The Nazis were Socialists (yawn)

[Tommy Tainant]

Man says Nazis were socialist, gets schooled by history writer

Its as dumb a position as democrats are the racists. Sick of hearing this ignorant shite from apologists.

Historically, the Democrats have been the racist Party. I realize you don't know that since you don't live here, but you should show us the courtesy to not lecture us concerning our history.

No I am aware of that and I am aware that they were right bastards. But that is historical. Its now used as a crutch to deflect for the right. Much like this silly nazis are socialists thing.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

No, not really. Hitler cobbled together his own ideology, more right then left. In fact, after he secured his power, socialists were the first to go along with their anti-capitalist ideas. He only tolerated them while he was gathering support. Top ranking socialists in his party, such as Gregor Strasser were executed. There was no redistribution of wealth or land nor was there the "people's" ownership of anything or the collectivization of property or industry. During his rise he courted both industrialists and workers, but who do you suppose actually benefited and who became the target of empty rhetoric?

The main attributes of extreme leftwing ideology are lacking in Nazism: collectivization, redistibution and the idea of class equality vs. a stringent heirarchy (as with the Nazi's), anti-capitalism.

The main attributes of extreme rightwing ideology include: authoritarianism, extreme anti-communist/socialist, xenophobia, nativism and opposition to class or gender equality.

For example, while Hitler took control of some of Germany's industries, he still left it under the ownership of private industrialists. And there is also overlap - both extreme left and right seem to end up authoritarian.

Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:

“As with other fascist ideologies and movements, it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)​

Mistaking "Social Ownership" with People's ownership. Public ownership is a form of Social Ownership, and the government controlled the means of production, which is Socialism.

The private sector owned their businesses ONLY in name, the government told them what to do and how.

Socialism doesn't require everyone to be equal, that's Communism, which eliminates all Social classes. And as stated above, the Government did control the means of production, which is anti-capitalist.

Is that because you say so, or do you have some kind of proof? You're basically stating the Nazis were right wing because all rightists are racist and xenophobic, which is at best, laughable logic, and only further demonstrates that you on the left can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. Besides that, Authoritarianism is entirely left wing in concept, hence government expansion mostly coming from the left, sacrificing freedom for 'security', hell, Socialism is left wing, and it REQUIRES big government.

If rightism requires one to hate Socialism, then Hitler isn't right wing, because he took control of businesses.

I already mentioned that they only controlled their own businesses in name. The government told them what to do and when. By all rights, though, people will likely stop reading your post when you state xenophobia and racism are right wing. That's entirely a leftist talking point with no real world backing.

Who got to keep the profits from those business, in fact those industrialists benefited greatly from the the Nazis.

What I notice is a concerted modern effort by the right to overrule historians and redefine Nazism as left wing thus absorbing their ideology of any taint and attempting to pass it on to the left.

It is a recent phenomenum...and a bit cowardly. Just as the left owns Stalin and communism and Antifa , the Right owns Hitler and fascism, and it's remnants, the neonazis.

I don't use leftwing talking points, I look at what historians say.

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

 

[Coyote]

No, not really. Hitler cobbled together his own ideology, more right then left. In fact, after he secured his power, socialists were the first to go along with their anti-capitalist ideas. He only tolerated them while he was gathering support. Top ranking socialists in his party, such as Gregor Strasser were executed. There was no redistribution of wealth or land nor was there the "people's" ownership of anything or the collectivization of property or industry. During his rise he courted both industrialists and workers, but who do you suppose actually benefited and who became the target of empty rhetoric?

The main attributes of extreme leftwing ideology are lacking in Nazism: collectivization, redistibution and the idea of class equality vs. a stringent heirarchy (as with the Nazi's), anti-capitalism.

The main attributes of extreme rightwing ideology include: authoritarianism, extreme anti-communist/socialist, xenophobia, nativism and opposition to class or gender equality.

For example, while Hitler took control of some of Germany's industries, he still left it under the ownership of private industrialists. And there is also overlap - both extreme left and right seem to end up authoritarian.

Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:

“As with other fascist ideologies and movements, it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)​

Mistaking "Social Ownership" with People's ownership. Public ownership is a form of Social Ownership, and the government controlled the means of production, which is Socialism.

