Fascism

[Dogmaphobe]

I find it awfully ironic that this article is printed on Rense.com -- a viciously antisemitic conspiracy hate site.

Jeff Rense - RationalWiki

Does Rense hang out with Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor?

Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.

You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.

 

[owebo]

I find it awfully ironic that this article is printed on Rense.com -- a viciously antisemitic conspiracy hate site.

Jeff Rense - RationalWiki

Does Rense hang out with Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor?

Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.

You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.

Who did you vote for?

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

True about modification, but since I mentioned using it as a source of references, your point is moot.

"Any Wiki article that is well references with links to easily viewed resources is good. If it isn't, then skepticism is warranted."

Example, the Wiki article on the Second Amendment. While any "tom, dick, or harry" can write that only means a militia can be armed, unless that statement is backed up with proof, it's just unsubstantiated opinion. As it is, the article has over 264 numbered references and dozens more of unnumbered ones. Wiki should be considered a starting point, not an end point.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
....The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state....

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I find it awfully ironic that this article is printed on Rense.com -- a viciously antisemitic conspiracy hate site.

Jeff Rense - RationalWiki

Does Rense hang out with Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor?

Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.

You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.

Who did you vote for?

For the first time since 1972, I voted for nobody at all.

I would have voted for Jim Web had he gained any traction, though.

 

[westwall]

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?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

You have to first disabuse yourself of the notion that collective governments are not authoritarian. ALL collectivist government types are authoritarian. They have to be. That's how they exist. The question is only how severe is that authoritarianism. The Fabian Socialists have spent decades teaching you the beliefs that you have now. It is a level of propaganda that has never been seen before and the reason for that is they want power. Thus, if they can convince you that fascism is right wing, and soviet style socialism is left wing, they win regardless of which government "type" wins the election.

You must return to the original concept of government, which IS linear. It's a simple teeter-totter, one side is total government control. And the opposite side, therefore must be, anarchy. That is the fundamental basis from which any philosophical discussion about government, and being governed must begin from. Government is NOT circular. That is a carefully constructed lie that has been promulgated to convince you that the only choices are between leftwing socialism, and rightwing socialism.

I hope you noticed that socialism is the one common denominator. The fabians don't care which variety of socialism wins, they just care that at the end of the day you are under socialist rule.



"Fabian Society, socialist society founded in 1884 in London, having as its goal the establishment of a democratic socialist state in Great Britain. The Fabians put their faith in evolutionary socialism rather than in revolution.

The name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured his ultimate victory over stronger forces. Its founding is attributed to Thomas Davidson, a Scottish philosopher, and its early members included George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Annie Besant, Edward Pease, and Graham Wallas. Shaw and Webb, later joined by Webb’s wife, Beatrice, were the outstanding leaders of the society for many years. In 1889 the society published its best-known tract, Fabian Essays in Socialism, edited by Shaw. It was followed in 1952 by New Fabian Essays, edited by Richard H.S. Crossman.

The Fabians at first attempted to permeate the Liberal and Conservative parties with socialist ideas, but later they helped to organize the separate Labour Representation Committee, which became the Labour Party in 1906. The Fabian Society has since been affiliated with the Labour Party.

The national membership of the Fabian Society has never been very great (at its peak in 1946 it had only about 8,400 members), but the importance of the society has always been much greater than its size might suggest. Generally, a large number of Labour members of Parliament in the House of Commons, as well as many of the party leaders, are Fabians, and, in addition to the national society, there are scores of local Fabian societies."

Fabian Society | socialist society

 

[bripat9643]

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?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

As I already explained, your "four square" model is horseshit. The axis don't measure anything real. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's how it works. The items on your list are nothing but opinions expressed by leftwing humbugs.

I already quoted Hitler saying that Fascism had much in common with communism, yet here you are claiming they are exact opposites.

 

[owebo]

I find it awfully ironic that this article is printed on Rense.com -- a viciously antisemitic conspiracy hate site.

Jeff Rense - RationalWiki

Does Rense hang out with Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor?

Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.

You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.

Who did you vote for?

For the first time since 1972, I voted for nobody at all.

I would have voted for Jim Web had he gained any traction, though.

Then don't bitch....

That's worse than voting for Hillary......and saddens me greatly....

 

[kaz]

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.

You don't take someone seriously who says Hitler and Mussolini respect private property? Hmm ... me either ...

