Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ROFLMNAO! So you're claiming that the leader of the "German Workers National Socialist Party" was not a socialist?
I SO adore the sweeter Ironies.
You live in an exceedingly simple world borne of ignorance. Nationalist Socialism simply does not fit into the predigested mold you have adopted and there is no amount of evidence that can change that dogma. I've often seen this, usually by those, who in their own self-righteousness and stupidity are completely unreceptive to any contradiction. In other words, intellectual pipsqueaks.As far as I know, Stormfront is neo-Nazi. Do you seriously expect an explanation why they embrace Hitler?
No, I don't. I understand it perfectly.
Stormfront embraces fascism because both are extreme rightwing movements.
I have no idea why you are struggling to understand that.
Socialism and communism are very, very closely linked. So yes, being anti-socialist is without question incompatable with communism and visa versa.
btw, My world view doesn't come into this. We know from 60+ years of recorded history that fascism is right wing, and most dictionaries will confirm as much.
He attacked capitalism too, small government, free enterprise, individuality. You are lost in space.So it comes down to believing Hitler or the political scientists? Most university bookstores carry small booklets on political ideologies, booklets used in political science classes that explain the various ideologies. Of course, some Americans would rather believe Hitler.
This seems to be it, yes. Which would make sense if Hitler hadn't made even more speeches attacking communism, liberalism and everything possible about the left wing.
He did make some staggeringly contradictory statements, though.
He says he was. So you think you know Hitler better than Hitler knew Hitler.You'd have to be pretty extreme to think Hitler a socialist.
So the pursuit of good, or that which recognizes, respects, defends and adheres TO the natural laws which govern human behavior is CAPABLE of evil?
And this you want to set against the capacity for evil in those who REJECT THOSE LAWS?
If you were an intelligent person, you'd realize that your speech represents a perversion of human reasoning, advancing disorder as order; which for those keeping score, serves as a function of evil.
Now HOW COOL is THAT?
ROFLMNAO! So you're claiming that the leader of the "German Workers National Socialist Party" was not a socialist?
I SO adore the sweeter Ironies.
Yep. Why? Er... because I know my history.
You'd have to be pretty extreme to think Hitler a socialist.
LOL. This guy is still trying to sound smart. Arbitrary directives simplify nothing. Just the opposite. If your son is OK now it's because he got over the bizarre upbringing.I imagine you function better with arbitrary and finite directives that simplify your world down to your ability to understand it, thus giving you the comfort that comes with certainty.
So the pursuit of good, or that which recognizes, respects, defends and adheres TO the natural laws which govern human behavior is CAPABLE of evil?
And this you want to set against the capacity for evil in those who REJECT THOSE LAWS?
If you were an intelligent person, you'd realize that your speech represents a perversion of human reasoning, advancing disorder as order; which for those keeping score, serves as a function of evil.
Now HOW COOL is THAT?
You are a child.
I imagine you function better with arbitrary and finite directives that simplify your world down to your ability to understand it, thus giving you the comfort that comes with certainty.
LOL. This guy is still trying to sound smart. Arbitrary directives simplify nothing. Just the opposite. If your son is OK now it's because he got over the bizarre upbringing.I imagine you function better with arbitrary and finite directives that simplify your world down to your ability to understand it, thus giving you the comfort that comes with certainty.
You guys are living in a parallel universe.Hitler was not a Socialist. Is that so hard to get?
Articles Forward They Cried
Hitler practiced "state socialism," a dictatorship with a goal of near absolute economic control for economic development and national power, all supposedly to benefit the people. Hitler said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak." And, "Fascists were convinced that, as Hitler told an enthusiastic Mussolini, 'capitalism has run its course'."
He says he was. So you think you know Hitler better than Hitler knew Hitler.You'd have to be pretty extreme to think Hitler a socialist.
That's special.
He says he was. So you think you know Hitler better than Hitler knew Hitler.You'd have to be pretty extreme to think Hitler a socialist.
That's special.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Hmm... Now Hitler set policy which did what?