The private sector owned their businesses ONLY in name, the government told them what to do and how.

Socialism doesn't require everyone to be equal, that's Communism, which eliminates all Social classes. And as stated above, the Government did control the means of production, which is anti-capitalist.

Is that because you say so, or do you have some kind of proof? You're basically stating the Nazis were right wing because all rightists are racist and xenophobic, which is at best, laughable logic, and only further demonstrates that you on the left can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. Besides that, Authoritarianism is entirely left wing in concept, hence government expansion mostly coming from the left, sacrificing freedom for 'security', hell, Socialism is left wing, and it REQUIRES big government.

If rightism requires one to hate Socialism, then Hitler isn't right wing, because he took control of businesses.

I already mentioned that they only controlled their own businesses in name. The government told them what to do and when. By all rights, though, people will likely stop reading your post when you state xenophobia and racism are right wing. That's entirely a leftist talking point with no real world backing.

Who got to keep the profits from those business, in fact those industrialists benefited greatly from the the Nazis.

What I notice is a concerted modern effort by the right to overrule historians and redefine Nazism as left wing thus absorbing their ideology of any taint and attempting to pass it on to the left.

It is a recent phenomenum...and a bit cowardly. Just as the left owns Stalin and communism and Antifa , the Right owns Hitler and fascism, and it's remnants, the neonazis.

I don't use leftwing talking points, I look at what historians say.

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

You are wrong. You are assuming I'm saying things because I'm a leftist. I've called no one racist, that's all your own assumptions made in both this reply and your previous one.

Who have I called racist? I'm talking about the extremes of ideologies, and what historians say about what typically defines left and right extremes yet you want to unilaterally redefine it.

If you are just going to lie, then I won't bother with you.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Mistaking "Social Ownership" with People's ownership. Public ownership is a form of Social Ownership, and the government controlled the means of production, which is Socialism.

The private sector owned their businesses ONLY in name, the government told them what to do and how.

Socialism doesn't require everyone to be equal, that's Communism, which eliminates all Social classes. And as stated above, the Government did control the means of production, which is anti-capitalist.

Is that because you say so, or do you have some kind of proof? You're basically stating the Nazis were right wing because all rightists are racist and xenophobic, which is at best, laughable logic, and only further demonstrates that you on the left can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. Besides that, Authoritarianism is entirely left wing in concept, hence government expansion mostly coming from the left, sacrificing freedom for 'security', hell, Socialism is left wing, and it REQUIRES big government.

If rightism requires one to hate Socialism, then Hitler isn't right wing, because he took control of businesses.

I already mentioned that they only controlled their own businesses in name. The government told them what to do and when. By all rights, though, people will likely stop reading your post when you state xenophobia and racism are right wing. That's entirely a leftist talking point with no real world backing.

Who got to keep the profits from those business, in fact those industrialists benefited greatly from the the Nazis.

What I notice is a concerted modern effort by the right to overrule historians and redefine Nazism as left wing thus absorbing their ideology of any taint and attempting to pass it on to the left.

It is a recent phenomenum...and a bit cowardly. Just as the left owns Stalin and communism and Antifa , the Right owns Hitler and fascism, and it's remnants, the neonazis.

I don't use leftwing talking points, I look at what historians say.

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

You are wrong. You are assuming I'm saying things because I'm a leftist. I've called no one racist, that's all your own assumptions made in both this reply and your previous one.

Who have I called racist? I'm talking about the extremes of ideologies, and what historians say about what typically defines left and right extremes yet you want to unilaterally redefine it.

If you are just going to lie, then I won't bother with you.

Ive noted that they wont engage on the white supremacist issue. Its the single most important tenet of fascism. And it drives the right even today.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Mistaking "Social Ownership" with People's ownership. Public ownership is a form of Social Ownership, and the government controlled the means of production, which is Socialism.

The private sector owned their businesses ONLY in name, the government told them what to do and how.

Socialism doesn't require everyone to be equal, that's Communism, which eliminates all Social classes. And as stated above, the Government did control the means of production, which is anti-capitalist.

