Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Nazi Party

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Spain wasn't fighting the Nazi's. Spain was fighting a civil war and Germany was supporting the fascist Franco.


Franco and the military participated in a coup d'état against the Popular Front government. The coup failed and devolved into the Spanish Civil War during which Franco emerged as the leader of the Nationalists against the Popular Front government. After winning the civil war with military aid from Italy and Germany—while the Soviet Union and various Internationalists aided the Republicans,he dissolved the Spanish Parliament. He then established a right-wing authoritarian regime that lasted until 1978, when a new constitution was drafted.


Francisco Franco


The Nazi Luftwaffe, Condor Legion, was in Spain dropping bombs on cities with their Stukas. Franco's government was fascist, the Nationalists. The civil war was between the old communist party and Franco's fascists withe help from The Nazis (German fascists). While that was going on the anarchists/socialists had their revolution.


Adolf Hitler did not agree with Neurath and after consulting with Herman Goering, Wilhelm Canaris and Werner von Blomberg, he told General Francisco Franco on 26th July 1936 that Germany would support his rebellion.

Hitler justified his decision by arguing that he was attempting to save Europe from "communist barbarism".

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

Italy was also helping Franco's military fascist uprising. Europe was in a fight between the state 'communist party', the fascists, and the people who wanted libertarian socialism, or similar stateless worker control of labour.
WWII put an end to the mass worker organizations of the 30's and the world wide lean towards real socialism.
It is played down in the general history books, overshadowed by war and the great depression, but 'the people' were very close to world revolution. People from all over the world took part in the Spanish social revolution, and the fight against fascism proper, the civil war.

Fascism ended up winning unfortunately for us, despite what they claim about WWII being the fight to end it. It was really the fight to end the growing interest in worker control, that was huge at the time, and put the power back fully in the hands of the capitalist establishment.




posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


The German growth was unsustainable though as economic records show - at the end of the day, there are only so many roads and bridges, etc, that can be built. In many ways, expansion (alright, invasion) was their way out of this.

In the 1920's the Brownshirts would fight with the Communists and hated them for what they saw as their desire to ruin Germany. I would say therefore, that as far the Nazi's themselves were concerned, National Socialism was totally unlike Communism



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Are you suggesting that an Anderson shelter is no use when being bombed? Everyone knows that corrugated iron is bomb proof



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
All socialist elements were purged from the party during and after the Night of the Long Knives. See for example:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
You know regardless IF Hitler was (he wasn't) a socialist it doesn't mean socialism is bad.

If you extend that logic Hitler was a Human, so that means all Humans are socialists, antisemitic, evil, or all the above. Do you have a funny mustache?

Socialism is an economic system, not a political system, you can't blame socialism for Human actions. If the action of socialism itself, the workers ownership and control of their labour, caused evil then you could blame socialism, but it doesn't unless Humans screw up, and we can screw up under any system, socialism doesn't cause people to screw up.

edit on 10/28/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is an economic system

It's a family of economic systems, but yes.


socialism doesn't cause people to screw up.

Depending on the type of socialism it can however worsen the effects when people do screw up. The type you advocate is better than most, I suppose.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon

It's a family of economic systems, but yes.


Socialism is socialism, there are difference way to implement it.


Depending on the type of socialism it can however worsen the effects when people do screw up. The type you advocate is better than most, I suppose.


Again there is really only one type of socialism, but different ways to implement it, with a state controlled system (Marxism etc.) or without a state system. Then there are different ways to implement stateless socialism, such as Syndicalism, stateless worker organization through trade unions.

As Bakunin said..."Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality..."

I prefer stateless socialism but even with a state it wold be better than capitalism because with the state you have some say, we have no say over private systems.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is socialism, there are difference way to implement it.

No, there are clearly different types of socialism within the same family, from state socialism (nationalised industry owned and run by the government on behalf of the entire nation) to syndicalism and even market socialism. They tend to have little in common other than the name and some underlying philosophical points.


Again there is really only one type of socialism, but different ways to implement it, with a state controlled system (Marxism etc.) or without a state system. Then there are different ways to implement stateless socialism, such as Syndicalism, stateless worker organization through trade unions.

Again, I disagree.


I prefer stateless socialism but even with a state it wold be better than capitalism because with the state you have some say, we have no say over private systems.

There are plenty of forms of state where you have no say.

This also implies that we (everyone) should have a say over each and every part of the economy, something I'm not convinced is true at all.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


How old are you?

Just wondering because you don't seem to have a good grasp of the differences between National Socialism and plain 'ol Socialism.

The Nazis hated socialists and communists. Hell, the Soviets crushed their asses!

The only thing that Nazis and Communists have in common is that their leaders (Hitler, Stalin in this case) murdered millions of their own people.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is socialism, there are difference way to implement it.

No, there are clearly different types of socialism within the same family, from state socialism (nationalised industry owned and run by the government on behalf of the entire nation) to syndicalism and even market socialism. They tend to have little in common other than the name and some underlying philosophical points.


