Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

page: 29
9
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Good thread. I think we all learned a little about socialism and Hitler. Why do I think Hitler was a socialist? I have a Nazi flag that was given to my grandmother's second husband. He had Nazi prisoners of war working on his farm. He was a socialist and attended the nazi party meetings that the Geneva convention allowed them to have. They shared similar philosophies. They respected him and gave him the finely threaded flag made from napkins. Last week a friend informed me that his great grandfather may have worked on that farm. It appears that these prisoners liked it here better than war torn Germany.




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Not to be rude, but what has that got to do with Hitler being a socialist?

Once again Hitler allowed private ownership of the means of production. That is capitalism.

Most working class people in those times were socialist, even Germans, that is why Hitler used the term in the first place. It was to fool the highly organized workers into supporting his party, it was propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess history is not taught in high school anymore? Anyone who has studied the 1930's would not mistake Hitler for a socialist.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Here again we have a lack of understanding when it comes to both forms or directions of idiocy. Both national socialism and communist's are in effect the same thing, and no "communism" is not either "scientific", or even rational, the same with the other goose steppers. Many people think that "radical" or what is technically the extreme right-wing, or "revolutionary", the extreme left is just that as seen as a half circle. Being what I consider in the rational center, at the top of the arc, or half circle, at least I don't have a problem with getting seasick, or crippling vertigo. But as far as I'm concerned at least for me its easier to look at politics as a complete, not half circle. You go far enough to the right or left and you end up coming up from behind you, regardless of which direction you start from.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
Here again we have a lack of understanding when it comes to both forms or directions of idiocy. Both national socialism and communist's are in effect the same thing...


No they're not.

The national socialists hated the communists. They fought against the communists in Spain. Hitler put socialists and communists in the camps.

Hitlers main enemy were the Bolsheviks, who became the communist party of the Soviet Union, lead by Lenin.

But you also all have to understand these are political parties, none of them were socialist or communist, even the ones that claimed to be. Those terms were working class terms, of the people, not governments (even the term 'capitalism' was a left wing created term, meaning the 'private ownership of the means of production'). Governments simply used those terms to garner support from the people. Just like they do today. The German Democratic Republic, for example, was not democratic.

Real socialism, and communism, have nothing to do with government. They are economic systems. The original left wingers were mostly anti-government/state. Even Marx was against government, he just thought it was a necessary evil to get society to a point whereby we could do away with the state, and all hierarchical systems such as capitalism, altogether.

Talk about misunderstanding history.


edit on 12/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I was just stating that a socialist liked some of Hitler's ideas because they were shared ideas about an idillic society. I would say Hitler was part socialist and attracted socialists. Maybe it was a political trick.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by arbiture
Here again we have a lack of understanding when it comes to both forms or directions of idiocy. Both national socialism and communist's are in effect the same thing...


No they're not.

The national socialists hated the communists. They fought against the communists in Spain. Hitler put socialists and communists in the camps.

Hitlers main enemy were the Bolsheviks, who became the communist party of the Soviet Union, lead by Lenin.

But you also all have to understand these are political parties, none of them were socialist or communist, even the ones that claimed to be. Those terms were working class terms, of the people, not governments (even the term 'capitalism' was a left wing created term, meaning the 'private ownership of the means of production'). Governments simply used those terms to garner support from the people. Just like they do today. The German Democratic Republic, for example, was not democratic.

Real socialism, and communism, have nothing to do with government. They are economic systems. The original left wingers were mostly anti-government/state. Even Marx was against government, he just thought it was a necessary evil to get society to a point whereby we could do away with the state, and all hierarchical systems such as capitalism, altogether.

Talk about misunderstanding history.


edit on 12/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo


A fanatic is a fanatic, I don't care which flag one goose steps under. So the "official" NAZI party line was anti-communist? Extreme right or left wing it's still the same old bull # if you look beneath the veneer. Misunderstanding history? I've lectured at the US Army's War College, and taught courses in Psyops, technology and it's impact on 20th century history, and other fields. Also have several companies and worked free lance for the State Department behind the iron curtain at the height of the cold war. Buddy, I know what I'm talking about. You certainly don't have to agree with me however.

