Fascism

[bripat9643]

National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

 

[bripat9643]

.....I also have a Master's Degree from SFSU. Do I now win the pissing contest, or does dogshit claim victory.?

If you are truly that educated, then you should be familiar with the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. I have an MS in International Relations from Troy University. What does that mean other than accomplishing a program of education? Nothing if I cannot back up any discussion on this forum with facts.

I am familiar with the appeal to authority fallacy; the author of the 14-points has a Doctorate in Political Science, which obviates your implied criticism of my point as a logical fallacy. In fact, as I have posted ad nausea, Rense was the first link to pop up when I googled the 14-points, and not making a habit of viewing of hate web sites, I would not and did not know that Rense is an anti Semite.

No one has yet commented on the 14-points used as tools used by demagogues and despots to achieve and maintain power. As you have a Master's in IR, you must have studied the means and methods used to maintain their power by the military and psychological and quasi legal means.

You obviously don't understand what the fallacy of the appeal to authority is. It doesn't mean that your claim is false because your authority isn't legitimate. There are no legitimate authorities when it comes to matters of absolute truth. The theory of gravity is either true or it isn't. It's not true because Isaac Newton says so.

Lawrence Britt is the original author of the "14 points of fascism." He's a marketing executive. He has no credentials that qualify him to make determinations like the one you favor. So, according to your own invalid understanding of the appeal to authority, your claim fails.

All your doing here is proving what a dumbass you are.

 

[bripat9643]

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Wrong.

 

[Coyote]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Wrong. You are bucking the odds of eventually getting something correct. Big business does very well under oppressive left wing control. Go learn some history. The right here has ALWAYS favored the free market. Big business can accommodate government regulation and laws. They can afford a team of lawyers. Small business can't.

I don't think that is right either.

Big business does well under both systems.

The right constantly states the virtues of free market competition but free market competition eventually results in huge monopolies that effectively lock out the small business' and reduce competition.

Likewise, operating under burdonsome regulations favors big business' becuase, like you say they can afford lawyers and afford to accommodate the regulations that small business' can't. But they also do better because they have the money to effectively lobby congress for regulations that favor THEM rather than small competitors. A good example is the farm industry.

Capitalism doesn't exist under fascism...so....

Your use of big is an irrelevant liberal talking point associated with some type of emotional argument, so it's ignored.....

Capitalism can exist under fascism -

National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

Which doesn't occur in fascism.

 

[2aguy]

National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

 

[Coyote]

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Wrong.

Prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Wrong. You are bucking the odds of eventually getting something correct. Big business does very well under oppressive left wing control. Go learn some history. The right here has ALWAYS favored the free market. Big business can accommodate government regulation and laws. They can afford a team of lawyers. Small business can't.

I don't think that is right either.

Big business does well under both systems.

The right constantly states the virtues of free market competition but free market competition eventually results in huge monopolies that effectively lock out the small business' and reduce competition.

Likewise, operating under burdonsome regulations favors big business' becuase, like you say they can afford lawyers and afford to accommodate the regulations that small business' can't. But they also do better because they have the money to effectively lobby congress for regulations that favor THEM rather than small competitors. A good example is the farm industry.

Capitalism doesn't exist under fascism...so....

Your use of big is an irrelevant liberal talking point associated with some type of emotional argument, so it's ignored.....

Capitalism can exist under fascism -

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

Which doesn't occur in fascism.

It most certainly does. You're entirely ignorant of the Third Reich. Everything you think you know is lies.

 

[2aguy]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Wrong. You are bucking the odds of eventually getting something correct. Big business does very well under oppressive left wing control. Go learn some history. The right here has ALWAYS favored the free market. Big business can accommodate government regulation and laws. They can afford a team of lawyers. Small business can't.

I don't think that is right either.

Big business does well under both systems.

The right constantly states the virtues of free market competition but free market competition eventually results in huge monopolies that effectively lock out the small business' and reduce competition.

Likewise, operating under burdonsome regulations favors big business' becuase, like you say they can afford lawyers and afford to accommodate the regulations that small business' can't. But they also do better because they have the money to effectively lobby congress for regulations that favor THEM rather than small competitors. A good example is the farm industry.

