Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


India, I do believe?
I mean they are controlled by the people as much as we are.I think.. I am not gonna claim I know a lot about Indian politics, but they are a socialist democracy with three branches of government.

Originally posted by daskakik

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.

Wrong. I even posted evidence that the hatred that Hitler had for jewish people was the same hatred that Engels and Marx had for Jewish people...

They had the same military standpoints, and the speeches of HItler, plus what he did and implemented shows he was a socialist...

Hitler, and his close circle just didn't want to share with other socialists. That was it...

Just like Stalin and Lenin wanted their own version of communism to exist.

The history of EVERY socialist ideology is one of control over the others.

Centralization of everything can be found in socialist and communist ideologies. Heck, the communist manifesto itself explains in the 5th plank that there must be a central bank in a communist system...

When the state, no matter in whose name they CLAIM to do it, controls all means of production that is also centralization of power and infraestructure....

Yet some people want to claim centralization is not a tenet of socialist/communist ideologies?....

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

India, I do believe?
I mean they are controlled by the people as much as we are.

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

wow...

India has a caste system, and the lower caste have to ask permission to be able to do anything, including go to college/universities...

The untouchables, the lowest caste, CAN'T go to college and or universities, and most of them don't even have an education...

The untouchables in India are the people who do the types of work which to Indians "are dirty", and because of this they are shunned... Even the children of the "untouchables" in india are shunned just because of what their parents do. hence anyone born under an untouchable family will NEVER be able to leave that caste, and enjoy what the higher caste can do...

If that is what you want...

As for the U.S. the people haven't been in power ever since the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS gave the economy of the U.S. to the Feds/banker elites... and that happened in 1913...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Don't put words in my mouth. I was in it only to show you were wrong.
They are poor, we are all aware. Same haves and have nots in this country we just haven't seen such a great disparity yet.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


LOL.. we'll guess what? You can rage all you want, but there will always be the left. I am thankful for the Democrats just because you hate them so much. It's pretty bad when everything bad that you blame on the Dems I am starting to approve of just because it spites you. Even things that I hate. That is how obnoxious you are. You will never gain anyone to your way of thinking with the hateful attitude you have. Dems are fellow Americans. Get over it.

P.S. you are wrong about Hitler.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


Don't put words in my mouth. I was in it only to show you were wrong.
They are poor, we are all aware. Same haves and have nots in this country we just haven't seen such a great disparity yet.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, you did.

India is a Federation, and as such it has a centralized system which does make it socialist, but the people are not in control, the higher caste are...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


So what? You are moving on to another point after you were proved wrong with your point.
You didn't say a socialist country that isn't poor, or a socialist country that you would want to live in. You said one that is run by the people. I gave you that. So you are welcome. You were wrong. It's funny to see someone that would literally die before they admitted they were wrong. You have squirmed so much in this thread.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

So what? You are moving on to another point after you were proved wrong with your point.
You didn't say a socialist country that isn't poor, or a socialist country that you would want to live in. You said one that is run by the people. I gave you that. So you are welcome. You were wrong. It's funny to see someone that would literally die before they admitted they were wrong. You have squirmed so much in this thread.

We weren't proved wrong...

And the PEOPLE in India are not in power... THE HIGHER CASTE ARE IN POWER...

(The Varna and Jati Systems)

by Terence Callaham and Roxanna Pavich


The Indian caste system has been in use for many years. Still today the values of the caste system are held strongly. It has kept a sense of order, and peace among the people. There are five different levels of the system: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, and Harijans. Within each of these categories are the actual "castes" or jatis within which people are born, marry, and die. They all have their own place among each other and accept that it is the way to keep society from disintegrating to chaos. This system has worked well for Indian people and still has a major role in modern India.


Brahman
priest


Kshatriya
ruler, warrior, landowner



Vaishya
merchants


Shudra
artisans, agriculturalists



Harijan
"outside" the caste system
(once known as "untouchables")

www.csuchico.edu...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


So the same could be said about the United States.. The people aren't in power the higher caste are..

Also.. who is we?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Wrong. I even posted evidence that the hatred that Hitler had for jewish people was the same hatred that Engels and Marx had for Jewish people...

