It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Section31
Actually, socialists come in two extreme varieties.

Socialists can be far right and far left winged.

Obama is a socialist dirt bag communist.
Bush is a socialist dirt bag communist.

Don't fool yourselves.

I see myself as a dirt bag socialist. But to call a socialist a communist in one breath is a contradiction.
The communists are far on the left of me.
Obama and Bush are both far on the right of me. So they are neither socialists nor communists. I am not sure about the dirt bags though.

But you are right with one thing: If you see the political orientations as a circel, then communists and fascists meet each other at one point - quite the opposite of my point.

Btw.: Hitler's heirs don't call themselves national socialists anymore. They call themselves national democrates. According to this thread this tells us the truth about democracy.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:24 PM
Germany was ran by communist and socialist and so was France.So was Russia and China.Result bankrupted and then exetreme anger and nationlalism and dictators grew out of it.Hatred boiled over into major wars.
Same thing could be happening all over again with what is going on in the world right now.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ANOK

When you elect individuals to represent a community and privately own their means of production, you in essence are merging socialism and capitalism.

In short, fascism is the union of government and corporation. When governments, elected by people, control who privately own the means of production, you have capitalism also. It's simply more oligarchical in its organization.

When you mix capitalism with pseudo-socialism, what you get is state capitalism.

The term State capitalism has various meanings, but is usually described as commercial (profit-seeking) economic activity undertaken by the state with management of the productive forces in a capitalist manner, even if the state is nominally socialist.[1] State capitalism is usually characterized by the dominance or existence of a significant number of state-owned business enterprises. Examples of state capitalism include Corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along corporate and business management practices) and states that own controlling shares of publicly-listed corporations, effectively acting as a large capitalist and shareholder itself.

State capitalism has also come to refer to an economic system where the means of production are owned privately but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment, as in the case of France during the period of dirigisme. Alternatively, state capitalism may be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. This practice is often claimed to be in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[2]

There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have existed since the 1917 October Revolution or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. Other socialists use the term state capitalism to refer to an economic system that is nominally capitalist, such that business and private owners gain the profits from an economy largely subsidized, developed and where decisive research and development is done by the state sector at public cost.[3]

Marxist literature typically defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism—the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value—with ownership or control by a state. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]

This term is also used by some advocates of laissez-faire capitalism in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state, often meaning a privately owned economy that is subject to statist economic planning. Some even use the term to refer to capitalist economies such that the state provides substantial public services and regulation of business activity. In the 1930s, Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini described Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism as "state socialism turned on its head".[5] This term was often used to describe the controlled economies of the great powers in the First World War.[6]

It is the most surreptitious form of capitalism known to exist, because it hides the private ownership of everything under the "all-caring" social welfare banner. In europe the old world order pulled the same stunt with market socialism and everyone thought we had true socialism.

Now that greece and italy are sinking fast due to continous borrowing from private central banks, some people are begining to wake up, but unfortunately not enough. In america some idiots are even labeling corporate welfare as socialistic, eventhough a truely socialist government would only bail-out a government/public venture and never a private business.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

Nahh. Hitler was a corporate hack.

And Nazi Germany was the first big play for a global corporate takeover. They didn't pull it off, but the Bank for International Settlements never got closed down so they did okay.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:53 PM
And? Is there anyone that didn't know that? Hence the term National Socialist Party

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Redefine profit.

Suddenly, the problem is gone.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

What are you talking about? Please elaborate....

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:06 PM
Wasn't hitler a copraphilliac?

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:07 PM
Dear lord. How stupid are you people? There is nothing worth discussing about this concept or in this thread. I give a round of applause to OP, he really knows how to get ya'll goin.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Profit today is defined as a dollar. There's nothing formulated as to how that dollar is encoded, or gained. Simply a dollar. In days of old, money was a physical representation that you did something, usually work. Honest work at that. So stealing it was pretty difficult, as your honest labor won you honest money. Today, we create wealth, usually by moving it all around through debt. We "ghost" how much money we really have. And that means any bloke with a smooth voice and an honest face can lie himself into a lot of money in trust.

Profit today is not how much money you can earn by honest work. It's defined by how efficiently you can move it around and pretend you have it before someone can catch you. There is no so-called "morality" in this. There is no honesty in this. In fact, it encourages lies, deceit, problems, and people getting screwed.


Redefine profit, and you redefine why and how people get it.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by soficrow

From what I've read, the banks did not like Hitler because he held the mob by his whims, and thus the bankers had no power.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

Yes! Money is being used as a commodity rather than as an exchange medium. Prices should go up and down due to supply and demand of the items asked for, not the actual money supply and/or theoretical evaluations of various credit agencies.

Some families have been using wealth creation techniques for centuries to accumulate more and more. These people really don't need to lift a finger to do anything and are the same people who pay the american government to do as they please.

They don't call them elite for nothing and neither did they create a conspiracy just to laugh about it later.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:22 PM
Theres alof of people here defending socialism. Which is the irony of this thread and the reason I started it. Sure Hitler was not just a socialist he was a madman.

So let's take a look at the death count for deaths attributed to socialism, not just Hitler.