Which is to ask, did he set policy which provided that individual Germans were rightfully entitled to the product of their labor? Did he set policy which provided that each individual was sovereign unto themselves, and who were simply governed by their own responsibility to not usurp the means of others to exercise their own rights?
OR... did Hitler establish policy which set the STATE as de facto owner of all that was within its grasp?
Again... let's review:
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Hitler: A politician who held the economic theory of stringent social organization, who advocated that the means of production, and the exchange were owned and regulated by HIM; who's desire represented the desires of the community as a whole, and where individuals who disagreed were summarily murdered, with their property being summarily distributed to those who agreed with the community as a whole.
Now... 'feel' carefully here, because this is farily straightforward and that is always tricky stuff for the Intellectually Less Fortunate.
You guys are living in a parallel universe.Hitler was not a Socialist. Is that so hard to get?
Articles Forward They Cried
Hitler practiced "state socialism," a dictatorship with a goal of near absolute economic control for economic development and national power, all supposedly to benefit the people. Hitler said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak." And, "Fascists were convinced that, as Hitler told an enthusiastic Mussolini, 'capitalism has run its course'."
I'm looking at your articles. Not sure who wrote the bit when you click "state socialism", just some person, it's not a peer reviewed article or anything like this. I wonder if this person is a right wing person with an agenda or not.
However, I'll take what is there.
Hitler was right wing because he had a hierarchical society. The idea that the Aryans (whoever they were) were higher than others. Hitler was at the top, his cronies were just below him, those in the Nazi Party were above those who weren't.
He did have a form of govt that required people to do what he wanted them to do. This is generally what extremism is. However turning this into Socialism is a big, BIG leap.
O'Hara, Phillip (September 2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2.Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 0-415-24187-1.
"In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialized ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity."
The problem I have with saying Hitler was a socialist is that Socialism comes at this from the point of view that it's about the people. That the people come first.
Hitler wasn't about "the people", he had this hierarchy. The Jews were part of the people. In theory Socialism would be inclusive, Hitler was exclusive. There is a big difference.
Hitler Socialism
Here's a nice quote.
"this is rather like using the example of East Germany, the German Democratic Republic, to discredit democracy"
However:
"In 1927, Hitler said: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”[51] Yet two years later, in 1929, Hitler backtracked, saying that socialism was “an unfortunate word altogether” and that “if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism”. Historian Henry A. Turner reports Hitler’s regret at having integrated the word socialism to the Nazi Party name.[52] The Nazi Party’s early self-description as “socialist” caused conservative opponents, such as the Industrial Employers Association, to describe it as “totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist”."
Now, the thing with the 1927 quote is that you need to take the context of Hitler and Germany at this time. The first is that the Monarchy prior to WW1 was shamed by surrender. The nationalists like Hitler wanted to get rid of such a system that existed at this time. He did want the poor to rise up against these people.
However Hitler was put in to the DAP (forerunner of the NSDAP) as a spy. This was around 1919 and he was attracted to the ideals of this party which were anti-Semitic, Nationalistic, Racist but also about the working people. It's not that they were Socialists, but they did want the people to rise up against the regime. Now, int he period of time from 1919 to 1933, Hitler would probably have come across quite a lot of different views, potentially accepting something and then rejecting it quickly. This doesn't mean he was a Socialist.
Hitler changed the name of DAP to NSDAP, putting the National Socialist part in front. Hitler wanted this to be Social Revolution Party but he was convinced otherwise.
Now the interesting part here is why did they use the term "National Socialism"? I'd say you can see similar tactics in European far-right groups today. The almost dead BNP from the UK is one perfect example. They have no qualms about using words in a way which makes them look better than they actually are.
Here's some bits of what he said (to people like David Duke former KKK grand wizard.):
"There's a difference between setting out your ideas and selling your ideas and the British National Party isn't about setting out its ideas, which are **** ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, but that means basically to use the same old words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy, nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas, they are saleable. "
"So, instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity."
Other far right parties do the same. Hitler also did something similar.
