It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

page: 26
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


And gogo keeps going with his lies...

Are you that hard headed?...

socialists/communists of different branches have, and continue to disagree with each other ever since socialism was invented but that does not make them any less socialist/communist... There were communists that wanted to follow Lenin's idea of communism, and others that wanted to follow Stalin's idea of communism... Did that make ANY OF THEM any less communist?... NO....

Hitler, and his close circle had a different idea on socialism and that idea was NATIONAL SOCIALISM...


edit on 7-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


No.. but it also has nothing to do with Hitler.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

No.. but it also has nothing to do with Hitler.


OH yes it does... You are AGAIN trying to claim that because there are SOME differences between the socialism of Hitler and other forms of socialism that Hitler was not socialist...

That's like claiming a vegetarian is not a vegetarian because today he decided to wear red shoes instead of green...

There are different types of socialism and each has a different name EXACTLY because they have some differences... But the main attributes that makes them ALL socialist is centralization of power, and more government control.

edit on 7-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


Fascism is a subset of socialism. Fascism derived from socialistic political organizations in the 1920's and has kept the same central control model.

What fascism and socialism have in common is far greater than how they differ.

Any form of government can be good or bad. It depends on the qualities or character of the people in charge. Sooner or later bad people will be in charge and the power they exert will never be relinquished.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I agree with this, but you have to understand back in those days there was no capitalism in europe, so you were either for socialism or monarchism.

Where do you get your history from? Europe has had capitalism since before feudalism. Socialism wasn't even heard of until the 1800's industrial revolution.

Monarchism has nothing to do with the economic system of capitalism, other than the Royals being capitalists, private owners who higher labour.


I want to know EXACTLY where you got your education because even monarchies are SOCIALIST in nature...

in a monarchy a small group of people have all power, and control over a nation, which is centralization of power, and they CLAIM to represent the people and do "what is best for the people"



Originally posted by ANOK

Hitler was right wing. He didn't combine socialism with anything. Hitlers version of fascism was based on the fascism of Mussolini.


So keep claiming socialists/leftwingers who don't want to admit what Hitler truly was, but the facts and evidence say the contrary...



Originally posted by ANOK
Again Hitler advocated private ownership, which is capitalism. Socialism is worker ownership, and he did not support that. Thus Hitler could not be socialist.


WRONG... Hitler advocated, and I quote AGAIN directly from Hitler...






Originally posted by ANOKNationalism and socialism can not be combined, one being a system of government ownership, and the later being worker ownership. It's an oxymoron, that only morons could miss.


And only ignorant morons don't know the fact that even National communism exists, just like national socialism...

The only difference that morons can't understand between socialism and national socialism is that one concentrates on strengthening only one nation, meanwhile the other seeks to expand socialism to other nations...


Ironic how history repeats itself... Every time a socialist dictatorship appears new socialist morons claim "but that is not real socialism, and invent some retarded idea on how to change it and implement it again just to create another socialist dictatorship...

But morons do trip over the same stone not once, not twice, not thrice, but time, and time, and time, and time again simply because they are morons who don't want to learn from history...


edit on 7-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST


John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)


"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"



Have a look at the headline quote above and say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people who know Hitler's speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf. The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable. And if there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:


This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.


That settles it, doesn't it? Who does not know of Hitler's glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a "thousand-year Reich"?

But neither quote is in fact from Hitler. Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author (See here and here). So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who would be.

But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself. The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:


"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".


Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.
...

knol.google.com...


edit on 7-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


So I see you have linked socialism to genocide ,
then surely you can see the link between capitalism and genocide , well america / britian , france have all committed crimes against humanity and killed millions all in the name of free market and profit .

Socialism/ communism . is just as bad as capitalism !



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Proves my point. There are different definitions of the ideal so saying that it stands for a single thing is moot.

Saying that Hitler lived as a socialist because he was vegetarian and environmentalist is ridiculous. They have nothing to do with each other.