Capitalism doesn't exist under fascism...so....

Your use of big is an irrelevant liberal talking point associated with some type of emotional argument, so it's ignored.....

Capitalism can exist under fascism -

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

Which doesn't occur in fascism.

Nope.....capitalism is the free exhcange of goods and services...when the government sets prices, chooses who runs what industry and controls every aspect of the economy...that isn't capitalism...that is socialism......

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Capitalism is the epitome of small government kiddo.....

Defense is enumerated in the big instruction manual.....it's a function of Liberty....so....

And hitlers government was monsterous....as would be expected of left wing fascist governments having nothing to do with capitalism....

Simple explanations used to justify one's ideology are the product of a fool.

Now, as a prophesier, I will predict that owebo & other members of the echo chamber will claim posting the 14-points proves a) I'm a fool, and b) the 14-pts. are not the tools of despots and authoritarians.

Vaticinate this ^^^!

 

[2aguy]

A really good definition of fascism......

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.


Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)


Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

 

[Coyote]

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

 

[Coyote]

A really good definition of fascism......

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.


Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)


Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

From your source:

In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.

In other words - neither one nor the other.

 

[2aguy]

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

No...hitler abhored the international socialists because he wanted control over Germany...he got rid of the competition....the stupid point you morons keep trying to make....that because hitler jailed international communists that that means he couldn't be a socialist himself is really fucking stupid, and childish.......

The drug gang that wins control over a city over all the other drug gangs is still a drug gang...because they torture, and murder other drug gang members that doesn't mean that they themselves are not also drug gang members.....

You should stop making that stupid argument....but you won't...lying is what you assholes do....

 

[Coyote]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

 

[2aguy]

A really good definition of fascism......

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.


Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)


Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

From your source:

In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.

In other words - neither one nor the other.

Moron......it was socialism as stated in the beginning of the definition......

You should just embrace the mass murdering economic system of socialism in all its varieties........this constant lying isn't good for your health....

 

[westwall]

Wiki is not a good source for philosophical discussions. .....

Wiki gets bad rap for some flaws, but even RWNJs use it when it suits them.

The bottom line is that any reference is only as good as it's references. Any Wiki article that is well references with links to easily viewed resources is good. If it isn't, then skepticism is warranted.

Philosophy is an old subject, both literally and figuratively. Why you think Wiki isn't a good source there is a bit puzzling to me. Please provide more specifics.

The problem with wiki is any tom, dick, or harry, can modify it, at ANY time. That's why for anything other than entertainment purposes it is useless.

 

[2aguy]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

There is no free market under fascism moron....the government controls all aspects of the economy.......

 

[bripat9643]

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Wrong.

Prove it.

Business Under Nazis

In 1944, Ludwig von Mises published one of his least-known masterworks: Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War. Drawing on his prewar experience in Vienna, watching the rise of the National Socialists in Germany (the Nazis), who would eventually take over his own homeland, he set out to draw parallels between the Russian and German experience with socialism.

It was common in those days, as it is in ours, to identify the Communists as leftist and the Nazis as rightists, as if they stood on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But Mises knew differently. They both sported the same ideological pedigree of socialism. "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."

The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."

Mises's account is confirmed by a remarkable book that appeared in 1939, published by Vanguard Press in New York City (and unfortunately out of print today). It is The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism by Guenter Reimann, then a 35-year-old German writer. Through contacts with German business owners, Reimann documented how the "monster machine" of the Nazis crushed the autonomy of the private sector through onerous regulations, harsh inspections, and the threat of confiscatory fines for petty offenses.

"Industrialists were visited by state auditors who had strict orders to examine the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company or individual businessmen for the preceding two, three, or more years until some error or false entry was found," explains Reimann. "The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error."

Reimann quotes from a businessman's letter: "You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except 'distributing the wealth.' Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.

"While state representatives are busily engaged in investigating and interfering, our agents and salesmen are handicapped because they never know whether or not a sale at a higher price will mean denunciation as a 'profiteer' or 'saboteur,' followed by a prison sentence. You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain. Everywhere there is a growing undercurrent of bitterness. Everyone has his doubts about the system, unless he is very young, very stupid, or is bound to it by the privileges he enjoys.

