Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

I posted enough evidence in your other thread to keep you busy for ever.

The easy answer?

National socialism supports private ownership of the means of production. The Nazi party, and fascism, is capitalist.

Socialism is an answer to the problem of 'private ownership', and is a system of social ownership/worker ownership.

If you need more evidence of that, go back and read my replies that you ignored in your other post.

Socialism accept private ownership of some business, but major industry and banking should be public owned. Socialism accepts private ownership of your personal belongings such as your home, car, boar, airplane, jewelry, etx.

Capitalism accepts EVERYTHING CAN BE PRIVATE such as delta airlines, the Federal Reserve, United Airlines, Citibank, General Motors, Ford, the government, Amtrack tains, Greyhound buses, etc.

Communism means EVERYTHING IS PUBLIC even your house, car, jewelry and off course ALL BUSINESS VENTURES from small time newspaper kiosk, hot dog vendors, to aeroflot national air carrier, railroads, ships, etc. Zero freedom with communism because people share everything!

Nationalism means military aggression and the desire to expand your borders. Any economic system is prone to nationalism aka imperialism. Usually people consider imperialism only with monarchies and capitalism but that is a failed assumption.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Oh and just to put the final nail in your arguments coffin:

Far-right, extreme right, hard right, radical right, and ultra-right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics. Far-right politics may involve anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[1] At the most extreme, far-right movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[2] Far right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia.[3] Far right is commonly associated with persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or reactionary views.[4] Typically the term is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's take left, right out of the formula for the moment.

Let's look at large government versus small government. Ideologies that espouse large government are socialist in nature. When government mandates intrude into every aspect of a persons life, ( large government ) then many would call that socialism or even communism. If a person, though, agrees with those mandates then they might argue the point as to whether or not it is socialism.

So socialism might truly be in the eye of the beholder simply due to the perspective of the individual.

My 2 cents.
Carry on.

Hitler was a socialist! Stalin was a socialist! Roosevelt was a socialist! Churchhill was as well. All your leaders are to this day are socialists. They want to keep you from taking care of yourself so they can take care of you because their vision is greater than yours. Isn't that what socialism is? The way I see it if you support any leader other than yourself you are a sheep of socialism. Wake up, you be not sheep you be people!

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Oh and just to put the final nail in your arguments coffin:

Far-right, extreme right, hard right, radical right, and ultra-right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics. Far-right politics may involve anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[1] At the most extreme, far-right movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[2] Far right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia.[3] Far right is commonly associated with persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or reactionary views.[4] Typically the term is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis.[5]

I understand what you are trying to say but using the right-left paradigm strictly from an economic's perspective is flawed. I can be a socialist and against abortion, pro-gun ownership, ant-gay, etc. Conversely you can be a capitalist and be pro-abortion, anti-gun ownership, pro-gay, etc.

That is why I said in the OP's previous thread hitler was a right wing socialist. He was a socialist in economics, aka true centrist, but right wing in other regards. Still he was a socialist just the same, just like stalin was a communist with right wing ideas.

communism---socialism---capitalism Then there are variations to each system, especially with socialism.

reply to post by beezzer


Yep. That's why I've been saying the socialism is debatable. It was a complicated situation. It definitely wasn't communism. It was some hybrid of socialism/fascism/nationalism. The reason it got on the left right debate was because the only reason OP started the thread was to try to trash Occupy and liberals by aligning them with Hitler, but it backfired because Hitler was actually right and anti-liberal and anti-the type of socialism OP is trying to attribute to Occupy and some liberals (read: troll thread )

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I never argued that he wasn't some sort of socialist. I said it was complicated. I was addressing you saying " What the hell are you talking about? Hitler was NOT far right." When he in fact WAS far right.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
But there are similarities. If you look at the aspect that Occupy endorses a larger governent, then parallels can be drawn.

It's just the core ideologies that differ. Socialism is only the vehicle that drives the beliefs.

