Nazis Are Not Socialists

More from Hayek.....someone who knew what national socialism was...

The collectivist and anti-individualistic character of German National Socialism is not much modified by the fact that it is not a proletarian but middle class socialism, and that it is, in consequence, inclined to favour the small artisan and shop keeper and to set the limit up to which it recognizes private property somewhat higher than does communism.

In the first instance, it will probably nominally recognise private property in general. But private initiative will probably be hedged about with restrictions on competition so that little freedom will remain.

Artisans, shop-keepers and professional men will, in all likelihood, be organized in guilds, like those of the medieval crafts, which will regulate their activities. In the case of the wealthier capitalists, state control and restriction of income will leave little more than the name of property, even while the intention of correcting the undue accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals has not yet been carried out. Even at the present moment, state commissioners have been put in charge of many important industries and, if the more radical wing of the party has its way, the same is likely to happen in many other cases.[6]

At the present time, when the National Socialist party has grown to such an enormous size, and accordingly embraces elements with very divergent views, it is, of course, difficult to say which views on economic policy hold the field, it will mean that the scare of Russian communism has driven German people unaware into something which differs from communism in little but name. Indeed, its more than probable that the real meaning of the German revolution is that the ling dreaded expansion of communism into the heart of Europe has taken place but is not recognised because the fundamental similarity of methods and ideas is hidden behind the difference in the phraseology and the privileged groups. For the present, the German people have reacted against the treatment received from the community of democratic and capitalistic countries by leaving that community.
 
The top all time murderers are all socialists or communists - none are small government libertarian types

1. Stalin = communist
2. Mao = communist
3. Hitler = socialist
4. Saddam = socialist


Indeed, the worst murderers to rise to power here are all big spending types...

1. W
2. LBJ
3. the Clintons


And this is why they put the nazis on the Right Wing.....the nazi crimes were opened up to the public while the international socialists managed to keep their murder of close to 100 million innocent men, women and children, unarmed, hidden from the world in their tightly controlled societies.......if it comes out that all the mass murdering governments since 1917 were left wing socialists......it would hurt their brand....
if you want criticize the soviet union (which did not kill 100 million people) thats fine but calling hitler a socailist is dumber than calling trump a socialist... in fact trump is way more socialist than hitler

No but they killed more than enough. Communism killed more than 100 million.
no it didn't thats ridiculous nazi propaganda

You must be a "Communist".
 
sorry folks-------I do not mean to offend-----but IL PAPA wants theological oligarchists to OWN EVERYTHING-------be they islamicists or catholics ---(but probably not Lutherans)
 
Yes.....the nazis were left wing and socialists....

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

My purpose today is to make just two main points:

(1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And


(2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government.

For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership:

it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive.

The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
 
democrat party = hate, violence, racism and crime



You forgot the one tippy top objective = stealing from the taxpayer

The Democratic Party is a giant kleptocratic racket, with the sole objective of stealing as much US tax money as it can, using such tactics as

1. divide and conquer
2. lying
3. creating frauds that inspire fear to get the public to part with its cash


There may be a moment in time where all of that gets 100% exposed, and then there will be two types of Americans

1. those who reject the Democratic Party
2. those getting a government check
 
Yes....the nazis were socialists....

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

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

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
You either have an economic system based on private ownership or you don't. A fascist political system that employs an economic system based on private ownership does not become "socialist" simply because it is authoritarian and viewed by you as advantageous to your own ideology.
 
You either have an economic system based on private ownership or you don't


Which one was SOLYNDRA, a private ownership free market entity or a government controlled and micromanaged fascist economic example of socialism interfering with free markets?
 
Nazis Are Not Socialists

No, they couldn't be. The fact that Nazi is an shorthand form of "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei," which translates to "National-Socialist German Workers' Party" in English, the very word "socialist" being part of the term, is surely an indication that Nazis were and are not socialists.

Once again --- see the examples of the DPRK, GDR, Grape Nuts, 10.000 Maniacs etc, none of which are/were "democratic", contained neither grapes nor nuts, and do not place ten thousand people on the stage. The fact that some body calls itself "socialist" -- or "democratic", or "brothers" --- doesn't make them so. I can call myself a tangerine; the language allows me to make the claim. But the laws of biology don't allow me to BE a tangerine.

"Nazi", for its part, has become a separate term in itself, having nothing to do with the original German derivation, nor are we conversing IN German anyway. And even if we were, Nazi is a shortened form of National, not a shortened form of "socialist".

I'm sorry, but I don't know what to make of your comments. I don't because your first paragraph makes the point that terms have meaning that has nothing to do with whether one applies or accepts that meaning.
The fact that some body calls itself "socialist" -- or "democratic", or "brothers" --- doesn't make them so.