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In Coyote's universe, a law against theft prevents people from stealing from the rich. That means laws against stealing support the rich. That's how the leftist mind works.

and in Coyote's world, mass-murdering Islamists are heroes, so anything she says should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I find it awfully ironic that this article is printed on Rense.com -- a viciously antisemitic conspiracy hate site.

Jeff Rense - RationalWiki

Does Rense hang out with Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor?

Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.

You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.

Who did you vote for?

For the first time since 1972, I voted for nobody at all.

I would have voted for Jim Web had he gained any traction, though.

Then don't bitch....

That's worse than voting for Hillary......and saddens me greatly....

How is it worse? I saw nobody I respected enough to earn my vote.

 

[westwall]

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.

True about modification, but since I mentioned using it as a source of references, your point is moot.

"Any Wiki article that is well references with links to easily viewed resources is good. If it isn't, then skepticism is warranted."

Example, the Wiki article on the Second Amendment. While any "tom, dick, or harry" can write that only means a militia can be armed, unless that statement is backed up with proof, it's just unsubstantiated opinion. As it is, the article has over 264 numbered references and dozens more of unnumbered ones. Wiki should be considered a starting point, not an end point.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
....The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state....

No. My point still stands. There are many other sources for factual information. Wiki still has problems with the references as well. That's the point.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.

I agree - the state was the ultimate authority - but that makes it authoritarian, not socialist. I think it's inaccurate to label everything in which the state or a specific leader through the state controls aspects of economy and society as "socialist" because socialism has some very specific defining characteristics.

When you state:

In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.​

I remember reading about that - but it points out two things. One is that the Nazi's were rather unique in ideology. Historians have frequently identified them as neither left nor right, but a bastard born of Hitler's schitzophrenic mind. Nazi ideology was race based, not class based. It's nationalism was race based - centered on the racial superiority of the Germans and "Aryan" racial stock. It was horrible in that women were encouraged and in some cases forced to be breeders for the state. That is not socialism however - the relationship of the people to the state in that fashion is fascism.

Stalin departed somewhat from socialism/communism into a strict authoritarian state and his way of enforcing his authority was to dilute minorities with Russians through forced transfer of people. Entire communities of people for forceably moved to Siberia and entire communities of ethnic Russians were moved to Ukraine, Georgia etc. That's in addition to the mass killings.

Both of those represent authoritarian extremes of different ideologies - fascism and communism.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Does Rense hang out with Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor?

Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.

You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.

Who did you vote for?

For the first time since 1972, I voted for nobody at all.

I would have voted for Jim Web had he gained any traction, though.

Then don't bitch....

That's worse than voting for Hillary......and saddens me greatly....

How is it worse? I saw nobody I respected enough to earn my vote.

I'm not bitching at the outcome at all. I just think it's silly how many extremely stupid leftists cast me as some sort of member of the right simply because I don't goose step to every conceivable authoritarian leftist talking point.

 

[kaz]

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.

Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression

 

[Coyote]

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.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.

Communism controls the people through ownership of industry...

Fascism controls industry through ownership of the people....

Your post is spot on and it is really that simple, and it drives the fascist left nuts....

Great point, with one correction: it drives the fascist right nuts.

 

[owebo]

Does Rense hang out with Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor?

Ask that of somebody who supports Trump.

You hyper-partisan hacks playing this simple-minded game you do only makes you look foolish and not the ones who reject it.

Who did you vote for?

For the first time since 1972, I voted for nobody at all.

I would have voted for Jim Web had he gained any traction, though.

Then don't bitch....

That's worse than voting for Hillary......and saddens me greatly....

How is it worse? I saw nobody I respected enough to earn my vote.

I voted America.....there were two qualified candidates in contention, not participating cracks the foundation of America.....

 

[owebo]

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

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.

Communism controls the people through ownership of industry...

Fascism controls industry through ownership of the people....

Your post is spot on and it is really that simple, and it drives the fascist left nuts....

Great point, with one correction: it drives the fascist right nuts.

There is no such thing....

 

[Coyote]

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 -

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.

Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

 

[kaz]

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.

How were Russia, North Korea, Cuba or China less nationalistic than Germany. You are just making it up

 

[Iceweasel]

Great point, with one correction: it drives the fascist right nuts.

Which country?