That is where you keep making mistakes. You keep pointing to things that are irrelevant. There are people in the US who are rightwing and also profess hatred of Jews. You would be in some deep trouble if you walked up to them and said that hating jews made them commies.

They had the same military standpoints, and the speeches of HItler, plus what he did and implemented shows he was a socialist...

There you go again. Military standpoints don't indicate left or right.

Hitler, and his close circle just didn't want to share with other socialists. That was it...

Maybe because they were in fact anti-socialist? That is what shows that they are really fascist posing as socialists. Is it really that difficult to stand back and realize that they never had any intrest in promoting equality.

The history of EVERY socialist ideology is one of control over the others.

The history of EVERY form of society is one of control over others. Even tribes have elders that decide for all on certain issues.

Centralization of everything can be found in socialist and communist ideologies. Heck, the communist manifesto itself explains in the 5th plank that there must be a central bank in a communist system...

See below.

When the state, no matter in whose name they CLAIM to do it, controls all means of production that is also centralization of power and infraestructure....

Yet some people want to claim centralization is not a tenet of socialist/communist ideologies?....

What I am claiming is that it is also a tenet of fascism which happens to be a rightwing ideology so saying that it is unique and indicative of socialism/communism is wrong.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
When the state, no matter in whose name they CLAIM to do it, controls all means of production that is also centralization of power and infraestructure....

Yet some people want to claim centralization is not a tenet of socialist/communist ideologies?....

How many times do you have to be shown that socialism does not have to be centralized control by government?

You do understand that anarchism is anti-state, and anti-government right?

So why would anarchists be socialists, if socialism was government/state control?

Because it isn't, anarchists know that socialism is the workers ownership, and control of the means of production.
That is it's true base definition, anything else is the political ideas of someone else, i.e. Marx/Engels, Lenin etc.
That is why it is a perfectly logical economic system for anarchism. No government required.

CAPITALISM TRIUMPHANT, SOCIALISM SUBVERSIVE

In an important, well argued and easy to read book, Bookchin forcefully notes the obvious: we have seen the triumph of capital since the 1980s; this has resulted in increasing working hours, decreasing pay packets, increasing alienation, mass unemployment and poverty, increasing misery, and the brink of an ecological crisis...

...Yet in a time when capitalism is encroaching upon almost every aspect of life, Bookchin ironically claims that the left today has little understanding of capitalism. This can be seen in the current "anti-capitalist" movement, which often confuses the ideology of the free market with capitalism as a whole. To Bookchin, who has been involved in revolutionary leftist politics since the 1930s, the tradition of revolutionary socialism seems lost...

...Bookchin essentially argues we need to rediscover socialism, that is, libertarian socialism. Anarchists need to also rediscover the socialism in anarchism. Many of the basic concepts of the leftist anarchist tradition have been lost. For example, many anarchists now view anarchism as a form of liberalism rather than socialism and completely distrust any talk of class. This means, as Bookchin notes, anarchism is losing its traditional left-wing core, and thus is fast becoming an unthreatening version of liberalism with a bourgeois emphasis on the freedom of the individual, on personal autonomy (a notion that suits capitalists just fine). "Anti-statism" isn't enough. Many reactionaries and even corporate bandits are against state intervention too. In my view, unless socialism is an integral part of anarchism, then anarchism becomes self-indulgence. Anarchists who aren't socialists might as well just call themselves individualists." (p. 125). So Bookchin claims what is sorely needed is a serious, coherent, organised, revolutionary anarchist left which is well-versed in anarchist socialist theory...

www.thrall.orconhosting.net.nz...

A Short Biography of Murray Bookchin

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterise the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations—freely constituted—all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles

Peter Kropotkin

Check out this bus in Brighton England...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

India, I do believe?
I mean they are controlled by the people as much as we are.I think.. I am not gonna claim I know a lot about Indian politics, but they are a socialist democracy with three branches of government.

Hmm India does not have a socialist economy, sorry.

To be socialist the workers have to own, and control, the means of production, period.

wiki.answers.com...

Saying countries like India are socialist just confuses people as to the real meaning of the term. Many governments claim to be socialist, but in reality they do not practice socialism as socialists use the term. Only a non-socialist would accept a system that does not have worker ownership of the means of production, as socialism. Unless it is worker owned, then it is either government owned, nationalism, or privately owned, capitalism, India is a mix of those two.

