# Why did Hitler use the word bourgeois in Mein Kamp in a negative light over and over



## ihopehefails (Jan 24, 2010)

Why did Hitler use the word bourgeois in Mein Kamp in a negative light over and over again?

Any answers?


----------



## elvis (Jan 24, 2010)

Kampf.  nazis were anti-capitalist.


----------



## ihopehefails (Jan 24, 2010)

elvis said:


> Kampf.  nazis were anti-capitalist.



I think they described their economic theory as national capitalism which suggest that the government runs every private business the way they want them to run.  It wasn't really free enterprise where individuals do it their way.   They had to do it the NAZI way.


----------



## Sidestreamer (Jan 24, 2010)

They called themselves National Socialists. Hitler wanted every German citizen who was white and non-Jewish to have a Volkswagen Beetle. And he wanted the Jewish and minority-owned businesses to be taken over by the so-called superior race.

Why do you ask?


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Jan 24, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Kampf.  nazis were anti-capitalist.
> ...



Exactly, only individual Germans did do it their way through free enterprise. The Third Reich was also against international Socialism, which is what most Socialists of today are, like the madman Obama. However, Hitler was without a doubt a Capitalist, Just ask Krupp, Daimler and Bosch. His comments towards the bourgeois, which basically means The upper class, was used in his early days to unite the middle class workers of Germany. Once he was appointed to Chancellor, actually a few years before after exiting prison, He backed off that rhetoric. People label Hitler a socialist because of his record of uniting workers which they ignorantly relate to Socialist Unions which he was strongly against. Take note here in Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf..........

_National Socialist workers and employers are both together the delegates and mandatories of the whole national community. The large measure of personal freedom which is accorded to them for their activities must be explained by the fact that experience has shown that the productive powers of the individual are more enhanced by being accorded a generous measure of freedom than by coercion from above. Moreover, by according this freedom we give free play to the natural process of selection which brings forward the ablest and most capable and most industrious._

One has to understand that once Hitler became the leader of Germany, it would have been suicidal for him to be anti-Capitalist. Even prior to that he was funded by many Capitalists. The only time you get to overthrow Capitalism within a nation is by revolution like in Russia and China. Hitler tried his Revolution with the beer hall putsch and failed. That is why he changed his tactics. Hitler did some bad things, but the bullshit concerning this Man's political beliefs is pilled so high it touches the moon. ~BH


----------



## Xenophon (Jan 24, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Why did Hitler use the word bourgeois in Mein Kamp in a negative light over and over again?
> 
> Any answers?


It was common rhetoric in class warfare, then as now.

The Nazi movement in the early 1920s was very grass roots against teh establishment, ergo the language of the street was used by Hitler.

Adolph in fact loathed the middle class he himself was part of, and loved in his own mind the simple German peasant farmer which was his ideal German.

In short, he was a nut.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Jan 25, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Why did Hitler use the word bourgeois in Mein Kamp in a negative light over and over again?
> 
> Any answers?



Why is it always the right wingers who are SO infatuated with Adolf Hitler?


----------



## editec (Jan 25, 2010)

He saw the bourgeois class as being selfish to the point that their combined actions lead to eonomic ruin of the nation, perhaps?

Just guessing of course.

Trying to understand the ravings of a madman isn't a very productive use of one's time.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 25, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Why did Hitler use the word bourgeois in Mein Kamp in a negative light over and over again?
> 
> Any answers?


  Perhaps for the same reason Fox does when they speak of AIG. Fox just uses 'corporate interests' or 'special interests' or 'the big banks' so they can still rail against 'teh kommunists' despite echoing Marx's warnings about the Bourgeoisie's (rich people) exploitation of the laborer ('working class' or 'middle class')


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Why did Hitler use the word bourgeois in Mein Kamp in a negative light over and over again?
> 
> Any answers?



Nazi's were anti-capitalist socialists.


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 25, 2010)

Because the power of words is often in deception. 

"The SA wore grey jackets, brown shirts (khaki shirts originally intended for soldiers in Africa but purchased in bulk from the German Army by the Nazi Party), swastika armbands, ski-caps, knee-breeches, thick woolen socks and combat boots. Accompanied by bands of musicians and carrying swastika flags, they would parade through the streets of Munich. *At the end of the march Hitler would make one of his passionate speeches that encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of violence against Jews and his left-wing political opponents.

As this violence was often directed against Socialists and Communists, the local right-wing Bavarian government did not take action against the Nazi Party.* However, the national government in Berlin were concerned and passed a "Law for the Protection of the Republic". Hitler's response was to organize a rally attended by 40,000 people. At the meeting Hitler called for the overthrow of the German government and even suggested that its leaders should be executed."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm


"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." Richard Feynman


----------



## ihopehefails (Jan 25, 2010)

BolshevikHunter said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



I want to read the writings of other national socialist and I bet it will say similar things about their view of capitalism but did you notice the tone in this little snippet of Hitler's writings?   It is, we will let them have the freedom to conduct business because it serves some national goal like:



> Moreover, by according this freedom we give free play to the natural process of selection which brings forward the ablest and most capable and most industrious



It was like you have the freedom to do what you want but only because it serves our needs.   

I think this is what made National Socialism slightly different that communism.   Communism removed every aspect of the individual while national socialism realized that individual ambitions should serve the purpose of the state.  It was not free will because an individual could not serve his own purpose but instead channeled to serve the purpose of the national community.   

This is what made fascism hyper-patriotic, in my opinion.


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 25, 2010)

National socialism incorporated the power of the state with the productive capacities of capitalism, thus becoming fascism.  Communism requires the social ownership of the means of production and distribution is planned rather than left to market mechanisms (in theory).  But national socialism sees itself as a final phase of human development, communism seems itself as transitory to anarchism, where the individual is allowed to become truly free.  National socialism is an end in itself, communism is merely a means to an end.


----------



## ihopehefails (Jan 25, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> National socialism incorporated the power of the state with the productive capacities of capitalism, thus becoming fascism.  Communism requires the social ownership of the means of production and distribution is planned rather than left to market mechanisms (in theory).  But national socialism sees itself as a final phase of human development, communism seems itself as transitory to anarchism, where the individual is allowed to become truly free.  National socialism is an end in itself, communism is merely a means to an end.



Exactly.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 25, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> communism seems itself as transitory to anarchism, .


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 26, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1943509 said:
			
		

> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > communism seems itself as transitory to anarchism, .



In the sense of no government, no centralised state structure.


----------