National Socialism was about putting GERMAN workers first. The BNP would always talk about doing things for the "British people" but would mean white British, not all British. But you'd have to know the meaning of the words to understand what was being said.
They weren't against Capitalism. Look at the names of the Airplanes from WW2. Messerschmitt, Heinkel and so on, they were private companies producing goods in a capitalist manner. Messerschmitt needed contracts from the Nazis, but still, it was a profitable business, and it went broke after WW2 because no one wanted his planes any more, because of the name.
So Socialist the National Socialists weren't. You can call the National Socialists, but National Socialists were hardly Socialists. They were for the German people, against the traditional powers that had been up until 1918, but not for all people.
ROFLMNAO!
I guess I never will tire of watching individuals try to rationalize familiar socialism with state socialism.
The former is limited to small 'familial' groups, and works perfectly well, because of the means of the family to hold one another ACCOUNTABLE. The latter can NOT WORK... because it lacks the familiar accountability which is CENTRAL to the potential for success.
The discussion of the 'innumerable' facets of socialism is ABSURD... because without regard to HOW IT IS SUPPOSE TO WORK, and the endless 'perspectives' on HOW TO GET THERE are ALL TRUMPED BY HUMAN NATURE. And the catastrophe that was EUGENICS, established for all time that Human Nature trumps 'environmental re-education' every single time.
Socialism is IDIOCY ON PARADE and the advocacy of it serves purely as a function of relativism, wherein the NEED of the child to BE ENTITLED TO OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF without the bother of EARNING IT FOR THEMSELVES, overwhelms reality.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Hmm... Now Hitler set policy which did what?
Which is to ask, did he set policy which provided that individual Germans were rightfully entitled to the product of their labor? Did he set policy which provided that each individual was sovereign unto themselves, and who were simply governed by their own responsibility to not usurp the means of others to exercise their own rights?
OR... did Hitler establish policy which set the STATE as de facto owner of all that was within its grasp?
Again... let's review:
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Hitler: A politician who held the economic theory of stringent social organization, who advocated that the means of production, and the exchange were owned and regulated by HIM; who's desire represented the desires of the community as a whole, and where individuals who disagreed were summarily murdered, with their property being summarily distributed to those who agreed with the community as a whole.
Now... 'feel' carefully here, because this is farily straightforward and that is always tricky stuff for the Intellectually Less Fortunate.
11 Companies That Surprisingly Collaborated With the Nazis - 11 Points
Kodak, Hugo Boss, Volkswagen, Bayer, Siemens, Messerschmitt, Junkers, Heinkel, Krupp. Here's some PRIVATE COMPANIES that worked in Nazi Germany. Germany companies at that.
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
"Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany "
"Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. "
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany"
Did Hitler own everything? No he did not.
What's this got to do with what I actually wrote?
One claim that I'veseen quite often made on this board is that Hitler was left-wing, and not right-wing as almost every book on the subject states.
This is a complex topic, and I can certainly understand some of the confusion. Both Hitler and Stalin were dictators with a lot in common, and the origins of Nazism do lie on both the left and right wings, and yet generally speaking there is very little controversy or disagreement about this topic amongst historians and experts.
Prior coming to this board I don’t think that I had ever heard the theory before – and certainly not on Stormfront, where the extreme right idolizes the man and is proud to do so. History has recorded fascism as being right wing since the late-1930’s, and most dictionaries confirm the standard definition.
I think there are three misconceptions and four overlooked factors that explain why people have become confused about this, and I’ll run through those seven points here. This IS complex, so do read the points carefully before making knee-jerk comments.
Misconception #1: Hitler attacked conservatives and capitalism
At some stage in his career, Hitler attacked almost everyone. He was a master of playing to the crowd, and prior to the age of the internet, he could attack capitalism in one crowd on one day, and attack socialism in another crowd on another day without a powerful media to point out the often obvious contradictions.