Again they are all socialism, the workers ownership and control of the means of production, there are just different ways to implement it from Anarchism, to Marxism. It's all socialism, and socialism when correctly implemented would be a better system, and could solve the worlds economic problems. It's obvious capitalism isn't working for the majority of people.

Just like a car is a car, whether it is a hatchback or a convertible.


Again, I disagree.


Then you need to do some reading.


There are plenty of forms of state where you have no say.


So what? The state can be what we make it. Private ownership is what they make it. Capitalism can be as totalitarian as any system, it has no guarantee of freedom.

If the people wanted, and chose, socialism they would also reject any kind totalitarian system. If we didn't it would be our own fault. Realise WE have the ultimate power as we are the majority.


This also implies that we (everyone) should have a say over each and every part of the economy, something I'm not convinced is true at all.


Really? What give anyone the right to control someone else's access to resources? Capitalists become wealthy by denying other people access, or use of land, machinery etc., that we have, and still do, all pay for ultimately.

Unless you are a private owner, and make your living from it, there is no reason for anyone to support a system that does not have their best interest at heart. We are the majority and we're tired of supporting the minority capitalist class. The Human race will never truly advance out of this aggressive violent culture, while we still have an aggressive violent exploitative system in control of the resources we need.

Capitalism fails because almost every single success comes at the loss of someone else. If you think having the most aggressive sociopaths at the top as 'success', then you might be right.

edit on 10/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Mythfury
 

Just wondering because you don't seem to have a good grasp of the differences between National Socialism and plain 'ol Socialism.


As someone else has already noted, there are differences between national socialism and socialism, but I think the key question you have to ask is whether these are ultimately significant ideological divides of thought, or are merely very close political philosophies jockeying for position against liberalism and republican governance. Some here have attempted to attribute the Hitler's following (I mean chiefly the intellectuals and academics who supported him worldwide throughout the 1920s-1930s,) to mere trickery, as though Hitler simply attracted socialists and converted them into nationalists along the way.

But something is missing. Namely, why was it so easy for international socialists to switch to national socialism and visa versa? That's something to think about. In East Germany following World War II, a strong portion of the Stasi comprised former Nazi Party officials, and, Gestopo. Prior to World War II, Hitler found common ground with numerous nationalists and international socialists, and was able to bring them (at least in Germany) together under one flag and one party which a goal for shared socialism, albeit socialism for the good of Germany and Aryans as opposed socialism for the good of the international laborer.

It seems evident that the notion that nationalism is somehow inherently incompatible with socialism, or even its antithesis, is what remains of some of the vestiges of some Communist rhetoric. Few will dispute the dearly held belief among many socialists of the 1920s that the "worker's revolution must be international," but has history not done a death blow to this claim? Whether something is rightwing or leftwing, or something wholly intermingled, the theme of state supremacy and hatred of liberalism runs throughout socialism, and I think that such is the chief component of socialism (be it left, right, or center,) that must be observed.


The Nazis hated socialists and communists.


No denial that the Nazis hated communists and other socialists, but it was not for the same ideological reason why they hated liberals. I don't think that saying the Browns and the Reds hated each other is proof that Nazism wasn't a different branch of socialism, though it was certainly a non Marxist version. Indeed, the Brownshirts were trying to purge the Marxist influence, and if they hated socialists, it was because those socialists were internationalists, as opposed to being national socialists.


The only thing that Nazis and Communists have in common is that their leaders (Hitler, Stalin in this case) murdered millions of their own people.


The Nazis and the communists (communists in Germany) had much more in common than this: Hitler gained popular support in Germany precisely because he was able to give the Germans what democratic socialism, Marxist socialism, couldn't really provide. He was able to bring Germany out of the Great Depression much more quickly than even the US with his welfare programs for Germans. Throughout the early 30s before Hitler gained power, the Nazi Party wasn't even a majority, and it had to contend with communists, social democrats, and even nationalist (but not Nazi) parties with the Weimar Republic. But Hitler came out on top in the end. This wasn't because he was brutal and the communists in Germany were pacifists. Hardly.

Both were very violent, but Hitler ultimately had the people on his side. He captured the hearts of the working class, and the non-Jewish capitalists, based on an emphasis on radical German exceptionalism, and of shifting the focus onto the Jews as the reason for Germany's ills. Where most forms of socialism had advanced their programs via pitting the working class against the capitalists, Hitler attempted to unite them all as Germans, while still seeking to promote the state management of firms and the transition out of capitalism. But exceptional though Nazism was in many respects, it was in another way very similar to the movements surrounding it in Europe at the time. Namely, it was socialistic. Let's not the lose the forest for the trees.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NowanKenubi
 

Thats the thing for us who support real capitalism(not corporatism), its about free choice, self determination and ambition. Because all forms of collectivism will lead to corruption, abuse and stagnation at some point in time despite good intentions.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
reply to post by NowanKenubi
 

Thats the thing for us who support real capitalism(not corporatism)


Corporatism is capitalism. Capitalists incorporate for many reasons, mainly being the sole proprietor can legally detach themselves from being personally responsible for their companies within the corporation. The corporation is responsible, which is technically owned by no one, and treated as a private individual. Private owners collectivizing in order to exploit people more efficiently, but the problem is the private ownership not the collectivizing.


its about free choice, self determination and ambition.


Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. It creates a hierarchical system through it's control of the 'means of production'. How can it be freedom when the only form of income for the majority of people is a 'job'? It is in fact exploitative because the worker has to produce more than they are paid for in order for the private owner to make profit. If the owner is not making profit, goodbye 'job'.

You could be far more ambitious if the means of production were available to you, and you didn't have to compete with others for a 'job'. You would have far more freedom if you didn't have the majority of what you produce taken by someone else for their 'profit'.


Because all forms of collectivism will lead to corruption, abuse and stagnation at some point in time despite good intentions.


That is not true. Collectivism is simply people coming together with the purpose of fulfilling a goal. We do this all the time. We are social creatures, to think we don't need to organize and work together is to pervert our nature.
Of course staunch individualism suits capitalism, even though the capitalists DO organize, and collectivize, in order to maintain control. They understand the power of cooperation. We 'the commoners' are left to aggressively compete with each other for the limited resources kept artificially scarce by capitalism itself.

Artificial scarcity in a world of overproduction


Collective & individual aspects of ownership

Socialist ownership of the means of production is ownership by all workers. Capitalists cease to exist and workers cease to be their employees.

Ownership by workers of necessity has to be collective ownership by society as a whole. Modern means of production cannot be divided up among workers like the hand tools of old. They have to be owned and used in common. They could of course be parcelled out to groups of workers (eg, workers' cooperatives). However, if they were, the level of ownership of each worker would be considerably constrained. (This is discussed in more detail below.)

home.vicnet.net.au...

The establishment simply doesn't want the commoners becoming organized, because when we do this happens...

Collectives in the Spanish Revolution

The commoners become organized and a threat to the capitalist class.

edit on 12/24/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by EMane
Socialism and Nazism both profess to create a better society by subordinating the individual to society.


I cannot speak for Nazism as I am not a Nazi, but in the case of socialism there is good reason for that. According to dialectical materialist philosophy, individuals are shaped by their material, economic, and historical circumstances and cannot be understood as social atoms isolated from greater social groups, as in any society the material subsistence of the individual is provided for by the collective efforts of the group. E.g. in this capitalist society, you are reading this post because of the collective social effort required to manufacture your computer. The only difference is that under capitalism, humanity's collective social efforts to not benefit the 99% of the human population that have no control over the means of production. In the words of Dr. Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


Socialism attempts to do this by using the state's power to allocate resources taken from the individuals (taxation) to address social problems (poverty, education, healthcare, etc.)


This is a misunderstanding, for Marx the existing state is merely an organ of the ruling-class; the bourgeoisie. The goal of Marxism is to create an entirely new state organ that is directly controlled by the working-class. In contemporary political vernacular it is fashionable to describe capitalist states with strong social welfare policies as socialist, however this is inaccurate in the Marxian sense because the bourgeoisie still controls the means of production and the state remains a political force at the beck and call of the bourgeoisie.

For a better understanding of the Marxist critique of fascism, "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon" is necessary reading. It is in the public domain and available online.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
The Nazis were never socialist. It was only used to gather support from the workers at time. It somewhat worked. They spoke highly against the communists from the day they formed.


Fascism is a form of socialism. Or rather fascism is a militant version of socialism.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MisterReptilianoid
 


Marx was a fool and any those who follow him are bigger fools. Karl Marx never really worked an honest day's job in his life. He lived off of rich friends and his stock options.

Marxism is about stealing from the workers to enrich the new nobility of lazy psychopaths.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by MisterReptilianoid
 


Marx was a fool and any those who follow him are bigger fools. Karl Marx never really worked an honest day's job in his life. He lived off of rich friends and his stock options.

Marxism is about stealing from the workers to enrich the new nobility of lazy psychopaths.


You do realise that the Communist Manifesto was not all Marx's ideas right? All he, and Engels, did was write what they had been commissioned to do by a committee of many socialists after a meeting in London?

You have it backwards, you have obviously never read the Communist Manifesto.

Socialism in general is 'the workers ownership of the means of production'. It came about in reaction to capitalism, 'the private ownership of the means of production', the system that does steal from the workers because the workers have to produce more than they earn in order for the capitalist to make a profit. Capitalists are the psychopaths lol.

The Marxist version of socialism is state socialism, that was thought by some as a necessary step to full Communism. Those socialist who disagreed with having a state system were anarchists, Libertarian Socialists.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin

Why is it so many people have this backwards?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
Fascism is a form of socialism. Or rather fascism is a militant version of socialism.


No it isn't they are completely opposite to each other.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. An economic system. No government or state is required.

Fascism is a political system that is highly authoritative, and capitalist.

I could go into far more detail but is there really a need to?





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join