Then, in the next paragraph, you contradict that very idea.
even if we were, Nazi is a shortened form of National, not a shortened form of "socialist".
Now, I don't speak German, so maybe that's why it doesn't make sense to me that "Nazi" be a short form of "National" and not a short form of "Nationalsozialistische," which seems, even as non-speaker of German, to quite clearly indicate both "national" and "socialist." It seems to me the "na" is the shorthand for "national" and the "zi" is the shorthand for socialist. "Nationalsozialistische" doesn't really lose anything in the translation to English; there's are reason "National-Socialist" is hyphenated, that is to say, meaning is connected to the fact that it is. (See also/instead: What Is a Compound Adjective? Definition & Examples) Essentially, the meaing is that "National-Socialist" is the same thing in English as "Nationalsozialistische" in German, and every other way of combining those two words is not.

(Can I tell when someone does indeed mean "National-Socialist," rather than some other combination of that term, and thus has mispunctuated their writing? Only when they write enough that the context of what they mean becomes clear, no matter the words they write or punctuation they use or don't. When they don't write enough, their meaning is ambiguous. Make of that what you will, but the fact is that I've never learned how to read minds, but I have learned how to read what folks write.)

It's in no way a contradiction.

The linguisics -- the word "Nazi" in English use today has its own colloquial meaning, which does not extend to entire histories of 20th century Germany. It simply describes a personal characteristic, that being of a ruthless, intolerant, usually violent bigot. That's one level --- and the one intended for describing such contemporary American groups as "neo-Nazis".

Now the word comes to us from the German, where ít's the phonetic first part of the German National, which means just what it looks like. Nationalsozialitische is a compound word but it's still comprised of two adjectives --- were that not so there would be no need for the letter S in "NSDAP"; it would simply be "NDAP" -- and really it would be simply "NDA" since Arbeiterpartei is another compound word - "worker's party". German loves to glue words together into what would look to us like ridiculously long compound words, but the individual elements are still conceived as individual elements.

Therefore "Nazi" is a shortened form of "National". The -zi does not come from "socialist" --- it comes from the word National, which in German is pronounced "Not-see-o-nahl".

None of that however was the point. The point is that one may call oneself, or one's party, "national socialism" but the act of naming alone does not make them either. That's the road the OP seems to have chosen, and it's a dead end.
 
Nazis Are Not Socialists

No, they couldn't be. The fact that Nazi is an shorthand form of "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei," which translates to "National-Socialist German Workers' Party" in English, the very word "socialist" being part of the term, is surely an indication that Nazis were and are not socialists.

That said, given the mental midgetry it takes to be an avowed white supremacist, it may well be they espouse the label "Nazi" and don't actually know all what of the heck it means and represents. That may tacitly be the point you aimed to make in your OP, but it didn't come clearly across that way, even seeing the "except when they are" part. As I said, one cannot take for granted that Neo-Nazis know the full spectrum of the rhetoric and monikers they use. Hell, many of them may not know what socialism is, let alone whether they are or aren't. They may well think they are "redefining" the term.
North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I guess think it's a democracy. :rolleyes:
 
sorry folks-------I do not mean to offend-----but IL PAPA wants theological oligarchists to OWN EVERYTHING-------be they islamicists or catholics ---(but probably not Lutherans)
you'll never meet a nazi who "owns" anything, according to them only good people are right wingers everyone evil in all of world history is a left winger, the KKK, hitler, the pope, wall street, osama bin laden literally everyone
 
BULLSHIT.

It was "OWNED" when OBAMA handed its CHOSEN owners a BILLION DOLLAR "loan" from the TAXPAYER that then did what Dems do....

made that taxpayer cash VANISH


In a truly free economy, the MERIT of the corporation is more important than whether or not it is part of the political corruption doling out the cash.

The Dems do not care about the lost billion in SOLYNDRA. The Dems want MORE...



SOLYNDRA is the perfect example of FASCIST ECONOMIC POLICY

1. government funded
2. government CHOSEN to "succeed"
3. no consequence when the money vanishes and the "corporation" fails
 
sorry folks-------I do not mean to offend-----but IL PAPA wants theological oligarchists to OWN EVERYTHING-------be they islamicists or catholics ---(but probably not Lutherans)

Keep an eye on the "pope". He is trying to merge "Catholicism" and "Islam".

not exactly (IMHO) He is trying to advocate for THEOCRACIES -----like used to
be in the glorious medieval past----when the POPE ruled ---something like half the
world----- and ISLAM the other half. The two HALVES actually got along
 
its quote from Mussolini dipshit


If a sub human can parrot it, it must be true, because said sub human is the birdbrain doing the parroting, and cannot admit being wrong since he doesn't understand jack, can't think, and hence is reduced as a lifeform to mindlessly repeating...
so hitler calling himself an anti marxist anti liberal national socialist a word he made up, is proof he's a socialist, but the father of fascism defining fascism as corporatism doesn't make sense to you?.... you can't be this stupid