Is that because you say so, or do you have some kind of proof? You're basically stating the Nazis were right wing because all rightists are racist and xenophobic, which is at best, laughable logic, and only further demonstrates that you on the left can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. Besides that, Authoritarianism is entirely left wing in concept, hence government expansion mostly coming from the left, sacrificing freedom for 'security', hell, Socialism is left wing, and it REQUIRES big government.

If rightism requires one to hate Socialism, then Hitler isn't right wing, because he took control of businesses.

I already mentioned that they only controlled their own businesses in name. The government told them what to do and when. By all rights, though, people will likely stop reading your post when you state xenophobia and racism are right wing. That's entirely a leftist talking point with no real world backing.

Who got to keep the profits from those business, in fact those industrialists benefited greatly from the the Nazis.

What I notice is a concerted modern effort by the right to overrule historians and redefine Nazism as left wing thus absorbing their ideology of any taint and attempting to pass it on to the left.

It is a recent phenomenum...and a bit cowardly. Just as the left owns Stalin and communism and Antifa , the Right owns Hitler and fascism, and it's remnants, the neonazis.

I don't use leftwing talking points, I look at what historians say.

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

You are wrong. You are assuming I'm saying things because I'm a leftist. I've called no one racist, that's all your own assumptions made in both this reply and your previous one.

Who have I called racist? I'm talking about the extremes of ideologies, and what historians say about what typically defines left and right extremes yet you want to unilaterally redefine it.

If you are just going to lie, then I won't bother with you.

That's a reply to Tommy. You must be in a hurry.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Mistaking "Social Ownership" with People's ownership. Public ownership is a form of Social Ownership, and the government controlled the means of production, which is Socialism.

The private sector owned their businesses ONLY in name, the government told them what to do and how.

Socialism doesn't require everyone to be equal, that's Communism, which eliminates all Social classes. And as stated above, the Government did control the means of production, which is anti-capitalist.

Is that because you say so, or do you have some kind of proof? You're basically stating the Nazis were right wing because all rightists are racist and xenophobic, which is at best, laughable logic, and only further demonstrates that you on the left can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. Besides that, Authoritarianism is entirely left wing in concept, hence government expansion mostly coming from the left, sacrificing freedom for 'security', hell, Socialism is left wing, and it REQUIRES big government.

If rightism requires one to hate Socialism, then Hitler isn't right wing, because he took control of businesses.

I already mentioned that they only controlled their own businesses in name. The government told them what to do and when. By all rights, though, people will likely stop reading your post when you state xenophobia and racism are right wing. That's entirely a leftist talking point with no real world backing.

Who got to keep the profits from those business, in fact those industrialists benefited greatly from the the Nazis.

What I notice is a concerted modern effort by the right to overrule historians and redefine Nazism as left wing thus absorbing their ideology of any taint and attempting to pass it on to the left.

It is a recent phenomenum...and a bit cowardly. Just as the left owns Stalin and communism and Antifa , the Right owns Hitler and fascism, and it's remnants, the neonazis.

I don't use leftwing talking points, I look at what historians say.

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

You have nothing to support that claim whatsoever.

I've told no lies and will continue to tell no lies. Not a single part of your post even addresses mine.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Who got to keep the profits from those business, in fact those industrialists benefited greatly from the the Nazis.

What I notice is a concerted modern effort by the right to overrule historians and redefine Nazism as left wing thus absorbing their ideology of any taint and attempting to pass it on to the left.

It is a recent phenomenum...and a bit cowardly. Just as the left owns Stalin and communism and Antifa , the Right owns Hitler and fascism, and it's remnants, the neonazis.

I don't use leftwing talking points, I look at what historians say.

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

You have nothing to support that claim whatsoever.

I've told no lies and will continue to tell no lies. Not a single part of your post even addresses mine.

6 million slaughtered is all the proof needed.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

You have nothing to support that claim whatsoever.

I've told no lies and will continue to tell no lies. Not a single part of your post even addresses mine.

6 million slaughtered is all the proof needed.

Thank Hitler for being a leftist, then. If he were a rightist, he wouldn't have murdered people for being different from himself.

 

[Slash]

Historically, the Democrats have been the racist Party. I realize you don't know that since you don't live here, but you should show us the courtesy to not lecture us concerning our history.

Well historically the've pushed to the conservative right wing party.