"There are terrible times coming. If only I had succeeded in smuggling out $10,000 or even $5,000, I would leave Germany with my family. Business friends of mine are convinced that it will be the turn of the 'white Jews' (which means us, Aryan businessmen) after the Jews have been expropriated. The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that we are still independent businessmen."

As Mises says, we are "independent" only in a decorous sense. Under fascism, explains this businessman, the capitalist "must be servile to the representatives of the state" and "must not insist on rights, and must not behave as if his private property rights were still sacred." It's the businessman, characteristically independent, who is "most likely to get into trouble with the Gestapo for having grumbled incautiously."

"Of all businessmen, the small shopkeeper is the one most under control and most at the mercy of the party," recounts Reimann. "The party man, whose goodwill he must have, does not live in faraway Berlin; he lives right next door or right around the corner. This local Hitler gets a report every day on what is discussed in Herr Schultz's bakery and Herr Schmidt's butcher shop. He would regard these men as 'enemies of the state' if they complained too much. That would mean, at the very least, the cutting of their quota of scarce and hence highly desirable goods, and it might mean the loss of their business licenses. Small shopkeepers and artisans are not to grumble."

"Officials, trained only to obey orders, have neither the desire, the equipment, nor the vision to modify rules to suit individual situations," Reimann explains. "The state bureaucrats, therefore, apply these laws rigidly and mechanically, without regard for the vital interests of essential parts of the national economy. Their only incentive to modify the letter of the law is in bribes from businessmen, who for their part use bribery as their only means of obtaining relief from a rigidity which they find crippling."

Says another businessman: "Each business move has become very complicated and is full of legal traps which the average businessman cannot determine because there are so many new decrees. All of us in business are constantly in fear of being penalized for the violation of some decree or law."

Business owners, explains another entrepreneur, cannot exist without a "collaborator," i.e., a "lawyer" with good contacts in the Nazi bureaucracy, one who "knows exactly how far you can circumvent the law." Nazi officials, explains Reimann, "obtain money for themselves by merely taking it from capitalists who have funds available with which to purchase influence and protection," paying for their protection "as did the helpless peasants of feudal days."

"It has gotten to the point where I cannot talk even in my own factory," laments a factory owner. "Accidentally, one of the workers overheard me grumbling about some new bureaucratic regulation and he immediately denounced me to the party and the Labor Front office."

Reports another factory owner: "The greater part of the week I don't see my factory at all. All this time I spend in visiting dozens of government commissions and offices in order to get raw materials I need. Then there are various tax problems to settle and I must have continual conferences and negotiations with the Price Commission. It sometimes seems as if I do nothing but that, and everywhere I go there are more leaders, party secretaries, and commissars to see." In this totalitarian paradigm, a businessman, declares a Nazi decree, "practices his functions primarily as a representative of the State, only secondarily for his own sake." Complain, warns a Nazi directive, and "we shall take away the freedom still left you."

In 1933, six years before Reimann's book, Victor Klemperer, a Jewish academic in Dresden, made the following entry in his diary on February 21: "It is a disgrace that gets worse with every day that passes. And there's not a sound from anyone. Everyone's keeping his head down."

It is impossible to escape the parallels between Guenter Reimann's account of doing business under the Nazis and the "compassionate," "responsible," and regulated "capitalism" of today's U.S. economy. At least the German government was frank enough to give the right name to its system of economic control.

 

[Contumacious]

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

No...hitler abhored the international socialists because he wanted control over Germany...he got rid of the competition....the stupid point you morons keep trying to make....that because hitler jailed international communists that that means he couldn't be a socialist himself is really fucking stupid, and childish.......

The drug gang that wins control over a city over all the other drug gangs is still a drug gang...because they torture, and murder other drug gang members that doesn't mean that they themselves are not also drug gang members.....

You should stop making that stupid argument....but you won't...lying is what you assholes do....

Fascism is a BRANCH OF SOCIALISM

But fascists understand that government owned factories and other means of production suck.

So they depend of PRIVATE entrepreneurs to manage the means of production under massive government regulation and control.

Hitler relied on the Krupp Family to build his military armaments.

.

 

[westwall]

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?