hitler - what was he?

Hitler was a national socialist. Those were his political beliefs. Those were his religious beliefs. those were the beliefs he placed above everything else.

You'd understand, of course, that there's no legitimate link between fascism and socialism, contrary to unfortunately popular belief?
 
Adolph Hitler had more impact on the world than anyone other than our Lord Jesus. Hitler may have been the anti-Christ.
 
The revisionist historians keep trying!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

It's unfortunate that I encounter individuals with such a poor grasp of political economy that they attempt to claim that Hitler was a "socialist." But it's a sad reality that necessitates correction when encountered. Hence, I'll attempt to correct a few apparent misconceptions.

As I've noted previously, it's not accurate to describe Nazism or similar fascism as "socialist" in nature. 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 democratic at the very least.
 
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" does this statement link Democracy with the USA even if you are a Negro and your ancestors were slaves in America?
 
The revisionist historians keep trying!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

It's unfortunate that I encounter individuals with such a poor grasp of political economy
Please, we've all heard that revisionist historian garbage. Hitler WAS a socialist and a fascist, at the same time. His MILITARY was the fascist arm of his SOCIALIST political party. And he was in firm control of both.

Gobbledygook notwithstanding.
 
The revisionist historians keep trying!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

It's unfortunate that I encounter individuals with such a poor grasp of political economy
Please, we've all heard that revisionist historian garbage. Hitler WAS a socialist and a fascist, at the same time. His MILITARY was the fascist arm of his SOCIALIST political party. And he was in firm control of both.

Gobbledygook notwithstanding.

What is socialism? If, as is commonly defined, it means a common ownership of the means of production, Nazi Germany was not socialist at all, name notwithstanding, because common ownership of production was not a characteristic of Nazi Germany. Private ownership was the norm in Nazi Germany, I believe.
 
What is socialism? If, as is commonly defined, it means a common ownership of the means of production, Nazi Germany was not socialist at all, name notwithstanding, because common ownership of production was not a characteristic of Nazi Germany. Private ownership was the norm in Nazi Germany, I believe.

That is a nice summary. The myth of the Nazi regime being "socialist" or otherwise anti-capitalist has been perpetuated by ignorant rightists apparently ignorant of the crucial role of private property in Nazi Germany. However, the historical record says otherwise. For instance, researchers Buchheim and Scherner delivered a significantly more accurate analysis in The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry. Consider the abstract:

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.

Incidentally, I seem to recall you objecting to the alleged elements of socialism that inhibited dynamic efficiency. I left for a bit after that, so where did you post that?
 
What is socialism? If, as is commonly defined, it means a common ownership of the means of production, Nazi Germany was not socialist at all, name notwithstanding, because common ownership of production was not a characteristic of Nazi Germany. Private ownership was the norm in Nazi Germany, I believe.

That is a nice summary. The myth of the Nazi regime being "socialist" or otherwise anti-capitalist has been perpetuated by ignorant rightists apparently ignorant of the crucial role of private property in Nazi Germany. However, the historical record says otherwise. For instance, researchers Buchheim and Scherner delivered a significantly more accurate analysis in The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry. Consider the abstract:

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.

Incidentally, I seem to recall you objecting to the alleged elements of socialism that inhibited dynamic efficiency. I left for a bit after that, so where did you post that?

Don't really recall where that thread is; I thought I had responded to your last post tho.
 
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" does this statement link Democracy with the USA even if you are a Negro and your ancestors were slaves in America?
America has never been and will never be a Democracy. Democracy if the enemy of liberty

The revisionist historians keep trying!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Do you realize how ignorant and uninformed you sound?

Please, we've all heard that revisionist historian garbage. Hitler WAS a socialist and a fascist, at the same time. His MILITARY was the fascist arm of his SOCIALIST political party. And he was in firm control of both.
:cuckoo:
 
Hitler was a paranoic meglomaniac, probably because he was speed freak.

I'm not exactly sure when his doctor started shooting him up with crank, but my guess is his religion, whatever it had been, didn't play much of a part in his adult life.

If I remember my reasearch for a long ago paper correctly, his doc started shooting him up not too long after he was brought in.

What makes me laugh is you have to consider war time shortages and wonder what EXCATLY was in the "meth precursor" (if you will) that he was being shot up with as many as 6-7 times a day.
 
Hitler was a vegetarian apparently, and an atheist also I think.

Where did you guys here about the meth he took? I've never heard that, but it does make some sense. Is that just an urban myth?
 
Hitler was a vegetarian apparently, and an atheist also I think.

I think not.

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls. … We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.
 
threadnecromancyns1nf0.jpg
 
Necormancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.

Unlike Archivist, Necromancer compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, while Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them. Some say he performs this unnatural act out of malice, others say he can’t help himself, but no one really knows.

:lol:
 
Hitler was a vegetarian apparently, and an atheist also I think.

Where did you guys here about the meth he took? I've never heard that, but it does make some sense. Is that just an urban myth?

Theres been a couple show on Hitler on the History Channel that have discussed Hitlers shooting up.

Theres also more literature on it than you could shake a stick at in the form of google searches and library books.

Plus his Doctor (I cant think of his last name, believe it starts with an "M") took very specific notes on when he was injecting Hitler.
 
He vas a German. And Ve German are not a varlike people. But even ve have our limits.
 

Forum List

Back
Top