Dictatorships could not be socialist. Just like they can't be democratic. Now they can say they have the best interest of the people at heart or stage elections like they do in Cuba but you know that that means nothing.

Again it just depends on what you accept as the definition of socialism. Since there is no agreement to what that is we get thread after thread of one side arguing using one and another side arguing the other.

Since the system Hitler put in place, if we look at the FACTS, looked more like fascism and according to the Doctrine of Fascism it is a rightwing idealogy then I have to say that so was Hitler's Germany.




edit on 7-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I want to know EXACTLY where you got your education because even monarchies are SOCIALIST in nature...

in a monarchy a small group of people have all power, and control over a nation, which is centralization of power, and they CLAIM to represent the people and do "what is best for the people"


No they're not. Once again socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production'. What has that got to do with Royalty that are private owners, capitalists?

A small group having all power is not socialism, why can't you understand that? I have given you the dictionary definition, where does it say socialism is centralized control?

Socialism is an ECONOMIC system, you keep trying to make it a political system, that is why you are confused.

Capitalism is an economic system.

Fascism is a political system, that supports private ownership of the means of production, which is capitalism, but mostly supports government and state control.


So keep claiming socialists/leftwingers who don't want to admit what Hitler truly was, but the facts and evidence say the contrary...


No they don't. You fail to understand history. At no point did Hitler advocate socialist ideals. There may be some similarities, but the main difference is in who ultimately control and own the means of production. If it is private owners it is capitalism, if it is mainly government/state it is nationalism, if it is worker owned it is socialism. Hitler advocated mainly nationalism, he wanted control, he didn't want to give control to the people.



WRONG... Hitler advocated, and I quote AGAIN directly from Hitler...


When did Hitler turn the means of production over to the workers? He didn't because he advocated private ownership of the means of production, capitalism. He put socialists, communists, labour leaders in prison camps.
What he said was no more than proaganda to appeased the masses and gain power.

Hitler said, 'Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not', which is complete BS, the main defining point of socialism is anti-property. That is why socialism was created in the first place, mill workers realising they would be better off if they cooperatively owned, and ran, the mill themselves, as apposed to a private property owner.

You have to understand politics of those times, the people were mostly left wing socialist, the establishment was the right wing. It is still like that mostly in Europe, only in America has it been twisted so you support the right.


And only ignorant morons don't know the fact that even National communism exists, just like national socialism...


I never said it didn't, but so what? The word you need to stop ignoring is National, which makes it something different from left wing socialism.

But you also have to realise these are just words, anyone can use them, it's what they actually do in practice that counts. If I called myself a Christian and killed people, would you then brush all Christians as murderers because I claimed to be one? Are preachers who kill still Christians? Does it mean Christianity is bad, and the opposite better?


The only difference that morons can't understand between socialism and national socialism is that one concentrates on strengthening only one nation, meanwhile the other seeks to expand socialism to other nations...


Rubbish. Socialism once again IS NOT politics. Government have no interest in spreading socialism because it would not benefit them. Governments prefer capitalism because it gives them power and justification for their existence. Socialism requires no government, and is why it is the preferred economic system of Anarchists...

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.


Anarchists are socialists who believe that socialism must be built out of the struggles of working class people, acting in their own class interests. ‘Socialism’ cannot be imposed from above.

libcom.org...


Ironic how history repeats itself... Every time a socialist dictatorship appears new socialist morons claim "but that is not real socialism, and invent some retarded idea on how to change it and implement it again just to create another socialist dictatorship...


What socialist dictator? The term is an oxymoron. Socialism can not be forced from above, it has to come from the bottom, from the people. If it is imposed by force it is not socialism.


But morons do trip over the same stone not once, not twice, not thrice, but time, and time, and time, and time again simply because they are morons who don't want to learn from history...


You describe yourself flawlessly.


edit on 12/7/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"


How has that got anything to do with socialism?

You really need to learn what socialism is.


Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

www.spunk.org...


edit on 12/7/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
There were communists that wanted to follow Lenin's idea of communism, and others that wanted to follow Stalin's idea of communism... Did that make ANY OF THEM any less communist?... NO....


Not really true. Socialism came long before Lenin or Stalin, and it was as much a European and American ideal as it was Russian.

In the 1800's socialists were split between those who supported the state, Marxists, and those who apposed the state and called themselves Libertarian Socialists, Anarchists. Anarchists did not follow Marx, Lenin or Stalin obvioulsy.

Everyone always focuses on Russia but ignore the real socialist revolution that happened in Spain...

www.infoshop.org...


Hitler, and his close circle had a different idea on socialism and that idea was NATIONAL SOCIALISM...


Yes, and it had nothing to do with left wing socialism. Completely different system.

BTW you should be thanking the socialist left for what you are now benefiting from...



Socialism an integral part of U.S. labor history Key role of communists and socialists in workers' struggles


edit on 12/7/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What he said was no more than propaganda to appease the masses and gain power.



This. A thousand times.
Hitler was not a socialist.

/thread.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
These are definitions of socialism from a Startpage web search "Political Science Dictionary"



Definition Of:

socialism

Dictionary of Political Economy

A class of ideologies favoring an economic system in which all or most productive resources are the property of the government, in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which any remaining private production and distribution (socialists differ on how much of this is tolerable) is heavily regulated by the government rather than by market processes . Both democratic and non-democratic socialists insist that the government they envision as running the economy must in principle be one that truly reflects the will of the masses of the population (or at least their "true" best interests), but of course they differ considerably in their ideas about what sorts of political institutions and practices are required to ensure this will be so. In practice, socialist economic principles may be combined with an extremely wide range of attitudes toward personal freedom, civil liberties , mass political participation, bureaucracy and political competition, ranging from Western European democratic socialism to the more authoritarian socialisms of many third world regimes to the totalitarian excesses of Soviet-style socialism or communism . [See also: communism , welfare state , anarchism , democracy , civil rights/civil liberties , totalitarianism , market economy , egalitarianism ]

www.socialsciencedictionary.com...




so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
socialism [ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm]
n
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. — socialist, n., adj. — socialistic, adj.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Except for utopian socialism, all of these definitions have the government or state completely controls the economy in the name of the people. The NAZI Party controlled the Third Reich in the name of the people. Hitler was a NAZI. Therefore Hitler was a socialist.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Except for utopian socialism, all of these definitions have the government or state completely controls the economy in the name of the people. The NAZI Party controlled the Third Reich in the name of the people. Hitler was a NAZI. Therefore Hitler was a socialist.


While those definitions do say that government or state control everything some would argue that those definitions are wrong. But, regardless of that, the NAZI Party was fascist and fascism is anti-socialist so there is no way that Hitler could have been a socialist.

The problem is that people think that rightwing means smaller government but that isn't always true. Fascism is centralized capitalism.


edit on 7-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


And gogo keeps going with his lies...

Are you that hard headed?...

socialists/communists of different branches have, and continue to disagree with each other ever since socialism was invented but that does not make them any less socialist/communist... There were communists that wanted to follow Lenin's idea of communism, and others that wanted to follow Stalin's idea of communism... Did that make ANY OF THEM any less communist?... NO....

Hitler, and his close circle had a different idea on socialism and that idea was NATIONAL SOCIALISM...


edit on 7-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Joseph Stalin followed Vladmir Lenin's version of communism, implemented a ruthless totalatarian dictatorship and labeled that system with the pseudonym "union of soviet socialist republic". Again there was nothing socialist about national communism.

Marxism, Leninism, Trotskism, Maoism are various forms of communism and have nothing to do with socialism, but communists HIDE under socialism because communism is a zombie system based on perfection which is unattainable by humans.

