Hitler Was a Socialist!!!

Originally posted by beezzer
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.

Socialism has free-markets, money and profits (that goes to the workers, as apposed to the 'private owner'). Communism was supposed to be what happened when state socialism created enough wealth to do away with a structured economy, and resources would be free and communally owned. It was the idea that came about after a meeting in London in 1847, when people of many nationalities gathered to discus how to get rid of the ruling capitalist class, and put the working class in control of their own labour. Marx and Engels were at that meeting, and were asked to write a pamphlet outlining the groups ideas. They called it the 'Communist Manifesto'.

But not all people of course agreed with the Marx/Engels plan. That is where anarchism came in, they were the socialists who apposed the state, which Marx's idea included. The socialists who were apposed to the state started calling themselves anarchists, to differentiate themselves from the state socialists. Proudhon was the first to use the term Anarchism is this context in his book, 'What is Property?'.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin Bakunin was one of the first anarcho-communists.
He is know as the father of Anarchism by many.

The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995

socialism must become more popular, more communalistic, and less dependent upon indirect government through elected representatives. It must become more self-governing." Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 185

Peter Kropotkin was a Russian economist, and anarcho-communist. He was known as the Anarchist Prince.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by madhatr137

 

Ok anti-communist I can understand as they opposed the communist force of Russia, however I can not seem to find anywhere that he was anti-marxist and opposed the system we know as socialism today. Nazi Germany was text book socialism, I beg you to show me how it was any different.

Oh come on - do you even KNOW what socialism is? How do you define it? National socialism is so far different from socialism, there is no convergence possible - it's like comparing elephants to mice, because both are mammals.

Hitler was not socialistic. It was a label he prefered to put on his partys name to recruit more votes. It was the dusk of the Weimar Republic, the people were in awe of his strict doctrine after a long, seemingly useless struggle for power between several parties in the Weimar Parliament, each more interested in reaching more power than solving Germany's problems with unemployment, inflation, etc.

of course he was.how else do people quickly seize power and influence.
if steve jobs came to politics he dint have to prove himself (because his work and actions already proved. similarly for dennis( designer of C) and similarly for albert einstein or any other intelligent person.

But other people have to lie and socialism is the only sure shot path to fooling a huge amount of people.
Proof: candy for kids will u vote for me kids?
change for 18+ will u vote for me adults?
Socialism is only for a few less than 1% people. Feudalism along with equality and human rights are for rest of us animals.

If he was he was a Socialist who instigated the murder of millions and a war thats killed many millions more.

So who cares what he 'was' in style, we all know what he was in 'heart'

Cant we just stick with the understood by most definitions of Socialism and Capitalism.

Capitalism - Means of production held in private hands
Socialism - Means of production in workers hands.

Nazism - Nationalist Ideology based on a belief in racial superiority.

Simples.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


Communist? no!
racist? no!

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Well he was a member of the national socialists party of Germany, sounds like a leftie, socialist to me.

Except that "lefties" don't generally condemn homosexuals or anyone who has a different belief system or lifestyle for that matter. Most "lefties" could care less about eugenics or Imperial power, but what they do care about is an equal standing for all humans, that no one should have a leg up on someone else based on wealth or legacy, that everyone should have to start from the same place and have the same chances to succeed. They believe that the government has one objective to protect the people from enemies both foreign and domestic, whether those enemies be a physical threat, or a monetary one. That the government should regulate people who have too much money and power over other humans, and not the other way around. That's what most "lefties" want.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


of course he was but he was also insane.
this link is unik picture of my father (german soldier in ww2)
img23.dreamies.de...

Fascism isn't Socialism... Political Ideology 101.

Fascism is ruled by one man and it's economic system is based on Free Market (Dictatorship)
Socialism is ruled by the many and it's economic system is based on cooperatives and public ownership. (

Hitler was a very charismatic psychopath who claimed to be a national socialist, which was a totalitarian fascist state based on racism, hate, propaganda, pride and fear.

Socialism is based on equality; it upholds egalitarian values.

What's in a name ? I've heard of meth dealing buddist monks, and Nazi's who helped jews escape. Whatever tag you wish to put on him, inhuman twisted psychopath seems to fit rather well.

reply to post by thehoneycomb

Yes, it's too bad that one only needs to visit wikipedia to see the truth of such a controversial figure as Hitler.

You forgot the evil sadistic racist part.

OP this is ridiculous and you better did write down a question ??? instead of a affirmation !!! phrase.

Hitler did use the term « socialist « just to deceive people so they would sustain his power taking …..
Meanwhile he got enormous lots of money from the bankers and capitalist powers in place to gain that power.

It’s just like the devil who will deceive the human race.

Just like the neo-nazis everywhere still using that term socialist also : in their logic it means they create a elitist country that is good for just the people in that specific country, but in fact they just want to create a fascist state where everybody is deceived and manipulated and big brother-controlled and acting like a slave !!

How anyway can socialism be nationalistic ?? socialism is internationalism !!

Read about it please, google a bit and you will learn things before putting !!!!!! ‘s after such stupid words. Peace.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

No, I started it because it started in another thread, but it was off topic but a good debate so I started this thread. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

So...you say Hitler was a socialist....that i did not know. Your avatar is of Hitler...you seem to be a fan of Hitlers. Is he someone you admire?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


No I am not. The people that put socialism at the right do not know what socialism is to start with and so they simply link it to social considerations and state control, extreme right have also social consideration sadly it only covers only those that support the regime...