I should mention your absolutely right socialism is an economic structure, or defines an economic component of a country. Arguably, and w/out question many nations have major socialist aspects and are also democratic. And every nation that many in the US consider "socialist" have elements that are indeed socialist, Sweden for example, has a all-encompassing social net, that are extensive and include medical care, day care and other aspects of a huge human services infrastructure that are paid for by much higher personal taxes then anything in my country for example. Yet there is thriving capitalism in Sweden as well as other countries that has a huge, for the most part private and trust me very successful corporations.

One of the oldest and largest companies in Sweden is a major defense systems producer, which by the way also sold to both the Axis and Allies in WW-2. Today Sweden produce's arguably the most advanced non-nuclear sub's in the world (Germany a close second in technology and first in production volume) In fact the air independent sub's that use among other things fuel cells from Sweden are so good the US has "borrowed" for a fee naturally one or more for training our Navy in anti-sub warfare. It's generally accepted non-nuclear subs not using auxiliary engines, traditionally diesel, when running on traditional batteries, are quieter then nuclear boats because most nuke subs use noise making cooling pumps. Ours are very quiet, no pumps at all are quieter.

But communism is just in any way that matters fascism. Both are dictatorships and are much more then just economic systems, were talking a lifestyle per say. Communism has EVERYTHING to do with government. Indeed it's more then any one component. Marx said that "once the state was established and everything worked( I paraphrase) the state would wither away" Talk about delusional thinking at best, if not being psychotic. NO ONE INCLUDING A GOVERNMENT EVER WILLINGLY GIVES UP POWER. No one. If you believe that, you need a serious reality check. History and science are my two great passions. if you want some interesting fiction, Das Kapital is a real belly laugh. What amaze's me is some actually think such non-sense is part of any reality at least in this universe. Its literally unnatural as far as how humans react. The USSR ceased to exist not so much because the west defeated them as much as it was a system that fell apart all by itself. That was inevitable.

Your also absolutely right about the DDR, (ex-east Germany). I have a rule when it comes to explaining other socio-political systems and nations. Its always amazing that any nation that has "democratic and republic" as part of its official name is neither one of them.
edit on 30/12/11 by arbiture because: word repeat (I still stutter...)
edit on 30/12/11 by arbiture because: correct spelling fart, again...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Wow this guy is so smart!?

1 point
Marxism and Socialism are completely different ideologies

2) He was a Member of the Nationalist Socialist Party which in term is a contradiction in its own right as socialism accepts anybody outright not only people from their own country!

and why are you trying to stir up anti socialist hatred?

The Socialists of this earth rebuilt this country after WW2 not only for the capitalist tories to come along an privatise everything without a thank you anywhere for the working mans efforts!



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by ANOK
 


I was just stating that a socialist liked some of Hitler's ideas because they were shared ideas about an idillic society. I would say Hitler was part socialist and attracted socialists. Maybe it was a political trick.


What socialists? I'm a socialist and there is nothing about fascism that I like.

Trust me, no socialist has any interest in Hitler or his ideas. They are about as polar opposite as you can get.

They were enemies, Hitler waged war on the left in Spain when he supported the military takeover by Franco.

If it wasn't for Hitler the workers socialist revolution would have continued to be successful and spread from Spain to the rest of Europe, and possibly beyond. Hitler is the worst person in history for socialists and the left.

The only reason the right try to claim he was a socialist is because they don't like being tarnished with that history.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I am a member of the Socialist Party in Britain and I Despise the short vegetarian.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by naff1234
1 point
Marxism and Socialism are completely different ideologies


That is not quite true. Marxism is state-socialism. It was supposed to be a stepping stone to communism.

The socialists who apposed Marxism, and didn't want a state-system, called themselves anarchists, libertarian socialists. Libertarian was an anarchist term, which differentiated them from Marxists, who were supporters of the state. Libertarian and anarchism meant the same thing.

They are just different ways to implement the 'worker ownership of the means of production' in industry. For example anarcho-syndicalism is socialism through worker controlled trade unions.


The Socialists of this earth rebuilt this country after WW2 not only for the capitalist tories to come along an privatise everything without a thank you anywhere for the working mans efforts!


More importantly if it wasn't for socialists, or the left in general, we would still be working in the conditions they had at the start of the industrial revolution. Governments didn't give workers rights because they wanted to.