If my political party wanted government mandates that included;
Forced sombrero wearing
A total ban on olives
BattleStar Galactica run 24/7 on all tv channels
And anyone that "fist-bumps" sent to re-education camps

Then it would be socialism. It'd be "beezzer" socialism, but it'd be socialism.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I never argued that he wasn't some sort of socialist. I said it was complicated. I was addressing you saying " What the hell are you talking about? Hitler was NOT far right." When he in fact WAS far right.

Ok. My bad. Yes he was a socialist with many right wing ideas. Indeed it can get complicated especially when trying to compare political systems of the 30s through 40s, versus 90s and beyond.

Most of the time however a leftist is left in most if not all aspects of politcs, which makes hitler and stalin the exception to the rule. Hardcore socialists and communists avoid taking responsibility because it makes their ideology appear bad and I don't blame them.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

But there are similarities. If you look at the aspect that Occupy endorses a larger governent, then parallels can be drawn.

It's just the core ideologies that differ. Socialism is only the vehicle that drives the beliefs.

If my political party wanted government mandates that included;
Forced sombrero wearing
A total ban on olives
BattleStar Galactica run 24/7 on all tv channels
And anyone that "fist-bumps" sent to re-education camps

Then it would be socialism. It'd be "beezzer" socialism, but it'd be socialism.

Isnt't the american government already waayyyy tooooo biggg? LOL. I don't think OWS supports a bigger government per say, "just" a fair government big enough to get the job done. A government less for business and more for the workers.

It is a MYTH that socialism equals big government just like it is a myth that republicans spend less than democrats. The democrats spend one third what republicans spend and socialism and communism can have a relatively small government if it is effective.

It truely is a paradox how a capitalist american government can be SO BIG at the same time!

What a sad existence that revolves around spouting misunderstood catch phrases to try to demonize anyone who disagrees with you. This thread is just as pathetic and sad as your other one, you have fallen for this ridiculous left vs right extremists war that is driving our country into the ground and insist on making ATS your own personal battle field.

When will people stop being brainwashed by mass media red vs blue bull# and wake up to the fact that no one extreme position/political party/economic philosophy etc can ever be entirely right and almost all of them have some good points, we should pick and choose the best of all worlds instead of being stubborn extremists to a vague "left" or "right" and spouting stupid catch phrases at the other side.

Like I said in your other thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

What does this thread accomplish? Nothing, you just want to piss people off and paint anyone who disagrees with your indoctrinated ideas as evil (hitler-like). It's sad that our country gets off so much on picking a "side" and then blindly defending it and attacking the other even lying, distorting the truth, labeling, acting like 1 single person represents the majority, exaggerating, making strawman arguments etc, like this thread does. Sad, sad.

Originally posted by Quantazero
Hitler was a socialist! Stalin was a socialist! Roosevelt was a socialist! Churchhill was as well. All your leaders are to this day are socialists. They want to keep you from taking care of yourself so they can take care of you because their vision is greater than yours. Isn't that what socialism is? The way I see it if you support any leader other than yourself you are a sheep of socialism. Wake up, you be not sheep you be people!

WRONG! Hitler was a national socialist dictator, Stalin was a national communist dictator, Roosevelt was a liberal capitalist, Churchill was a socialist, all of todays leaders are capitalists. They want to prevent you from realising the truth so big business can continue to exploit the international workforce.

The way I see it is if you cannot add 2 and 2 to get a sum of 4, then you are a capitalist by default. Nice try though.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07
I disagree. Socialism is a form of government that mandates ideology.

If the government mandates a behaviour, then it is a form of socialism. Even if it is something that I agree with.
And that's the slippery slope.

There may be things that the government does that I agree with. But just because I agree with it, doesn't change the fact that it is government mandated.

Take abortion.

Until the time when the debate can finally end on when life begins, if the government banned abortion, it'd be a form of socialism. Soley due to the intrusive nature of the law.
Now I don't like abortion. I am totally against it.
But what is worse, is having the government step in to ban it versus a social agreement that it is bad.

Government intrusiveness equates to government size (in my perspective).

This guy's last thread was shut down because he's an obvious troll. He's purposely throwing out inflammatory rhetoric for the sole purpose of frustrating anyone who reading it. Admin will likely close this thread soon since he's simply doing the same thing again. Don't let this guy bait you - ignore him and he'll go away. I have no doubt he starts these things and then simply sits back to watch the fireworks.