Society is a pyramidal structure everywhere you look, anarchists would like it not to be so and totalitarians would like to be the only ones on top. I do not agree with the axis structure someone placed previously since any extreme left and extreme right option would result in totalitarianism, that is the nature of man.

Of course some could argue that communism has merely failed all its implementation (and I subscribe that point of view) the problem with communism is that it can not compete with capitalism, or even function, since the clash results in corruption (that is the nature of capitalism) to some degree we historically saw how communism responds to survive in such context, purges and stricter control, that is the only reason that I see as viable and accept as an explanation of most historical events.

Socialism is a watered down version of Communism. Most countries especially in Europe are best described as fallowing Socialist policies, and note also that we also never had a implementation of purely capitalistic policies, the best approach was made in the USA.

We can also state that capitalism has never been as popular as communism by the simple fact of numbers, most people at the bottom of the social pyramid interests are best served by communism and the top of the pyramid is best served by capitalism.

I do not support Communism and even less Capitalism. My favorite order is Anarchist communism.

Originally posted by User8911
Good people and bad people prefer socialism.

You can't say socialism is bad because someone bad prefers it,

That's what most people tend to do, though. People say, "Well, this person practices this or that, and that person practiced it. He/she was 'bad,' so that which they practiced or believed must be 'bad." It's foolish reasoning, but folks do it all the time.

He was also insane, so one would think his political persuasion was a moot point.

Originally posted by mutualfeelings
of course he was.how else do people quickly seize power and influence.
if steve jobs came to politics he dint have to prove himself (because his work and actions already proved. similarly for dennis( designer of C) and similarly for albert einstein or any other intelligent person.

But other people have to lie and socialism is the only sure shot path to fooling a huge amount of people.
Proof: candy for kids will u vote for me kids?
change for 18+ will u vote for me adults?
Socialism is only for a few less than 1% people. Feudalism along with equality and human rights are for rest of us animals.

please learn a bit more and study a bit more about socialism and fascism, you will not tell such things like you do here ... google exists and books also and a chair is still a chair even if a fool is calling it a bed ok ?
and I am kind and polite !!
you can tell me the pope is Satan, could be possible, he can deceive the human race ...
but a word is a word and has a meaning even if some stupid guy does use it in a wrong way ...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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

)

Fascism is national socialism italian style. Nazism is national socialism german style. I don't think the two were exactly identical but for discussion sake they were close enough and that is why hitler aligned himself with mussolini and then the two aligned themselves with franco of spain and salazar of portugal.

Further turkey, romania, switzerland, austria were aligned with hitler. National Socialism was the greatest fad of the 30s and 40s because nations were leaving monarchy status and trying to make it out on their own. Another way to look at it was that many central and eastern european nations did not have enough new world colonies and they got together to take down the franco-british empire.

Back in those days capitalism was unheard of. You either supported morachies or socialist/communist dictators. Choices were extremely limited and many people jumped on the national socialism bandwagon for good reason it seemed. When you factor in that germany had lost ww1, had very high unemployment and inflation then war is the least far fetched concept you could come up with.

The world is not black or white and it certainly helps to know history to be able to make comparisons.

In other words people are arrogant because they do not know enough of what they are talking about and are extremely easy swayed by propaganda. The status quo holders love confusion because it further their agenda of divide and conquer by confusion.

reply to post by ANOK


You cannot be a communist and anarchist at the same time. The two concepts are POLAR OPPOSITES of each other. Communism is for total control of the population and national affairs, while anarchy is for no control of anything.

Just because some people think/thought it is/was possible certainly does not make it so. I see many people advocate anarcho-communism which in reality is suggestive of tribal communism, but tribal communism is for tribes and not states or nations. Nations, continents and the world are way too complicated for tribal communism to be effective.

communism--socialism--capitalism--libertarianism/monarchism--anarchism

Both libertarianism and anarchism is way right on the enhanced politcal scale/diagram. Both libertarianism and anarchism are not effective for the 21st century.

Hope this clears up certain things although I am sure lots of people will disagree. It is not easy to dispell misinformation!

Originally posted by beezzer
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.

Normally the smaller a government is in size, the more favorable to the elite it becomes. In monarchies they had kings/queens/dukes/dutchess which were deemed wealthy landowners(thus nobility) and thus rulers over the common man/women.

With anarchy the rules of the jungle mean the strong survive and the weak perish. If you have a shotgun and I have an uzi, then I will probably win. If you have $2,000 and I have $5,000 then I win. If I have more friends/connections then you, then I win. If I have more survival skills then you, then I win. Simple!

A bigger government means more regulations, which normally favor fair competition and even out the playing field. Given enough time though any system can get perverted with enough money&influence thrown into the mixture, and that is what is happening now since people take things for granted and let government issue blank signed checks at the taxpayers expense. People have become impotent and corporations and with the wealthy have become omnipotent, almost god-like. We need to reverse the trend to have any chance at stoping societal collapse like empires of the past. Decay is a natural phenomena and when something is unnattended/unmaintaned it decays much faster than if it is maintened/attended.

Sorry for not repsonding to your post earlier, but I tend to leave the best for last because they require the most thought. In other words you write good posts!