Yes in the past that was the democrats mostly, but you can find the KKK pushing for conservative republicans back in the early 1900's as well. Dixiecrats back in the day were the most conservative party that there was and the Klan stuck to them. What they didn't side with was liberal democrats or Rockefeller (liberal) Republicans. I mean their book on their ideals that the Klan wrote back then said they "make no apologies for its members' attempts to impose their views upon "liberals," immigrants, Catholics, Jews, or peoples of color." Yup they put liberals first on their hate list.

They always wanted the traditional social values. Anti-Abortion. Less invasive Federal Government. Nationalism. anti-homosexual. Pro Christianity. Anti-immigration.

Historically the party that preached social conservatism has been the party obviously that the Klan supports.

 

[hunarcy]

Man says Nazis were socialist, gets schooled by history writer

Its as dumb a position as democrats are the racists. Sick of hearing this ignorant shite from apologists.

Historically, the Democrats have been the racist Party. I realize you don't know that since you don't live here, but you should show us the courtesy to not lecture us concerning our history.

No I am aware of that and I am aware that they were right bastards. But that is historical. Its now used as a crutch to deflect for the right. Much like this silly nazis are socialists thing.

That is not historical...even today, Democrats are the Party of repression. You swallow the propaganda because you don't know any better. The Democratic Party is NOT truly Progressive. That's why they cheated Bernie and made Hillary their candidate...and why they are out of power with no opportunity to regain power at this time. Their only hope at this time is if Elizabeth Warren decides to run under their banner.

 

[hunarcy]

Historically, the Democrats have been the racist Party. I realize you don't know that since you don't live here, but you should show us the courtesy to not lecture us concerning our history.

Well historically the've pushed to the conservative right wing party.

Yes in the past that was the democrats mostly, but you can find the KKK pushing for conservative republicans back in the early 1900's as well. Dixiecrats back in the day were the most conservative party that there was and the Klan stuck to them. What they didn't side with was liberal democrats or Rockefeller (liberal) Republicans. I mean their book on their ideals that the Klan wrote back then said they "make no apologies for its members' attempts to impose their views upon "liberals," immigrants, Catholics, Jews, or peoples of color." Yup they put liberals first on their hate list.

They always wanted the traditional social values. Anti-Abortion. Less invasive Federal Government. Nationalism. anti-homosexual. Pro Christianity. Anti-immigration.

Historically the party that preached social conservatism has been the party obviously that the Klan supports.

That's false. Only TWO dixiecrats went with the Republicans (Strom Thurmond and Mile Godwin). The rest stayed with the Democrats (Robert Byrd, Albert Gore, Sr., William Fulbright, Orval Fabus, Benjamin Travis Laney , John Stennis, James Eastland, Allen Ellender, Russell Long, John Sparkman, John McClellan, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, John Rarick and Bull Connor.).

I am PROUD that Progressives/Liberals are on the KKK's hate list. I just resent the Democrats pretending that they are the Progressives and Liberals that were being referred to in that statement. They were not and true members of the Left know it..

 

[kwc57]

Man says Nazis were socialist, gets schooled by history writer

Its as dumb a position as democrats are the racists. Sick of hearing this ignorant shite from apologists.

What do you call a party that divides people into groups by characteristic and tells them they are victims who can't thrive or survive in society without their protection? Democrats/racists.

Does such a party exist ? You would need to offer up some proof for that.

Well Tommy, unless you have your head up your ass to check for polyps, you might want to pull it out and experience reality. You know, read a book, watch the news, look at a newspaper, watch CSPAN. The Democratic party has as a ruling principle engaged in identity politics. Rather than by being inclusive of all Americans, they have created identity groups to segregate people by characteristic. You know, black, Hispanic, LGBTABC123, etc. and told them that they are victims of a biased and privileged society. If only all of these groups will band together and vote for Democrats, they will continue to be victims. Only under the care and protection of the Democrats and a nanny state will they be able to survive and possibly thrive. This attitude is no different than a plantation mentality and should be insulting to the minorities they target. If you are unaware of the stump speeches and policies promoted and put in place that do this, you probably shouldn't be discussing politics on the interwebs. In other news you may not be up to date on in your state of cluelessness, the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This shit again

Truth offends you?