When he first joined the Nazi party it was very much a populist party that combined left and right wing themes, and in early speeches, Hitler tended to follow the party line of trying to draw on working class support. Attacking traditional conservatism both achieved this goal and helped differentiate the Nazis from potential right-wing rivals. Most of the quotes of Hitler criticizing capitalism come from this early era, prior to his refocusing of the party during the mid- to late 1930’s.Even so, he continued to attack conservatism to differentiate Nazis from other, earlier conservative parties, establishing Nazism as an entirely new concept well to the right of existing conservatism.
Misconception #2: Hitler backed big government, hence was left wing.
The myth here is not that Hitler backed big government – of course, he did – but that there were other parties in Europe in 1939 who did not. The whole concept of small government is both relatively recent and relatively American. Prior to Reagan and Thatcher’s administrations, it was rarely used to differentiate left from right, because in 1939 every government in the world was big and state controlled. As late as the 1970’s a lot of strong right wing governments backed massive bureaucracy and state control. What made them right wing were positions on economic and social factors that were considered far more crucial than the idea of a streamlined administration. In short, only recently has small government been seen as a key ideological issue.
Misconception #3: Stalin and Hitler’s regimes were both dictators – so must have been left wing.
Yes, they were both dictators, and all dictators will control the press, the prisons and judiciary. However, dictatorships can occur on the left wing (Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) and on the extreme right wing (Cristiani, Franco, Rios Montte) both within fascism and in slightly more moderate forms such as Pinochet. People often post Hitler’s famous 25 Points as being evidence of left-wing policy, whereas actually they are more evidence of extremism and tyranny. Most politicians do ‘borrow’ policies when it makes sense to do so, but without compromising their ideological core. Hitler did this often and more than other fascists.
Right wing factors #1: Capital
This is one topic I think most of us can agree on: communism is about removing capital from the equation. In a perfect communist system, there is no money. All production is of, by and for the state. Fascism, on the other hand, is all about capital. Private investors pour money into shares, and earn huge dividends. Thus the middle and upper classes are bought off, their loyalty established, and the economy functions on a cycle of strong investments and the free flow of money through the domestic economy. The middle class blossoms. Under Communism, the middle class is crushed. In this, fascism and communism are polar opposites.
This alone clearly defines a right-wing capitalist society in opposition to a left-wing, anti-capitalist regime.
Right wing factor #2: Class
Communism looks to smash the middle and upper classes, and create a society in which workers rule. The perfect communist system is without class. Fascism is based on class distinctions and in particular in the loyalty of the middle and upper classes. The aristocracy were the key people in Hitler’s world view. While he played to the workers and gave them rousing speeches, in fact they were intended to work hard and remain quiet. It was the upper classes who would benefit from the surging economy and expansion into neighbouring countries.
Right wing factor #3: Other fascist leaders
Hitler is only one example of fascism. There are several others. Franco’s Spain, Paraguay’s Stroessner and particularly Romania’s Antonescu all provide a portrait of fascism that are often less confused that Hitler. All of these states were fiercely anti-Communist, all enjoyed some support from the aristocracy (or even royalty) and all were fundamentally capitalist. Antonescu, in particular, is often seen the as link between Fascism and Conservatism.
Right wing factor #4: Minorities & religion
For all Lenin’s faults, he was not a racist. Communists have always opposed racism, with the Soviet ‘One nation, many peoples’ ideal the polar opposite of fascist racism. Under Lenin and Stalin, the Politburo favoured Azeris, Armenians, Kazaks and even the occasional Jew! Under fascism, minorities were more often rounded up and slaughtered, and all fascist regimes have been fiercely anti-Semitic and antizigaist.
Likewise with religion, where Communism sought to dismantle and crush all religious activity, fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance. This is particularly clear in Romania, with Antonescu enjoying strong links with the Orthodox Church.
I would also add in that all of the major academic biographies and histories of the regime that I am aware of discuss Hitler's right-wing ideology in detail. No doubt there are a few partisan attempts to say otherwise, but I doubt there are many written by genuine historians.
The greatest murderers of the 20th century, all socialists:
Mao 60 million
Stalin 40 million
Hitler 30 million