Your thinking is too rigid. Words like Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberal, and Conservative.... these are all just labels fed to the "people" to keep them all divided, all hating each other.
they're definitions of political ideologies?... who is dividing us anyway?.... dont say the jews
 
sorry folks-------I do not mean to offend-----but IL PAPA wants theological oligarchists to OWN EVERYTHING-------be they islamicists or catholics ---(but probably not Lutherans)

Keep an eye on the "pope". He is trying to merge "Catholicism" and "Islam".

not exactly (IMHO) He is trying to advocate for THEOCRACIES -----like used to
be in the glorious medieval past----when the POPE ruled ---something like half the
world----- and ISLAM the other half. The two HALVES actually got along

Absolutely. Biblically the end comes when a "World Theocracy" is being established.
 
BULLSHIT.

It was "OWNED" when OBAMA handed its CHOSEN owners a BILLION DOLLAR "loan" from the TAXPAYER that then did what Dems do....

made that taxpayer cash VANISH


In a truly free economy, the MERIT of the corporation is more important than whether or not it is part of the political corruption doling out the cash.

The Dems do not care about the lost billion in SOLYNDRA. The Dems want MORE...



SOLYNDRA is the perfect example of FASCIST ECONOMIC POLICY

1. government funded
2. government CHOSEN to "succeed"
3. no consequence when the money vanishes and the "corporation" fails
solyndra lol holy crap even fox news quit beating that dead horse 5 years ago
 
Nazis Are Not Socialists

No, they couldn't be. The fact that Nazi is an shorthand form of "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei," which translates to "National-Socialist German Workers' Party" in English, the very word "socialist" being part of the term, is surely an indication that Nazis were and are not socialists.

Once again --- see the examples of the DPRK, GDR, Grape Nuts, 10.000 Maniacs etc, none of which are/were "democratic", contained neither grapes nor nuts, and do not place ten thousand people on the stage. The fact that some body calls itself "socialist" -- or "democratic", or "brothers" --- doesn't make them so. I can call myself a tangerine; the language allows me to make the claim. But the laws of biology don't allow me to BE a tangerine.

"Nazi", for its part, has become a separate term in itself, having nothing to do with the original German derivation, nor are we conversing IN German anyway. And even if we were, Nazi is a shortened form of National, not a shortened form of "socialist".

I'm sorry, but I don't know what to make of your comments. I don't because your first paragraph makes the point that terms have meaning that has nothing to do with whether one applies or accepts that meaning.
The fact that some body calls itself "socialist" -- or "democratic", or "brothers" --- doesn't make them so.

Then, in the next paragraph, you contradict that very idea.
even if we were, Nazi is a shortened form of National, not a shortened form of "socialist".
Now, I don't speak German, so maybe that's why it doesn't make sense to me that "Nazi" be a short form of "National" and not a short form of "Nationalsozialistische," which seems, even as non-speaker of German, to quite clearly indicate both "national" and "socialist." It seems to me the "na" is the shorthand for "national" and the "zi" is the shorthand for socialist. "Nationalsozialistische" doesn't really lose anything in the translation to English; there's are reason "National-Socialist" is hyphenated, that is to say, meaning is connected to the fact that it is. (See also/instead: What Is a Compound Adjective? Definition & Examples) Essentially, the meaing is that "National-Socialist" is the same thing in English as "Nationalsozialistische" in German, and every other way of combining those two words is not.

(Can I tell when someone does indeed mean "National-Socialist," rather than some other combination of that term, and thus has mispunctuated their writing? Only when they write enough that the context of what they mean becomes clear, no matter the words they write or punctuation they use or don't. When they don't write enough, their meaning is ambiguous. Make of that what you will, but the fact is that I've never learned how to read minds, but I have learned how to read what folks write.)

Pogo likes to pretend she is the board intellectual.

Who the fuck are you even talking about being a "board intellectual?
Rosie? :dunno:
 
its quote from Mussolini dipshit


If a sub human can parrot it, it must be true, because said sub human is the birdbrain doing the parroting, and cannot admit being wrong since he doesn't understand jack, can't think, and hence is reduced as a lifeform to mindlessly repeating...
so hitler calling himself an anti marxist anti liberal national socialist a word he made up, is proof he's a socialist, but the father of fascism defining fascism as corporatism doesn't make sense to you?.... you can't be this stupid

Your thinking is too rigid. Words like Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberal, and Conservative.... these are all just labels fed to the "people" to keep them all divided, all hating each other.
they're definitions of political ideologies?... who is dividing us anyway?.... dont say the jews

why not? both the FAR LEFT and the FAR RIGHT ----agree on that issue
 

Forum List

Back
Top