Who the hell wants to be a taxi driver slave to the state? Or a hot dog vendor slave to the state? Communism is socialistic overkill and needs brute force to maintain itself. That is why the USSR came crumbling down faster than socialism or capitalism. In fact it is a miracle that it lasted 70 years, give or take a little.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by sapien82
 


Fascism is a subset of socialism. Fascism derived from socialistic political organizations in the 1920's and has kept the same central control model.

What fascism and socialism have in common is far greater than how they differ.

Any form of government can be good or bad. It depends on the qualities or character of the people in charge. Sooner or later bad people will be in charge and the power they exert will never be relinquished.


Exactly. It mostly depends on if we are dealing with republics or democracies. Most republics end up as dictatorships as with the ussr and the usa, south and central america, etc. While most democracies end up fairly representive of their population.

A communist democracy is better than a communist republic and a socialist democracy is better than a socialist republic. But with capitalism it is impossible to have a true democracy due to the hoarding of wealth associated with the private ownership of ALL means of production.

A socialist democracy would be the best form of government both in theory and in practice, but the bankers and international capitalists are destined to sabotage it every chance they get because they are demonic control freaks.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
These are definitions of socialism from a Startpage web search "Political Science Dictionary"


We are talking about the base definition of socialism, without the political ideologies attached to it. That being the workers cooperative ownership of the means of production.

Why would anarchists support a socialist economy if it included government? That would not be logical would it?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

“Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality” Mikhail Bakunin


Socialism can be many, very different, things. For anarchists it must be libertarian, indeed class struggle anarchists often interchangeably describe themselves as libertarian socialists or libertarian communists.


Socialism can be what we make it, being afraid of it because someone else decided their idea of socialism should be forced on the people is stupid. Associating it with every despot leader is also stupid.

Socialism was and always will be a system of the people for the people. Capitalism is the system that benefits the minority elite ruling class, at our expense.

Until this is realised nothing is ever going to change. Supporting capitalism, and the right, is not going to give you a job.


Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.

slp.org...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
There were communists that wanted to follow Lenin's idea of communism, and others that wanted to follow Stalin's idea of communism... Did that make ANY OF THEM any less communist?... NO....


Not really true. Socialism came long before Lenin or Stalin, and it was as much a European and American ideal as it was Russian.

In the 1800's socialists were split between those who supported the state, Marxists, and those who apposed the state and called themselves Libertarian Socialists, Anarchists. Anarchists did not follow Marx, Lenin or Stalin obvioulsy.

Everyone always focuses on Russia but ignore the real socialist revolution that happened in Spain...

www.infoshop.org...


For crying out loud, there is no such thing as anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism!! The people who came up with such a pseudo-system were highely delusional and obviously did not understand political science well enough.

It was A PROTEST GROUP much like OWS and the Tea Party of today. Anarchism means no government and no state. If people do not recognise a state/nation to exist, then obviously there can be no central government.

Anarcho ANYTHING closely resembles tribalism, like the native american tribes or african zulu tribes. Is that what you really want???


I would focus more on democracies versus republics. THAT is were the conspiracy between the masses and elite lies. Everything else is bs!



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are so wrong that you can't see past your nose...

I have continuously posted from LEFTWINGER sources, including wikipedia, and socialists like you keep claiming "that's not true"...


BTW, do show me ONE socialist state that is controlled by the people... PLEASE...



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
...
Anarcho ANYTHING closely resembles tribalism, like the native american tribes or african zulu tribes. Is that what you really want???


So, are you claiming that native tribes didn't/don't have chiefs? That they don't have a council of elders who decide what the tribe should do?



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I would focus more on democracies versus republics. THAT is were the conspiracy between the masses and elite lies. Everything else is bs!


Republic has NOTHING to do with "elites"... What in the Republic means in the U.S. doesn't have to have the same meaning in another country. For example, it has a different meaning in China, and North Korea.

The true conspiracy lies in the fact that when socialism puts it's nose in any country, the banker elites take control of such country.

Heck the IMF is a socialist central bank, just like the Feds in the U.S.


edit on 8-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join