socialist A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions. By Jane...


Excerpt:


On Monday, after the end of the Mueller investigation, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks took to the House floor to denounce the probe as “the big lie” — and to link it to what he said was another of history’s greatest lies.

Discussing special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, Brooks said, “socialist Democrats and their fake news allies … have perpetrated the biggest political lie, con, scam, and fraud in American history.”

Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”

And Brooks was somehow not alone in making the “Nazis were socialists” argument in Congress this week. Rep. Louis Gohmert did the same, during a House Judiciary Committee meeting about a GOP resolution on the Mueller probe in which he said the Justice Department could, in the future, enable “another socialist like Hitler to come along.”

There are many, many, many things wrong with Rep. Brooks’s and Rep. Gohmer’s understanding of Nazism, from a basic misunderstanding of Nazism and Nazi ideology to what I term the ‘Americanization’ of Nazism: an effort to put Nazi Germany somewhere on the American political axis, where it very much does not belong.

But one of their core assumptions — “Nazis were socialists” — has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.
Nazism, socialism, and history
From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)
And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.
Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.
But despite joining what would be called theNational Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.
Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.
Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaftthat would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.
What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”
The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.
But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:
“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”
And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”
In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.
Hitler was a fascist. Fascism had elements of many different philosophies, including socialism. Naziis believed in big central government that was all powerful not unlike the Soviet Union. Naziis did not seize contol of corporations but heavily regulated them, a form of capitalism. Naziis ran major social programs and built roads and other infrastructure, not unlike socialism.

Like most societies, Nazisim was a collage of ideologies as whatever you label them you're right. And you are wrong.

i believe Hitler was a collage of philosophies and I also think he was somewhat fluid in moving the mob to his will.

I know Hitler courted the Industrialists and provided them with free labor.

Was Hitler a corporatist, and if he is, what is ...
...
Hitler was an extreme productivist and a laissez-faire capitalist. Every other form of fascism believes in some form of economic corporatism. Corporatism is a political philosophy and method of organisation for an economy which advocates for large powerful interest groups to have complete control over the state and society.


So much bullshit------------Hitler was a socialist promised free chit for everything including FREE RADIOS for entertainment and to get the daily word from Hitler/Goebbles--aka propaganda. He provided free slave labor-----in order to get Germany's basic needs met along with the FREE CHIT that he was promising for distraction/propaganda/war effort etc. Netflix has a shitload of videos about Hitler--my current favorite has to do with the People around HITLER---what a bunch of power hungry propaganda driven back stabbing fucking SOCIALISTS. It implied that it wasn't hitler who hated the jews btw but Goebbles wanting to find someone to BLAME for the mess that the socialists were making---so they went for the Jews like the current crop of socialists are doing with white males.

In 1933 Hitler purged Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.
Hitler purged Nazis too....You've been told that numerous time in the last couple hours, and keep ignoring the fact.

Sure, if they were socialists or communists.
Ernst Rohm and the SA brown shirts were devout Nazis, you bloody knucklehead.


Ernst Röhm | German army officer | Britannica
Ernst Röhm, Röhm also spelled Roehm, (born November 28, 1887, Munich, Germany—died July 1, 1934, Munich-Stadelheim), German army officer and chief organizer of Adolf Hitler ’s Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung, or SA; Brownshirts). Feared as a rival by Hitler, he was murdered at the Führer’s order. A soldier from 1906, Röhm was wounded three times in World War I, during which he attained the rank of …

Ernst Röhm, The Highest-Ranking Gay Nazi | JSTOR Daily
Mar 27, 2017 · Ernst Röhm, the highest-ranking gay Nazi, presents an interesting study in the construction and containment of masculinity by the right. ... (SA, the Brownshirts), the Nazi paramilitary wing. Instrumental in the rise of the party via the street-fighting and extra-judicial murders of the late 1920s and early 1930s, Röhm’s sexual orientation ...
GAY OR NOT, HE WAS STILL A FUCKING NAZI, YOU SUB-MORON!
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
12,815
Points
2,288
I would like to see this error settled and I invite anyone who is educated in Modern European history to step in and help.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist - Vox
...
Adolf Hitler was not a socialist A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions. By Jane...


Excerpt:


On Monday, after the end of the Mueller investigation, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks took to the House floor to denounce the probe as “the big lie” — and to link it to what he said was another of history’s greatest lies.

Discussing special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, Brooks said, “socialist Democrats and their fake news allies … have perpetrated the biggest political lie, con, scam, and fraud in American history.”

Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”

And Brooks was somehow not alone in making the “Nazis were socialists” argument in Congress this week. Rep. Louis Gohmert did the same, during a House Judiciary Committee meeting about a GOP resolution on the Mueller probe in which he said the Justice Department could, in the future, enable “another socialist like Hitler to come along.”

There are many, many, many things wrong with Rep. Brooks’s and Rep. Gohmer’s understanding of Nazism, from a basic misunderstanding of Nazism and Nazi ideology to what I term the ‘Americanization’ of Nazism: an effort to put Nazi Germany somewhere on the American political axis, where it very much does not belong.

But one of their core assumptions — “Nazis were socialists” — has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.
Nazism, socialism, and history
From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)
And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.
Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.
But despite joining what would be called theNational Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.
Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.
Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaftthat would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.
What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”
The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.
But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:
“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”
And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”
In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.
Hitler was a fascist. Fascism had elements of many different philosophies, including socialism. Naziis believed in big central government that was all powerful not unlike the Soviet Union. Naziis did not seize contol of corporations but heavily regulated them, a form of capitalism. Naziis ran major social programs and built roads and other infrastructure, not unlike socialism.

Like most societies, Nazisim was a collage of ideologies as whatever you label them you're right. And you are wrong.

i believe Hitler was a collage of philosophies and I also think he was somewhat fluid in moving the mob to his will.

I know Hitler courted the Industrialists and provided them with free labor.

Was Hitler a corporatist, and if he is, what is ...
...
Hitler was an extreme productivist and a laissez-faire capitalist. Every other form of fascism believes in some form of economic corporatism. Corporatism is a political philosophy and method of organisation for an economy which advocates for large powerful interest groups to have complete control over the state and society.


So much bullshit------------Hitler was a socialist promised free chit for everything including FREE RADIOS for entertainment and to get the daily word from Hitler/Goebbles--aka propaganda. He provided free slave labor-----in order to get Germany's basic needs met along with the FREE CHIT that he was promising for distraction/propaganda/war effort etc. Netflix has a shitload of videos about Hitler--my current favorite has to do with the People around HITLER---what a bunch of power hungry propaganda driven back stabbing fucking SOCIALISTS. It implied that it wasn't hitler who hated the jews btw but Goebbles wanting to find someone to BLAME for the mess that the socialists were making---so they went for the Jews like the current crop of socialists are doing with white males.

In 1933 Hitler purged Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.


Oh stop with the bullshit-------------Hitler and the nazis were socialists...the night of the long knives was a power fight within the nazi socialist party. They did not purge socialists idiot---they had a political power battle where they turned on their groups of their own members as they fought for control of the party and for position within the socialist party. They did PURGE the homosexual branch that the SS had originated from though.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
12,815
Points
2,288
I would like to see this error settled and I invite anyone who is educated in Modern European history to step in and help.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist - Vox
...
Adolf Hitler was not a socialist A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions. By Jane...


Excerpt:


On Monday, after the end of the Mueller investigation, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks took to the House floor to denounce the probe as “the big lie” — and to link it to what he said was another of history’s greatest lies.

Discussing special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, Brooks said, “socialist Democrats and their fake news allies … have perpetrated the biggest political lie, con, scam, and fraud in American history.”

Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”

And Brooks was somehow not alone in making the “Nazis were socialists” argument in Congress this week. Rep. Louis Gohmert did the same, during a House Judiciary Committee meeting about a GOP resolution on the Mueller probe in which he said the Justice Department could, in the future, enable “another socialist like Hitler to come along.”

There are many, many, many things wrong with Rep. Brooks’s and Rep. Gohmer’s understanding of Nazism, from a basic misunderstanding of Nazism and Nazi ideology to what I term the ‘Americanization’ of Nazism: an effort to put Nazi Germany somewhere on the American political axis, where it very much does not belong.

But one of their core assumptions — “Nazis were socialists” — has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.
Nazism, socialism, and history
From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)
And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.
Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.
But despite joining what would be called theNational Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.
Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.
Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaftthat would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.
What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”
The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.
But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:
“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”
And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”
In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.
Hitler was a fascist. Fascism had elements of many different philosophies, including socialism. Naziis believed in big central government that was all powerful not unlike the Soviet Union. Naziis did not seize contol of corporations but heavily regulated them, a form of capitalism. Naziis ran major social programs and built roads and other infrastructure, not unlike socialism.

Like most societies, Nazisim was a collage of ideologies as whatever you label them you're right. And you are wrong.

i believe Hitler was a collage of philosophies and I also think he was somewhat fluid in moving the mob to his will.