 

[kwc57]

Mistaking "Social Ownership" with People's ownership. Public ownership is a form of Social Ownership, and the government controlled the means of production, which is Socialism.

The private sector owned their businesses ONLY in name, the government told them what to do and how.

Socialism doesn't require everyone to be equal, that's Communism, which eliminates all Social classes. And as stated above, the Government did control the means of production, which is anti-capitalist.

Is that because you say so, or do you have some kind of proof? You're basically stating the Nazis were right wing because all rightists are racist and xenophobic, which is at best, laughable logic, and only further demonstrates that you on the left can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. Besides that, Authoritarianism is entirely left wing in concept, hence government expansion mostly coming from the left, sacrificing freedom for 'security', hell, Socialism is left wing, and it REQUIRES big government.

If rightism requires one to hate Socialism, then Hitler isn't right wing, because he took control of businesses.

I already mentioned that they only controlled their own businesses in name. The government told them what to do and when. By all rights, though, people will likely stop reading your post when you state xenophobia and racism are right wing. That's entirely a leftist talking point with no real world backing.

Who got to keep the profits from those business, in fact those industrialists benefited greatly from the the Nazis.

What I notice is a concerted modern effort by the right to overrule historians and redefine Nazism as left wing thus absorbing their ideology of any taint and attempting to pass it on to the left.

It is a recent phenomenum...and a bit cowardly. Just as the left owns Stalin and communism and Antifa , the Right owns Hitler and fascism, and it's remnants, the neonazis.

I don't use leftwing talking points, I look at what historians say.

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

"Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait." Oh my, then how do you account for the smug, arrogant, superior and condescending behavior of leftist and liberals like yourself? What, are you just naturally superior and all the others are posers?

 

[Votto]

Man says Nazis were socialist, gets schooled by history writer

Its as dumb a position as democrats are the racists. Sick of hearing this ignorant shite from apologists.

Listen, just because the Nazi party self identified as Socialists and used Socialists as part of their name and conducted a massive nanny state that had its citizens have "free" health care, retirement, etc., in no way means they were socialists. Please stop using logic! The Nazi party was actually the modern day Tea Party cuz they are all racist......at least, that is what the NAACP tell me and they never lie, so.................

 

[Votto]

Who got to keep the profits from those business, in fact those industrialists benefited greatly from the the Nazis.

What I notice is a concerted modern effort by the right to overrule historians and redefine Nazism as left wing thus absorbing their ideology of any taint and attempting to pass it on to the left.

It is a recent phenomenum...and a bit cowardly. Just as the left owns Stalin and communism and Antifa , the Right owns Hitler and fascism, and it's remnants, the neonazis.

I don't use leftwing talking points, I look at what historians say.

Whether or not businesses kept some amount of profits doesn't determine whether or not it was Socialism, the means of production were still Socially controlled.

I've been pointing to history the entire time, so it's hardly overruling history. Or are you telling me that I'm not supposed to look at history for myself, and am instead supposed to take the left's word for it? Maybe there wouldn't be so much dirt on the left if they didn't seek to form a totalitarian government which owns everyone and everything. It can backfire in so many ways.

Yet you still can't point to a single right wing policy implemented under Hitler. If he was right wing, it would have been easy, yet you shrink back and repeat yourself instead. Why is it that I'm the only one capable of citing any of his policies as evidence to back my point, yet you claim history is on your side? Looks like a flawed argument to me.

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

"Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait." Oh my, then how do you account for the smug, arrogant, superior and condescending behavior of leftist and liberals like yourself? What, are you just naturally superior and all the others are posers?

I don't think I'm superior to anyone. I just want a limited government and an end to these massive war like collectivist states like we saw in Nazi Germany and the former USSR.

How in the hell both of these collectivist tyrannical regimes got placed at opposite ends of a fictional political spectrum is beyond comprehension.

 

[Coyote]

You gloss over their treatment of minorities and their belief in a master race. That has been a mainstay of all extreme right parties ever since.Nazis hate people who are different to themselves. They probably hate themselves as well but that is a different thread. Look at these chumps in their Nazi regalia and try to find another platform to stand on. (whites only ?)

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

You have nothing to support that claim whatsoever.

I've told no lies and will continue to tell no lies. Not a single part of your post even addresses mine.

6 million slaughtered is all the proof needed.