They set the worst records that have never been broken in the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with ~60 million killed; the Peoples' Republic of China, ~50 million; the National Socialist German Workers' Party, ~20 million). It is known by many names including: the anti-capitalist holocaust; the anti individualist holocaust; the anti minarchist holocaust; the anti capitalist genocide; the anti individualist genocide; the anti minarchist genocide. It resulted in the persecution of everyone who supported liberty and who opposed bigger government, bigger spending, authoritarianism, and socialism. Individualists and capitalists were persecuted by socialists in the modern inquisition: the anti minarchist inquisitions; the anti-capitalist inquisitions; the anti individualist inquisitions. The National Socialist German Workers Party even persecuted Jewish people as capitalists. The modern socialist inquisitions greatly exceeded the old inquisitions in numbers of people slaughtered. It is referred to as the modern dark age, or the socialist dark age.

As an attorney, Rex represented people facing the death penalty for murder. He never defended anyone as murderous as governments and government officials (the worst: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with ~60 million killed; the Peoples' Republic of China, ~50 million; the National Socialist German Workers' Party, ~20 million).

After the National Socialist German Workers' Party slaughtered 21 million, then the same genocidal socialist policies of the monstrous Party continued under the U.S.S.R. and the PRC, resulting in the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part) with the socialist trio of horrid atrocities: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (~60 million dead), the Peoples' Republic of China (~50 million dead), and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (~20 million dead).

Peace and equality?
Yeah right.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:32 PM
Of course he was a Socialist. That is how Dictators commonly assume power. Socialism appeals to the masses. Socialism is a means to power. Hitler was also a Parinoid and a Nationalist, so what.Socialism is a mirage. It has never worked and never will human nature insures that.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by Chrysalis

wow, so showing what socialism leads to is not truth?... Really?...

The fact of the matter is that socialism leads nations into dictatorships, and people who adolize socialism can't stand that fact and have to use tactics like claiming "people who don't like socialism are trolls" or have to make some other idiotic claim.

Those who love socialism so much really need to come to terms to the reality that when you consolidate all power in the name of ANYONE, 'including the people", you leave the door open for a dictatorship. It has happened time and again.

Another tactic those who love socialism use is to claim socialists are facists, hence part of the extreme-right, but the truth that they can't come to terms with is that even facists lean more to socialism than they do to anything rightwing.

Conservatives, true Republicans, etc want LESS government control, and don't want centralization of power, but fascists do want MORE government control, normally through corporations, and also want CENTRALIZATION of power, normally through corporations or through one person, or a small group of people.

Just because corporations are normally the leading force, or one of the leading forces in facism it doesn't mean it is a rightwing ideology, more so when rightwing ideology does not want ANYONE, not even corporations, having all the power.

Giving control to corporations is NOT a conservative, nor a Republican dream come true.

The only main difference that socialist dictatorships, and fascist dictatorships have, is that in socialist dictatorships the power is held by a few who claim to represent the people but never do, meanwhile in fascist dictatorships the power is held by corporaitons or shared with corporations, but both seek to centralize, and consolidate all power to a select few, and to make the government BIGGER.

Making a BIGGER government and CENTRALIZING/CONSOLIDATING all power to the government is anathema to rightwing ideology hence facism is NOT rightwing but rather another socialist ideology.

edit on 1-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:35 PM
OMG, as you were told in that other thread by someone, Hitler was not a socialist, as he advocated National Socialism. There is a huge difference, as he believed Aryans were the superior race, yada yada, you should know this...

He emphasized the "National" part, which was the state before all else, NOT the structure, and THAT is the difference...He was NOT a socialist. Let it go...You lose.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by JiggyPotamus

It is still a socialist ideology... There are MANY socialist ideologies just like ALL communist ideologies are socialist, but there are several different communist ideologies.

Stalin and Lenin had different ideas on communism yet they were both communists.

In the same manner HItler was a SOCIALIST, just like Mussolini was also a SOCIALIST he just invented his OWN form of socialism called facism...

Heck for most of his life Mussolini was a socialist, and a socialist activist, his ideas just differed enough from other forms of socialism for him to want to make another branch of socialism which is now called facism.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

They don't exist. Families don't stay together for more than 3 to 5 generations.

These things are fluid. Wealth comes and goes. It only takes one angry father to die with his wealth not being inherited. Or one lazy mother to die without writing a will, or one accident in youth to doom a family to childless.

All these people whom do these things simply do it because they are within that generation range. They simply have forgotten that money doesn't really matter when your dead.

For this, socialism is useful for the occasional dumping out and bringing in of new people. Once proven in guilt, I see no reason why any family is entitled to their funds. You break the law, and try to use money to get away with it? You loose. Your money is now mine.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

I don't support socialism, but your argument is greatly flawed.. what is the death count for the spread of democracy/capitalism?

Also, that isn't the point of the thread. It was pretty clear from the beginning the point of the thread was an attempt to align Hitler with leftist views, but that agenda failed.
edit on 1-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

Hitler was not a socialist, he was a dictator. Anyone with the money or power to become ruler knows that he must have the support of the people for anything to happen, thus the socialist party is born, destroying real socialism, and replacing it with fascism.Using the people and resourses until they ran the machine into the ground.

thehoneycomb you should remember that it is the suffering of people that allows you the right to speak freely.

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in