Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews

[garyd]

The only difference between National socialism and socialism is the the national part. And almost none of what you just said was part of Moussolini's Fascist party. Moussolini's Fscism was an economic movement as much as a political movement and Moussolini always claimed to be a socialist. Fascism and Naziism are not identical by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing Fascist Italy actually spent Italian blood trying to save jews from Hitler's ovens.

You really need to read Jonah Goldberg's excellent book "Liberal Fascism"

 

[paperview]

The only difference between National socialism and socialism is the the national part. And almost none of what you just said was part of Moussolini's Fascist party. Moussolini's Fscism was an economic movement as much as a political movement and Moussolini always claimed to be a socialist. Fascism and Naziism are not identical by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing Fascist Italy actually spent Italian blood trying to save jews from Hitler's ovens.

You really need to read Jonah Goldberg's excellent book "Liberal Fascism"

Oh Brother.

That piece of shit by Mommy Dearest Goldberg is the biggest pile of crap to ever be put to print.

 

[garyd]

name one thing he said tha was in error and provide references to prove it wrong.

 

[Political Junky]

In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews. So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans. Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.

Begin excerpt:

Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word ‘Nazi”, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to ‘Sozi’. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be ‘the socialism of fools’. But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the ‘November traitors’ who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.
The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of ‘party’, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of ‘National Socialist movement’, just as the Social Democrats had talked of “workers’ movement” or, come to that, the feminists of the ‘women’s movement’ and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of ‘youth movement’. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Party’s official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920’s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans pp. 173-74

I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly. They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty. No wonder?

 

[garyd]

Also wrong, Pre Nazi Germany had several socialist parties.

 

[elvis]

Also wrong, Pre Nazi Germany had several socialist parties.

they had a communist party, a socialist party, and about 25 other parties.

 

[garyd]

Half the parties in Germany called themselves some ind of socialistr or the other.

 

[Ringel05]

In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews. So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans. Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.

Begin excerpt:

Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word ‘Nazi”, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to ‘Sozi’. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be ‘the socialism of fools’. But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the ‘November traitors’ who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.
The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of ‘party’, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of ‘National Socialist movement’, just as the Social Democrats had talked of “workers’ movement” or, come to that, the feminists of the ‘women’s movement’ and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of ‘youth movement’. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Party’s official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920’s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans pp. 173-74

I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly. They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty. No wonder?

When it comes to a post like this, I am tempted to say the same thing, but I believe the ugly irony of that truth would be lost on the author of this thread.

I may be mistaken but wasn't Richard Evans a Social Democrat?

 

[garyd]

I believe you are correct. this is in fact one of the earlier revisionist attempts to make both Hitler and Mussolini into something neither one actually was especially so in the case of Mussolini.

 

[paperview]

name one thing he said tha was in error and provide references to prove it wrong.

You're kidding, right?

 

[paperview]

I'm a little too tired tonght to write out something original.

I can point you here though, to get you started:

"...Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.



The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.



Indeed, Goldberg even makes some use of Orwell, noting that the author of 1984 once dismissed the misuse of "fascism" as meaning "something not desirable." Of course, Orwell was railing against the loss of the word's meaning, while Goldberg, conversely, revels in it -- he refers to Orwell's critique as his "definition of fascism."



And then Goldberg proceeds to define everything that he himself considers undesirable as "fascist." This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as "liberal": vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the "war on poverty," "the politics of meaning." The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg's primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning -- Newspeak incarnate.



The term "fascism" certainly is overused and abused. The public understanding of it is fuzzy at best, and academics struggle to agree on a definition, as Goldberg observes -- and he makes use of that confusion to ramble on for pages about the disagreements without ever providing readers with a clear definition of fascism beyond Orwell's quip.



Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism, which, while widely varying in many regards, has seen a broad consensus develop regarding certain ineluctable traits that are uniquely and definitively fascist: its populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason, and what Oxford Brookes scholar Roger Griffin calls its "palingenesis" -- that is, its core myth of a phoenix-like rebirth of the national identity in the mold of a nonexistent Golden Age. And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously -- no, viciously -- anti-liberal.



So when Goldberg proclaims early on: "This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has been slowly airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as socialists," more thorough observers of history might instead just shake their heads. After all, the facts of Mussolini's utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis' similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise.



What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and that the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of Mein Kampf are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's

More:Jonah Goldberg's Bizarro History | The American Prospect

 

[Political Junky]

I'm a little too tired tonght to write out something original.

I can point you here though, to get you started:

"...Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.



The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.



Indeed, Goldberg even makes some use of Orwell, noting that the author of 1984 once dismissed the misuse of "fascism" as meaning "something not desirable." Of course, Orwell was railing against the loss of the word's meaning, while Goldberg, conversely, revels in it -- he refers to Orwell's critique as his "definition of fascism."