The companies in the UK that were privatized were not socialist anyway, they were government owned.
People always confuse socialism with nationalism. In a nutshell, nationalism is government owned, socialism is worker owned, capitalism is privately owned, communism is communal ownership by everyone.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by naff1234
Wow this guy is so smart!?

1 point
Marxism and Socialism are completely different ideologies

2) He was a Member of the Nationalist Socialist Party which in term is a contradiction in its own right as socialism accepts anybody outright not only people from their own country!

and why are you trying to stir up anti socialist hatred?

The Socialists of this earth rebuilt this country after WW2 not only for the capitalist tories to come along an privatise everything without a thank you anywhere for the working mans efforts!



I'm not sure who your directing this reply to but anyway, your certainly right there are major differences between socialism and marxism at least in that marxism is much more then an economic policy, it's more a fetish and thats being polite. And national socialism is again nothing more then a dictatorship. And funny enough thats what communism is. As for socialists "rebuilding the Earth" after WW-2, perhaps being born in 1990 you are not aware that in effect after WW-2 the UK was broke. Even after the war the UK still had shortages and rationing. I can understand being fed after what the UK went through since 1939 (on top of an already nasty depression).

As a capitalist myself I know one thing for sure. Perhaps not SOP but certainly logical, the reason I've done well is I know I would have very little if I didn't have people working in my company that are good at what they do, and work as hard I do. That means sharing the wealth. I consider that not only practical, but the decent thing to do. Not every capitalist does of course and thats their mistake.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
And funny enough thats what communism is.


How is communism a dictatorship? Please explain.


As a capitalist myself...


Really? You actually make your living from your capital, and the hiring of labour? The term 'capitalism' was first used by Louis Blanc, a socialist, 'Organisation du travail' (1839), and a decade later by Marx in the 'Communist Manifesto'. It was a left-wing term meaning, 'the private ownership of the means of production'. Just like the term 'libertarian', it was appropriated by the right, and it's meaning twisted to further weaken the power of the left and confuse people.

Louis Blanc

Organisation du travail (1839)

Proudhon and Anarchism

Have any of you guys ever actually done any research into this?

Do you know that, like socialism, communism requires no government? How can it be a dictatorship without government? Ever heard of anarcho-communism? You need to ignore what happened in Russia etc., because they were not communist, the revolution failed. Russia, China etc., have state capitalism. Once again they were communist in name only, just like the German Democratic Republic was not democratic.

Capitalism is a dictatorship of the owners of the means of production. They manipulate and control the economy to their benefit.

Anarchist communism - an introduction

State Capitalism in Russia

If State Capitalism Is So Good, Why Are Russian And Chinese Entrepreneurs Fleeing?

If people remain ignorant to what is really going on we will never have liberty, we will always be slaves to the capitalist class. Capitalists exploits you because you have to produce more than you are paid for, in order for the capitalist to make profit.

I'm guessing you guys don't want to hear this because it goes against everything you've been taught. But think about this, why would capitalists tell you the truth when that truth would destroy their power and control over the economy. They have the economic power to control information. Capitalists own the media. Think about that.

edit on 12/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by arbiture
And funny enough thats what communism is.


How is communism a dictatorship? Please explain.


As a capitalist myself...


Really? You actually make your living from your capital, and the hiring of labour? The term 'capitalism' was first used by Louis Blanc, a socialist, 'Organisation du travail' (1839), and a decade later by Marx in the 'Communist Manifesto'. It was a left-wing term meaning, 'the private ownership of the means of production'. Just like the term 'libertarian', it was appropriated by the right, and it's meaning twisted to further weaken the power of the left and confuse people.

Louis Blanc

Organisation du travail (1839)

Proudhon and Anarchism

Have any of you guys ever actually done any research into this?

Do you know that, like socialism, communism requires no government? How can it be a dictatorship without government? Ever heard of anarcho-communism? You need to ignore what happened in Russia etc., because they were not communist, the revolution failed. Russia, China etc., have state capitalism. Once again they were communist in name only, just like the German Democratic Republic was not democratic.

Capitalism is a dictatorship of the owners of the means of production. They manipulate and control the economy to their benefit.