Thank Hitler for being a leftist, then. If he were a rightist, he wouldn't have murdered people for being different from himself.

He wasn't a leftist, that is you rightwightwingers redefining history with your talking points.

Leftist ideologies move towards class equality, state ownership or people's ownership of means of production and an abolition of private property.

Hitler controlled production direction of those industries critical to the war effort but ownership remained with the industrialists whom he courted and who supported his regime and they retained profits as well. All other manufacturing as well as agriculture remained in private hands.

Hitler espoused some leftist rhetoric early on, but much of that remain ed rhetoric after he killed off the socialists and became powerful.

Both extremes of left and right trend towards authoritarianism despite the right's attempt to redefine left and right on recent times.

Hitler was also anti-union, pro-capitalist. Promised workers rights never materialized and trade unions were busted and made illegal. That is in line with rightwing policies.

What is also defining is once he took control of the party, he hunted down the leading socialists and all movement towards socialistic change ended.

No healthcare for all, no social equality, no workers rights. No wealth distribution. All of those define leftist movements. It was empty populist rhetoric. You have to look at what he did, not said. He was a populist who promised what a desperate Germany wanted to hear.

The only argument rightwing revisionists can marshal up is he took control of some portions of production and the rhetoric he employed before he came into power.

Compare that to what is associated with extreme rightwing ideologies.

Did I address your points? Or is there more?

 

[Coyote]

Just to add...genocide is not unique to any one ideology. For every Hitler there was a Stalin. It's really not even accurate to define people like that in a simple left right binary. They resemble each other more than mainstream left and right.

 

[Votto]

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

You have nothing to support that claim whatsoever.

I've told no lies and will continue to tell no lies. Not a single part of your post even addresses mine.

6 million slaughtered is all the proof needed.

Thank Hitler for being a leftist, then. If he were a rightist, he wouldn't have murdered people for being different from himself.

He wasn't a leftist, that is you rightwightwingers redefining history with your talking points.

Leftist ideologies move towards class equality, state ownership or people's ownership of means of production and an abolition of private property.

Hitler controlled production direction of those industries critical to the war effort but ownership remained with the industrialists whom he courted and who supported his regime and they retained profits as well. All other manufacturing as well as agriculture remained in private hands.

Hitler espoused some leftist rhetoric early on, but much of that remain ed rhetoric after he killed off the socialists and became powerful.

Both extremes of left and right trend towards authoritarianism despite the right's attempt to redefine left and right on recent times.

Hitler was also anti-union, pro-capitalist. Promised workers rights never materialized and trade unions were busted and made illegal. That is in line with rightwing policies.

What is also defining is once he took control of the party, he hunted down the leading socialists and all movement towards socialistic change ended.

No healthcare for all, no social equality, no workers rights. No wealth distribution. All of those define leftist movements. It was empty populist rhetoric. You have to look at what he did, not said. He was a populist who promised what a desperate Germany wanted to hear.

The only argument rightwing revisionists can marshal up is he took control of some portions of production and the rhetoric he employed before he came into power.

Compare that to what is associated with extreme rightwing ideologies.

Did I address your points? Or is there more?

So the only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler did not own industry in name and Stalin did? Make no mistake, both tyrants dictated what industry did in order to achieve their goals, the only difference was, Hitler realized he was not a CEO and had no business trying to run industry.

Too bad for him that he did not have the same respect for his generals. If he had, he would have faired far better during the war.

Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"

The only thing that mattered to either Hitler or Stalin was control of the masses. How this is done is of little consequence.

Hitler embracing the socialist nanny state was not by accident. Hitler and the Nazi regime were horrified that a war weary population might rise up and revolt as they did during WW1, hence the nanny state to buy them off.

Educate yourself and read this.

https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Bene...lfare/dp/0805087265&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

The German people were so lavished by the Nazi Nanny state that they had a higher standard of living than they did in Ally countries.

In short, Hitler bought the souls of a war weary people steeped in genocide.

Shrug, it worked.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Just to add...genocide is not unique to any one ideology. For every Hitler there was a Stalin. It's really not even accurate to define people like that in a simple left right binary. They resemble each other more than mainstream left and right.

For every authoritarian leftist, there's an authoritarian leftist, got it!