And then Goldberg proceeds to define everything that he himself considers undesirable as "fascist." This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as "liberal": vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the "war on poverty," "the politics of meaning." The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg's primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning -- Newspeak incarnate.



The term "fascism" certainly is overused and abused. The public understanding of it is fuzzy at best, and academics struggle to agree on a definition, as Goldberg observes -- and he makes use of that confusion to ramble on for pages about the disagreements without ever providing readers with a clear definition of fascism beyond Orwell's quip.



Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism, which, while widely varying in many regards, has seen a broad consensus develop regarding certain ineluctable traits that are uniquely and definitively fascist: its populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason, and what Oxford Brookes scholar Roger Griffin calls its "palingenesis" -- that is, its core myth of a phoenix-like rebirth of the national identity in the mold of a nonexistent Golden Age. And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously -- no, viciously -- anti-liberal.



So when Goldberg proclaims early on: "This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has been slowly airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as socialists," more thorough observers of history might instead just shake their heads. After all, the facts of Mussolini's utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis' similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise.



What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and that the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of Mein Kampf are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's

More:Jonah Goldberg's Bizarro History | The American Prospect

What would Jonah be if his mother, Lucianne, hadn't had her fifteen minutes of fame?

 

[paperview]

What would Jonah be if his mother, Lucianne, hadn't had her fifteen minutes of fame?

The only reason SHE had any fame (and position) was cause she gave LBJ a slurping BJ.

Truth.

Then her blue dress monica 'gotcha' spilled more of the same...

And from the spunk her progeny turned out to be literally - a dickwad.

 

[L.K.Eder]

to sum up, why did you choose the time frame 1921-31?

It should be obvious.

This was the time of the Weimer republic when the Nazis could not simply dictate or remove people, they had to work within the system to gain control.

And yes, they did use large doses of Socialism to get that control, what they did afterward is another story.

It is disingenious and revisionism to paint them as radical right wingers, that postion in Germany was held by teh Stalhemn movement and was backed by the monarchists, they made a marriage of convience with the nazis not understanding that the Nazis were only using them.

This is also where so many people get it wrong when they discuss facsim or Nazism, what those systems preached and what they did were different things, the many modern attempts to compare today to Facism are equaly valid from left or right so as to make the comparison worthless.

National socialism was indeed socialism, an attempt to make all Germans work for germany, that is what it was billed as and Hitler refused to ever change the offical party platform from that, which he wrote in 1924. The fact the he and the other Nazis ignored it is another story.

Getting back to the here and now, hhis is also why many protestors have crossed out swazsikas, they are making the same statement about what they see going on, they recognize the baby steps to totalitarianism and they don't like it.

Your time frame is not obvious to me. If you want to describe the time before they were in power then the logical cut-off would be 1933. Only thing worth mentioning that happened in 1931, in my opinion, was the coalition of the right wing parties Stahlhelm, NSDAP, DNVP and some other smaller groups to the Harzburger Front. A coalition of RIGHT-wing parties.

In 1930 the NSDAP "lost" the left wing, because on their road to power they had a failed in several elections and they had realized that socialist rhetoric like "promising to help the workers" was not working. They also realized that over-the-top anti-semitism was not a good method to get enough votes.

And yes, they did use large doses of Socialism to get that control, what they did afterward is another story.

This is where we part. It is another story, alright, but it is THE story. The one that counts, the one where genocide and WWII happened, e.g.

A party gets into power by fooling the electorate, nothing special. How much the NSDAP lied and deceived to get enough on board is interesting and would be a nice topic for a discussion. They certainly stopped the radical rhetoric on both extremes of the spectrum, causing the "left wing" to abandon ship, as i wrote.

What is important, is what the party did when in power.

To get rid of political opposition was first.

Here is a link to a site listing the members of parliament who were killed. It is in German, but the list speaks for itself. Note the party affiliations, KPD, SPD, one DVP.

Gedenken an 96 vom NS-Regime ermordete Reichstagsabgeordnete - Gedenktafeln Berlin

a random excerpt:

JULIUS ROSEMANN * 1878 † 1933 POLIZEIGEFÄNGNIS HAMM SPD
KARL SATTLER * 1896 † BERGEN-BELSEN KPD
JOHN SCHEHR * 1896 † 1934 KZ BERLIN-COLUMBIAHAUS KPD
MICHAEL SCHNABRICH * 1880 † 1939 KZ SACHSENHAUSEN SPD
ERNST SCHNELLER * 1890 † 1944 KZ SACHSENHAUSEN KPD
ENST SCHNEPPENHORST * 1881 † 1945 GEFÄNGNIS BERLIN- LEHRTERSTRASSE SPD
WERNER SCHOLEM * 1895 † 1940 KZ BUCHENWALD KPD
GEORG SCHUMANN * 1886 † 1945 UNTERSUCHUNGSGEFÄNGNIS DRESDEN KPD

summary, left wing opposition was killed or made to leave the country, right-wing "opposition " was forced to join the NSDAP. The last remnants of "lefties" in the NSDAP was purged 1934, see Gregor (not Georg, as i wrote somewhere else) Strasser.