Even if they ban him, he'll just come back under a different name.

Originally posted by beezzer
Socialism is a form of government that mandates ideology.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Government is not required for socialism. This is why we have anarchism...

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

Mikhail Bakunin

If the government mandates a behaviour, then it is a form of socialism.

Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production'. It has nothing to do with government doing anything. This is why anarchists support a socialist economy. This is why anarchism is also known as 'libertarian socialism', socialism and libertarianism. Libertarian was an anarchist term long before it was stolen by the right in the 1950's...

150 years of Libertarian

Socialism is divided into three main trends: reformism, anarchism and Marxism.

www.marx2mao.com...

Just because one government, or another, claims to be socialist it doesn't reflect on what socialism is. No system is going to really benefit 'the people' as long as we allow others to run it. State socialism will never work, but that doesn't mean other political systems that use a socialist economy wouldn't work.

The Spanish revolution is a good example of how it could work...

The Spanish Revolution (1936)

It wouldn't be exactly like that because times have changed obviously, but it should give you a clue that socialism is not what you think it is.

reply to post by ANOK
Government may not be required for socialism, but government enhances socialism.

Government is a tool that provides socialism an environment to grow.

Was Hitler a socialist? Yes. He used government to promote an ideology that many espoused.

Is Obma a socialist? Yes. He uses government to promote an ideology.

If Newt Gingrich became president and used government to enhance, promote his ideology, he'd be a socialist.

If I became president and used the government as a tool to promote my own ideology, I'd be a socialist.

That's my short answer. Will have to read up on what you provided to give a more precise answer.
Cheers

To add, government should just be about national defense and building interstate highways. Leave the rest to the people.

My 2 cents on the subject.

Time for work. Will check in later.

Beez

Originally posted by rogerstigers
www.politicalcompass.org...

That chart is BS. Designed to confuse. It reflects the BS that has been taught to us since WWII, a way to have the population support a system against their best interest. Understand what was happening in 1930's Europe, and you will understand why the capitalist class did this. (Spanish revolution)

It doesn't even account for the fact that libertarianism is of the left, and always has been.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

The left were the socialist revolutionaries, working class, you and me. The right was the establishment, the capitalists, the authoritarians.

When talking history, such as Hitler, we can't use the modern twisted version of political terms and associate with them. Hitler was most certainly on the far right. Fascism being the extreme of the right.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ANOK

 

Government may not be required for socialism, but government enhances socialism.

Government is a tool that provides socialism an environment to grow.

Huh? Did you even read past the first line of my post? Hmm?

Was Hitler a socialist? Yes. He used government to promote an ideology that many espoused.

Did you read any what I posted? Hitler could not be a socialist because fascism supports a capitalist economy not a socialist economy?

Is Obma a socialist? Yes. He uses government to promote an ideology.

Again no, because socialism is not government ideology, it is the 'workers ownership of the means of production'.
It has nothing to do with government. Please learn to separate economic and political systems, you are just confusing yourself.

To add, government should just be about national defense and building interstate highways. Leave the rest to the people.

Socialism is of the people, not government, as I have very careful outlined, with sources and quotes, in my previous posts. This is not opinion, this is historical facts. Teh internet has made people think they know but in reality it has simply confused people. Drop the mouse and pick up a book, or two.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

Whether he was a socialist is up for debate. He more closely resembles a neoconservative and he was a fascist.
What is for certain is that he was NOT the type of socialist that the right leaning people and organizations like FOX want to attribute to him. Fascism is against several types of socialism (liberal socialism and communism). So what is for certain is that Hitler was in fact far right.

How could hitler be far right when, *left* or *right*, in the UNITED STATES IS MEANT
as what side of the room they sit on the senate? The pubs on the right side of the room and the dems on the left side?

I'll excuse the ignorance..

reply to post by ANOK
Then what would you describe as the difference between socialism and communism?

Keep in mind, I ask not to troll but to understand. I see your point, but I question the definitions provided.