Anarchist communism - an introduction

State Capitalism in Russia

If State Capitalism Is So Good, Why Are Russian And Chinese Entrepreneurs Fleeing?

If people remain ignorant to what is really going on we will never have liberty, we will always be slaves to the capitalist class. Capitalists exploits you because you have to produce more than you are paid for, in order for the capitalist to make profit.

I'm guessing you guys don't want to hear this because it goes against everything you've been taught. But think about this, why would capitalists tell you the truth when that truth would destroy their power and control over the economy. They have the economic power to control information. Capitalists own the media. Think about that.

edit on 12/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Communism is a dictatorship by default. The non-sense that Marx wrote that "the state would wither away, or as Lenin said "the end justifies the means" speak's for itself. Human nature is where human beings are not living in fantasy land or some psychotic fugue, AT BEST. Do some Capitalist's exploit those because they can? Of course some do. Their short sighted, cruel, and frankly stupid bastard's. First and foremost, civilized people know if FOR NO OTHER reason you can not run an office, factory, or in effect any business with "slaves". Anyone who has had a business, and I have owned several going back over 30 years has taught me that treating everyone with kindness, decency and generosity is not just "good business", much more important its the right thing to do.

Many years ago I was asked if I knew the "golden rule". And I asked "which one"? I was told "he who has the gold rules" I told them quite bluntly that my version (aside from the one that states "treat others as you would wish to be treated"). I said that those with the gold must understand; gold is a form of currency and little more, and certainly NOT the most valuable or sacred "thing" in any way on Earth or in Heaven. And of course you cant eat it, and it wont save your life when you think you are about to die. And I have come close twice, and knew it then and thats something if you've been there will never forget it. Years ago when in the former USSR was asked "why was I a Capitalist"? I said unlike communism, capitalism works. But only as well and decently as people practice it.

Being a capitalist I hardly consider myself a dictator. I would be much richer if I was a greedy bastard. But believe the "right" thing to do is not just pay people way above the "going rate", actually spend more on benefits, profit sharing, bonuses and things like 30 days paid vacation, fully paid trips, w/one guy having 9 kids and getting business class travel+ I pay for hotel/transportation, even theme park or resort tickets, (or people can take the equivalent in cash) year long paid maternity leave, spa treatments, you name it. Not all capitalist's are a SOB you know. An hour a day to do anything, personal project, whatever people want at the office. Why? Because I can.

edit on 1/1/12 by arbiture because: correct spelling, what else, I have a bad stutter



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
Communism is a dictatorship by default.


If a country is a dictatorship it isn't communism, no matter what they call it.

You can't judge communism by what has happened in history, because there have been no communist countries, only propaganda.

True communism does not have a government/state in order to dictate anything.

But we have had capitalism for a long time, and we can see the problems it creates. It is capitalism, not communism, that has caused a lot of the world to be in dire poverty. It is capitalism, not communism, that makes you compete for a job. It is capitalism, not communism, that coerces you to produce more than you are paid for in order for someone else to make money off your labour. It is capitalism, not communism, that creates the divide between people. It is capitalists, not communists that have lied to you and causes you to be confused as to what these systems really are. It is capitalism, not communism, that creates artificial scarcity of resources in order to maximize profit.

Again I ask you how can communism be totalitarian if it can be anarchistic? It is simply an economic system, not a political system. The right have turned them into political systems in order to confuse you.


From ancient times, the term COMMUNISM has meant, not a method of struggle, much less a special method of reasoning, but a system for the complete radical reorganization of society on the basis of common ownership of wealth, common enjoyment of the fruits of the common labor by the members of human society, without any of them being able to appropriate social capital too themselves for their exclusive advantage to the exclusion or detriment of others. It is an ideal of the economic reorganization of society, common to a number of schools of socialism (anarchism included); and the Marxists were by no means the first to formulate the idea.

nefac.net...

You should learn what communism really is, and not what authorities have twisted the term to mean. How can you trust an authority, with an agenda, to tell you the truth? You have to look for sources that are not completely biased towards capitalism, which all main stream information is.