I think that people in the US are protesting now carrying anti-nazi symbols has nothing to do with Hitler, or what the NSDAP did, because bluntly put, they have no fucking clue about that history, and if they realized how they are used by propagandists, they'd have to point their anti-nazi signs at themselves.

 

[editec]

Adolf Hitler was about as good a socialist as Bernie Madoff was a good investment advisor.

Those of you seeking to simplify and dumb down historical reality in order to pigeonhole it into your pet social science theories are either blinded idealogues or flat out liars.

Hitler's government just doesn't fit into those simplistic political visions most of you have dancing in your heads

It wasn't capitalism run amuck, neither was it socialism run amuck.

Hitlerian Germany had elements of both capitalism and socialism, true.

But it was really little more than a personality-cult driven totalitarian dictatorship.

What most of you people think of as Germany's socialism was left over from the pre3vious German state.

The Kaiser's Germany was one of the most socialistic states in the world. Theyir FDR type socialism was in place before WWI for goodness sakes.

And they did that socialistic stuff in a nation that clearly believed in capitalism, too.

This dividing line you folks have, this mythical socialism that some of you image existed, and the even more imaginary free market capitalism that you people imagine existed, never happened in Germany.

Never happened here, either, really.

Everything any government does could be described as socialisTIC.

The military is socialism. Courts and police also socialism..the way SOME of you folks use the word.

Indeed all government is socialism according to the ideology many of you attempt to advance here on this board.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hitler was staunchly Anti-Capitalism. Just go do some research and observe his own quotes and writings. He really did consider himself to be a loyal Socialist. You cant even get to Fascism or Dictatorships unless you go the Socialist/Communist route first. It's just the way it is. Both parties in this country have gone the Socialist route in recent years and it's time we get rid of them all and start from scratch. The powers that control both parties have heavy Socialist leanings therefore the leaders of both parties need to be voted out. I mean i actually still cringe when the ridiculous Liberal Press calls George Bush a "Conservative." George Bush was anything but Conservative. His policies were certainly Socialist-leaning. In fact i would call Barack Obama merely George Bush on Steroids at this point. Nothing new or different with him so far. Americans just need to take their country back. Time to vote out all Socialist Democrats & Republicans. The time is now America!

 

[Agnapostate]

The descriptions of Hitler and Nazism as "socialist" in nature are nothing if not flagrantly incorrect. A more accurate assessment of economic structure in Nazi Germany would note that it was decidedly non-socialist in nature. This reality is noted by Buccheim and Scherner in The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry, for instance.

Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

Moreover, looking at the broader picture, fascism and socialism are rather distinct from each other, and in many cases, are outright conflicting ideologies. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered, for instance.

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are necessarily democratic at the very least.

 

[bodecea]

Hitler was staunchly Anti-Capitalism. Just go do some research and observe his own quotes and writings. He really did consider himself to be a loyal Socialist. You cant even get to Fascism or Dictatorships unless you go the Socialist/Communist route first. It's just the way it is. Both parties in this country have gone the Socialist route in recent years and it's time we get rid of them all and start from scratch. The powers that control both parties have heavy Socialist leanings therefore the leaders of both parties need to be voted out. I mean i actually still cringe when the ridiculous Liberal Press calls George Bush a "Conservative." George Bush was anything but Conservative. His policies were certainly Socialist-leaning. In fact i would call Barack Obama merely George Bush on Steroids at this point. Nothing new or different with him so far. Americans just need to take their country back. Time to vote out all Socialist Democrats & Republicans. The time is now America!

Hitler really hated Krupp, didn't he?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Nazi: National Socialist Workers' Party. Hitler did not hate Socialists because he considered himself to be a good & loyal Socialist. In fact all Nazis considered themselves to be good & loyal Socialists. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist or Communist route. That's why our Founding Fathers were true geniuses. They really did have it right all those years ago when they founded our great nation. Our Public Schools as usual have it wrong and continue to indoctrinate our kids with nonsensical B.S. when it comes to the reality of Hitler and the Nazis. The true history of Hitler and the Nazis is that they were loyal Socialists all along and right up til the end. Oh well we are talking about Public Schools right? It's just not very surprising that they have something else wrong. Nuff said.

 

[Agnapostate]

Self-description is not a sufficient validation, unless you consider the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic or the "People's Republic" of China to be legitimately such. Even the populist elements of the Nazi party weren't legitimately socialist, and they were all destroyed on the Night of the Long Knives anyhow.