You could call America socialist on those same grounds, because there are worker owned companies in operation. But only the most ridiculous right wing fanatic would make that claim. All the world countries have a mixture of nationalism, and capitalism.

In the west we have been fed the lie that we are wealthy because of capitalism, and all countries that are poor is because they're not capitalist. It's propaganda. They are all capitalist in nature and practice. Capitalism can not make everyone wealthy, it is a system of exploitation where only a few really benefit.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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?

Of course they have chiefs and a council of elders, but the tribe does not consider itself a state or a nation. It considers itself a tribe, which is exactly what it is. The point is it is a form of decentralised government!

In holland for exampe they have a small communist commune setup in some town which I don't recall. It is considered semi-independent from the nation of holland and practices its own form of community management.

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.

One of the three is a communist republic and the other two are capitalist republics. Chine used to be communist/peoples republic but it no longer is in practice.

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.

If the government runs a nation on behalf of a private global banking cartel then NO it cannot be socialist. THE BANKERS AND THE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE SAME! Do you know that? Of course they won't tell you that on fox, cnn, bbc, russia today, etc because if they did it would cease to be a #in conspiracy theory. It would be a #in conspiracy FACT.

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)

Ok charlie brown. You keep mixing centralisation with decentralisation AS THOUGH it is relevant to our discussion. Guess what.. IT IS NOT! Be like ANOK and be an anarchist, one man army or something!!

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

India, I do believe?
I mean they are controlled by the people as much as we are.I think.. I am not gonna claim I know a lot about Indian politics, but they are a socialist democracy with three branches of government.

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

There is no country on this planet that is truely socialist anymore. Western europeans had socialism with private central banks, so in effect they were still capitalists. Do you think the bankers and international capitalists would ever agree to allow socialism take place? Nope,, never, as in never, as in they would rather blow this planet to hell with nukes then give up their satanic agenda. Make no mistake evil aliens are controlling this planet and always have. A laymens approach would be "sell your soul to the devil" without further explanations.

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany. Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood." Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

The Nazi Party (NSDAP)

Originally posted by sonnny1

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany. Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood." Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

The Nazi Party (NSDAP)

I would argue with the claim that he refined socialism. For one socialism does not mean making everyone equal.
It does put people on a more equal playing field, but that is not it's definition.

By adding nationalism to socialism creates an oxymoron, you can't have both, so he was either one or the other, or neither. But history shows what he did, and what he did was not turn the means of production over to the workers but he allowed private ownership, capitalism, to be maintained, and made his government the ultimate power over the economy. That is nationalism and fascism.

On the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War the leaders of the military uprising immediately asked the German government for help. The first request was for ten transport planes to ferry Nationalist troops from Morocco to Spain. Constantin von Neurath, the German foreign minister, initially rejected the request, expressing fears that such a move could lead to a European war. 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.

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

Another question for those who still think Hitler was a socialist, why did Hitler help the fascist dictator Franco's nationalist military rebellion?

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

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

Sorry but Hitler was an enemy of the left, and socialism.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was...

Myth: Hitler was a leftist. Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism

For perhaps ten years past I have had some grasp of the real nature of capitalist society. I have seen British imperialism at work in Burma, and I have seen something of the effects of poverty and unemployment in Britain. One has got to be actively a Socialist, not merely sympathetic to Socialism, or one plays into the hands of our always-active enemies. George Orwell

reply to post by ANOK


Star for ya.....


Agree.

I believe "redefined" might have been an exaggeration.

He branded his politics with a name in essence,that's all.

Originally posted by daskakik

That is where you keep making mistakes. You keep pointing to things that are irrelevant. There are people in the US who are rightwing and also profess hatred of Jews. You would be in some deep trouble if you walked up to them and said that hating jews made them commies.

That wasn't the only view that Engels, Marx and HItler had in common. They had very similar standpoints in a lot of things, and differed in others.

Originally posted by daskakik
There you go again. Military standpoints don't indicate left or right.

One of the other members claimed that having a military standpoint made Hitler rightwing, and this is why I pointed out that socialists/communists are also very militaristic...