I know Hitler courted the Industrialists and provided them with free labor.

Was Hitler a corporatist, and if he is, what is ...
...
Hitler was an extreme productivist and a laissez-faire capitalist. Every other form of fascism believes in some form of economic corporatism. Corporatism is a political philosophy and method of organisation for an economy which advocates for large powerful interest groups to have complete control over the state and society.


So much bullshit------------Hitler was a socialist promised free chit for everything including FREE RADIOS for entertainment and to get the daily word from Hitler/Goebbles--aka propaganda. He provided free slave labor-----in order to get Germany's basic needs met along with the FREE CHIT that he was promising for distraction/propaganda/war effort etc. Netflix has a shitload of videos about Hitler--my current favorite has to do with the People around HITLER---what a bunch of power hungry propaganda driven back stabbing fucking SOCIALISTS. It implied that it wasn't hitler who hated the jews btw but Goebbles wanting to find someone to BLAME for the mess that the socialists were making---so they went for the Jews like the current crop of socialists are doing with white males.

Hitler killed Socialists and Communists or put them in Dachau. He had it in for them and for Democrats and Jews.
Why do you insist on playing stupid games. Hitler and the nazis were socialists----who liked to back stab one another as they rose to power to gain and keep power. Socialists were A catholic version of the the jewish influenced communism of russia basically speaking. Back then Catholics/Lutherans hated JEWS so although both groups promised free chit to get followers---the heads of socialism were more christian Catholic and Lutheran while the Russian communists had a strong Jewish influence in their formation. This basically was the only real difference between the two groups initially. Basically, what we are seeing with most all revolutionary groups (with the exception of the US revoltutionaries) is that the leadership is made up psychopaths just seeking to gain power for themselves and who are willing to kill anyone to obtain this power even when it comes to their fellow revolutionaries. The US's revolution was truly unique for although our founders weren't the angels that they are often depicted as ---------------their leadership didn't seek power for themselves at any cost. They didn't share the psychopathic tendencies that we see in other take overs of governments. Washington turning down being king was truly unique.

Hitlers underlings and he had several power grab moments with lots of plotting and tag teaming to take out fellow nazi cabinet members......the nazi SS plotted to take out the nazi SA in order to move up in power not to mention the GAY very GAY leaders of the SA likely were found offensive by other NAZI groups including military leader Gehrig. Psychopaths kill even their buddies. (I mention this because I found it odd that in Hitlers and the nazis rise to power given the groups that they killed that the same groups that they killed helped the nazis rise to power----both jews and gays aided Hitler's rise to the top.)
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
12,815
Points
2,288
Hitter was a fascist. Why is that even up for discussion?

Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

It's pretty emotional politics.

The reality is far-left and far-right are much closer to each other than far-left is to left and far-right is to right. But then the average person doesn't know and is easily manipulated with this emotional crap.
Far right? Oh you mean anything religious is considered far right even though its a religious leftist group. Like muslim terrorists are considered FAR right---because they are religious. Musolina and his fascists were leftists. The Nazis were leftist socialists as well that believed in god.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
35,536
Reaction score
4,482
Points
1,130
Hitter was a fascist. Why is that even up for discussion?

Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

It's pretty emotional politics.

The reality is far-left and far-right are much closer to each other than far-left is to left and far-right is to right. But then the average person doesn't know and is easily manipulated with this emotional crap.
Far right? Oh you mean anything religious is considered far right even though its a religious leftist group. Like muslim terrorists are considered FAR right---because they are religious. Musolina and his fascists were leftists. The Nazis were leftist socialists as well that believed in god.

No, that's not what I mean.

What's the difference between far-right and far-left?

Nationalism is considered right, rather than left.

Germany wanted a Germanic nationalistic nation.
The USSR wasn't really concerned with nationalism. People are people. Stalin was from Georgia, didn't matter. All people are equal (though not necessarily in a good way).

The idea on the far-right is that the label people have from ethnicity, nationality, gender and yes, even religion. Which is why religious fanatics get put on the right of the political spectrum.

On the far-left it's about forcing people to be "equal", forcing people to be "fair", only their idea of "equal" and "fair" often go against human nature. Which is why people find it extreme.

Either way, both sides end up having to force people into their ideas, the reason they're "far-" is because they're considered by most to be extreme. The center of politics is the least extreme. That's why it's the center (and it's not fixed, it can be different in different places).
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
12,815
Points
2,288
Hitter was a fascist. Why is that even up for discussion?

Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

It's pretty emotional politics.

The reality is far-left and far-right are much closer to each other than far-left is to left and far-right is to right. But then the average person doesn't know and is easily manipulated with this emotional crap.
Far right? Oh you mean anything religious is considered far right even though its a religious leftist group. Like muslim terrorists are considered FAR right---because they are religious. Musolina and his fascists were leftists. The Nazis were leftist socialists as well that believed in god.

No, that's not what I mean.

What's the difference between far-right and far-left?

Nationalism is considered right, rather than left.

Germany wanted a Germanic nationalistic nation.
The USSR wasn't really concerned with nationalism. People are people. Stalin was from Georgia, didn't matter. All people are equal (though not necessarily in a good way).

The idea on the far-right is that the label people have from ethnicity, nationality, gender and yes, even religion. Which is why religious fanatics get put on the right of the political spectrum.

On the far-left it's about forcing people to be "equal", forcing people to be "fair", only their idea of "equal" and "fair" often go against human nature. Which is why people find it extreme.

Either way, both sides end up having to force people into their ideas, the reason they're "far-" is because they're considered by most to be extreme. The center of politics is the least extreme. That's why it's the center (and it's not fixed, it can be different in different places).
People who care about their nation are FAR RIGHT? So the Romans were FAR RIGHT....and Venzuelea is FAR right under this defination.

Far left is not about being FAIR hun----------FAR FAR FAR FROM it. Leftists take from others using mob rule tactic via promises to give these stolen spoils to their useful idiots to gain their support----but in reality it really is about making the Leftist leaders richer and more powerful who manage to funnel the stolen money/goods from the working into their own pockets. Hence, how Hitler and Stalins leaders became so rich as their nations got poorer and poorer. . They were just taking from the working middle class to give to poor and by poor they meant themselves.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
35,536
Reaction score
4,482
Points
1,130
Hitter was a fascist. Why is that even up for discussion?

Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

It's pretty emotional politics.

The reality is far-left and far-right are much closer to each other than far-left is to left and far-right is to right. But then the average person doesn't know and is easily manipulated with this emotional crap.
Far right? Oh you mean anything religious is considered far right even though its a religious leftist group. Like muslim terrorists are considered FAR right---because they are religious. Musolina and his fascists were leftists. The Nazis were leftist socialists as well that believed in god.

No, that's not what I mean.

What's the difference between far-right and far-left?

Nationalism is considered right, rather than left.

Germany wanted a Germanic nationalistic nation.
The USSR wasn't really concerned with nationalism. People are people. Stalin was from Georgia, didn't matter. All people are equal (though not necessarily in a good way).

The idea on the far-right is that the label people have from ethnicity, nationality, gender and yes, even religion. Which is why religious fanatics get put on the right of the political spectrum.

On the far-left it's about forcing people to be "equal", forcing people to be "fair", only their idea of "equal" and "fair" often go against human nature. Which is why people find it extreme.

Either way, both sides end up having to force people into their ideas, the reason they're "far-" is because they're considered by most to be extreme. The center of politics is the least extreme. That's why it's the center (and it's not fixed, it can be different in different places).
People who care about their nation are FAR RIGHT? So the Romans were FAR RIGHT....and Venzuelea is FAR right under this defination.

Far left is not about being FAIR hun----------FAR FAR FAR FROM it. Leftists take from others using mob rule tactic via promises to give these stolen spoils to their useful idiots to gain their support----but in reality it really is about making the Leftist leaders richer and more powerful who manage to funnel the stolen money/goods from the working into their own pockets. Hence, how Hitler and Stalins leaders became so rich as their nations got poorer and poorer. . They were just taking from the working middle class to give to poor and by poor they meant themselves.

People on the far right will say they care about their nation.
People on the far left will say they care about the people in that nation.

Either side can throw simple one liners at each other. I don't need you do it too.

As for the Romans and Venezuela being far-right, the issue is that far-left and far-right will often manifest itself in similar ways. The thing that differentiates the two is the ideology behind that.

Xi in China is supposedly "Communist", more "Socialist" but has a lot of right wing tendencies.

Maduro in Venezuela is just incompetent. His ideology is left wing, but he's mess up anything he does. The Romans were in a time before left and right even existed. But yes, they were much further on the right than the left.

I put "fair" in quotation marks for a reason. They think it's fair. That's the point.

But Hitler and Stalin, like Maduro, Xi, Castro and many others are more than just about themselves. They want to be the one to make it happen, they like the power, they like the money, but they're not in it just for themselves.
 

westwall

LET'S GO BRANDON!
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
75,228
Reaction score
31,109
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada
Hitter was a fascist. Why is that even up for discussion?

Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

It's pretty emotional politics.

The reality is far-left and far-right are much closer to each other than far-left is to left and far-right is to right. But then the average person doesn't know and is easily manipulated with this emotional crap.
Far right? Oh you mean anything religious is considered far right even though its a religious leftist group. Like muslim terrorists are considered FAR right---because they are religious. Musolina and his fascists were leftists. The Nazis were leftist socialists as well that believed in god.

No, that's not what I mean.

What's the difference between far-right and far-left?

Nationalism is considered right, rather than left.

Germany wanted a Germanic nationalistic nation.
The USSR wasn't really concerned with nationalism. People are people. Stalin was from Georgia, didn't matter. All people are equal (though not necessarily in a good way).

The idea on the far-right is that the label people have from ethnicity, nationality, gender and yes, even religion. Which is why religious fanatics get put on the right of the political spectrum.

On the far-left it's about forcing people to be "equal", forcing people to be "fair", only their idea of "equal" and "fair" often go against human nature. Which is why people find it extreme.

Either way, both sides end up having to force people into their ideas, the reason they're "far-" is because they're considered by most to be extreme. The center of politics is the least extreme. That's why it's the center (and it's not fixed, it can be different in different places).







Try thinking for a moment. One side of the political spectrum is totalitarian dictatorship. The other side is no government at all. Anarchy. That is your political spectrum.

Thus ANY collectivist government, of any name...is LEFTIST. The only question is how bad are they.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
12,815
Points
2,288
Hitter was a fascist. Why is that even up for discussion?

Because fascism is far right, and the right wing see the word "right" and get nervous about it, so they try and pretend he's far left in order to make it look like the left is dangerous.

It's pretty emotional politics.

The reality is far-left and far-right are much closer to each other than far-left is to left and far-right is to right. But then the average person doesn't know and is easily manipulated with this emotional crap.
Far right? Oh you mean anything religious is considered far right even though its a religious leftist group. Like muslim terrorists are considered FAR right---because they are religious. Musolina and his fascists were leftists. The Nazis were leftist socialists as well that believed in god.

No, that's not what I mean.

What's the difference between far-right and far-left?

Nationalism is considered right, rather than left.

Germany wanted a Germanic nationalistic nation.
The USSR wasn't really concerned with nationalism. People are people. Stalin was from Georgia, didn't matter. All people are equal (though not necessarily in a good way).

The idea on the far-right is that the label people have from ethnicity, nationality, gender and yes, even religion. Which is why religious fanatics get put on the right of the political spectrum.

On the far-left it's about forcing people to be "equal", forcing people to be "fair", only their idea of "equal" and "fair" often go against human nature. Which is why people find it extreme.

Either way, both sides end up having to force people into their ideas, the reason they're "far-" is because they're considered by most to be extreme. The center of politics is the least extreme. That's why it's the center (and it's not fixed, it can be different in different places).
People who care about their nation are FAR RIGHT? So the Romans were FAR RIGHT....and Venzuelea is FAR right under this defination.

Far left is not about being FAIR hun----------FAR FAR FAR FROM it. Leftists take from others using mob rule tactic via promises to give these stolen spoils to their useful idiots to gain their support----but in reality it really is about making the Leftist leaders richer and more powerful who manage to funnel the stolen money/goods from the working into their own pockets. Hence, how Hitler and Stalins leaders became so rich as their nations got poorer and poorer. . They were just taking from the working middle class to give to poor and by poor they meant themselves.

People on the far right will say they care about their nation.
People on the far left will say they care about the people in that nation.

Either side can throw simple one liners at each other. I don't need you do it too.

As for the Romans and Venezuela being far-right, the issue is that far-left and far-right will often manifest itself in similar ways. The thing that differentiates the two is the ideology behind that.

Xi in China is supposedly "Communist", more "Socialist" but has a lot of right wing tendencies.

Maduro in Venezuela is just incompetent. His ideology is left wing, but he's mess up anything he does. The Romans were in a time before left and right even existed. But yes, they were much further on the right than the left.

I put "fair" in quotation marks for a reason. They think it's fair. That's the point.

But Hitler and Stalin, like Maduro, Xi, Castro and many others are more than just about themselves. They want to be the one to make it happen, they like the power, they like the money, but they're not in it just for themselves.
They are/were all in it for themselves-----------this is ALWAYS how the lefts socialists/communists are. Always have been--
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List