Overwhelmingly, most people’s understanding of what Communism is, comes from an extremely propagandistic presentation of the Soviet Union, generally by US right-wing sources. This would give you the idea that communism is supposed to be very authoritarian, rigidly collectivistic and anti-democratic...
...So let me say this first: Whatever view you may have of the USSR (and there are quite a few supporters of Stalinism out there), it was not Communism...

dbzer0.com...


So often Russia is described at having tried 'socialism.' Russia under Lenin, Stalin and the rest is usually described as socialist or communist by the media. Yet, as these extracts from our British-based journal, The Socialist Standard, argue, Russia was never socialist…

www.worldsocialism.org...

Those countries call themselves communist in order to garner support from the people, they lie just like our governments lie. They were systems of state-capitalism. Industry was mainly privately owned, and some government owned (nationalism).

edit on 1/1/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


First communism is not anarchist because the latter implies no government or control. Communism is total government and total control. And since human beings are involved it is doomed to failure. Any super-centralized government is by nature a dictatorship. To think otherwise is to be too wrapped up in hypothetical social studies, and not how real people in the real world behave. I spent some time behind the iron curtain before the myth of communism collapsed under its own weight. At best it was a mafia like government run from the top down. That was the real world under "communism".



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

But your the one that posted.


I have a rule when it comes to explaining other socio-political systems and nations. Its always amazing that any nation that has "democratic and republic" as part of its official name is neither one of them.


So it is your rule to not take the words used in the names of countries at face value. Doesn't this apply to the USSR and other socialist/communist countries or do you only apply the rule when it suits you?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by ANOK
 


First communism is not anarchist because the latter implies no government or control.


Dude communism and socialism are the foundations of anarchism. You really need to do some research. Do I have to do all your work for you...


There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism.

Interestingly, socialism emerged as feudalism began to breakdown. Communist movements originally developed among the conservative feudal peasants and craftsmen. Many of the guilds from feudal times were workers' organizations that lived communal lifestyles. As the industrial revolutions began these communal lifestyles became jeopardized.

Anarchist and Communist ideology were very similar at this point. In the 1700s, both of these movements were dominated by peasant farmers and guilds.

More about the roots of Anarchism and Communism:

rationalrevolution.net...

Stop believing what your lying state system has taught you. Anyone on ATS shouldn't be falling for that, knowing all the lies that come from the state. Those term were appropriated by the state in order to weaken the power of the true left (not what passes for 'the left' in today's politics). 'The left' were working men and women struggling to better their lives, not lying politicians dividing people in order to better control society.


Communism is total government and total control.


No it isn't. That would be totalitarianism.

edit on 1/2/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by arbiture
 

But your the one that posted.


I have a rule when it comes to explaining other socio-political systems and nations. Its always amazing that any nation that has "democratic and republic" as part of its official name is neither one of them.


So it is your rule to not take the words used in the names of countries at face value. Doesn't this apply to the USSR and other socialist/communist countries or do you only apply the rule when it suits you?




It has nothing to do with wether it suits me or not. Look at each nation at face value, if it calls itself democratic and republic as part of its official name ask yourself, is it either one?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No but thank thank you you for offering to do the work for me. Perhaps what what I have done for the last 30+ years is fiction, science fiction or just damn fiction. Did you ever actually look at the life of Karl Marx? The man who proclaimed such high ideals was a guy who rarely worked a day in his life. He lived off the generosity of his friends. He spent most of his life drinking and writing glorious documents, with those around him picking up the tab. How nice for him, how awful for those who believe this bull s*** What he said may have sounded nice on paper, but in practice quickly devolved. Wether an ideal or reality, communism just doesn't work.

I mean on paper it sounds just great. And then you get cold water thrown in your face and you have to both wake up and grow up. You don't have to believe me, ask yourself what people do when given absolute power? They take and run with it as far and as long as they can, thats just human nature buddy.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
It has nothing to do with wether it suits me or not. Look at each nation at face value, if it calls itself democratic and republic as part of its official name ask yourself, is it either one?

Wouldn't that also extend to whatever any country calls itself. That is what you and ANOK have been going back and forth about. He is applying your rule.

Were those countries with socialist or communist in their names really either one? Your rule says that if they don't fit the dictionary definition then no. But, you have been arguing against that in your last posts.

So is it only applicable when it suits you or is ANOK right in applying your rule to countries like the USSR, NK and China?
edit on 2-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join