Originally posted by daskakik
Maybe because they were in fact anti-socialist? That is what shows that they are really fascist posing as socialists. Is it really that difficult to stand back and realize that they never had any intrest in promoting equality.

Wow, how many times do I have to repeat myself? Do you not know the fact that Stalin and Lenin both had very different standpoints on what form of socialism/communism should exist?...

Did you not know that Stalin ordered the murder of nearly all of his Bolshevik comrades, including Trotsky, and Lenin?... Stalin had ordered several times the death of Trotsky, and other socialists/communists, until they succedded.

Leon Trotsky

Stalin Seeks My Death

The following article, now published for the first time, was written by Trotsky two weeks after the May 24, 1940 attempt to assassinate him. As the article relates, Stalin’s GPU was able to bring powerful pressure on the Mexican police to steer Its investigation away from the GPU murder band which had attempted to kill Trotsky. Shortly after this article was written, however, the investigation was brought back on the right track. Our press at the time published all the details of how the police arrested David Serrano, David Alfaro Siquieiros and a score of other Stalinists; how some of them confessed their complicIty, and the guilt of the Stalinist murder machine was established.
...
Trotsky’s article gives us his own description of the May 24th attempt on his life and of the events of the next two weeks. Another article by Trotsky on the attempt was “The Comintern and the GPU” published in the November, 1940 Issue of FOURTH INTERNATIONAL.

Stalin claimed that if other communists didn't back him 100% that they were his enemies...

Stalin wanted international communism, meanwhile Lenin wanted national socialism/communism, for this and other different ideas Stalin ordered the poisoning of Lenin...

Did that make Stalin any less socialist/communist?...

Do you not know the fact that socialists/communists who differed in opinion with other socialists/communists did similar things to what Stalin did?...

Even castro, and che guevara did things like these to other socialists/communists who did not back them 100% or who they saw as a threat to their power.

Originally posted by daskakik
The history of EVERY form of society is one of control over others. Even tribes have elders that decide for all on certain issues.

Not really, only through one or other form of socialism/communism certain people seek to have all control in the hands of a few "for the good of the revolution, and the good of all" or some other excuse such as "the good of the Earth, the planet and all humankind"...

Originally posted by daskakik
What I am claiming is that it is also a tenet of fascism which happens to be a rightwing ideology so saying that it is unique and indicative of socialism/communism is wrong.

Even fascism is a leftwing ideology, and even a leftwing source like wikipedia admits it.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership.[2] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.

en.wikipedia.org...

Does anyone know what a "cooperative enterprise" is?

Let's go back to wikipedia to find out exactly what a "cooperative enterprise" is...

A cooperative (also co-operative or co-op) is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit.[1] A cooperative is defined by the International Cooperative Alliance's Statement on the Cooperative Identity as "an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise".[2] A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or by the people who work there. Various aspects regarding cooperative enterprise are the focus of study in the field of cooperative economics.

en.wikipedia.org...

in socialism cooperative enterprise/s can be in charge, and cooperative enterprises are BUSINESSES...

Hitler was a socialist he just differed in some ideas from other socialists, which is why it was National Socialism, and that's where the word Nazi comes from. The first two letters of National and Socialism in German make the word Nazi.

If you read online from socialist/communist websites you will find that even when a corporation is in control of a nation, which is a form of fascism, such a system is socialist/communist.

For example....

Link

Link

The PROUT Worker Cooperatives
By Carla Dickstein, Ph.D.
Cooperative enterprises—worker, consumer, agricultural and credit—form the core of a PROUT economy. The majority of manufacturing and service enterprises are organized as worker cooperatives.
...

Link

That's just a few of them, and there are many.

www.bergonia.org...

www.marxists.org...

You see, in socialism/communism ALL power is in the hands of a few, despite what socialists/communists who have never experienced what their ideology really leads to want to claim.

Since in socialism and communism all power is consolidated, those in power see others with similar ideologies, in socialism/communism, as a threat, and as such are either incarcerated, or murdered.

I have even given in the past the testimony of former communist officers who testified to this truth, and how what true socialists and communists call "useful idiots" (people in the left who are not completely socialist or communist) are the first ones to die at the hands of socialists and communists when they have the power because these people are seen as a threat.