Thursday, 3 March 2011

"We are socialists ...." Debunked

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler, Quoted in John Toland, "Adolf Hitler", p224.

Put into Google Hitler and socialist, and you're bound to come up with various websites with the above quote. Because of the way in which it get's used, i regard it as hitler's "There is no such thing as society" moment. What i mean is, A quote which is Always taken out of context to further a false point.

So what is the context you may ask? I provide the answer below.

It was to only try and wean some of the working class support over to him that he made references like he did to socialism. And that never really worked, the Nazis always had the least support from the working class. In that particular section of the book Toland is discussing Hitler's use of propaganda and his oratory style. He starts out by stating that the Berlin Nazi party (or Gau) was in disarray at this time and Goebbels was sent to straighten out the situation. He found that "The thousand party members under his jurisdiction were opposed on the streets by overwhelming numbers of Communists and Social Democrats." The course of action they decided on was to do everything they could to pick fights and to basically 'Red Bait' the Leftists in order to enflame violence, and to use propaganda to confuse the masses to try and weaken the real Left. "Goebbles decided it was now time to broaden the base of membership and to do that he had to attract the attention of the jaded public, "Berlin needs its sensations as a fish needs water", he (Goebbels) wrote" (ibid p223) So the best way they decided to inflame the situation was for violent action "SA troops deliberately sought out physical combat with the Reds," (Ibid p224) and for Hitler to give a speech on May Day. And not only that, but to give speeches in meeting halls that were taken over from the Communists. ""Making noise" he (Hitler) once said, "is an effective means of opposition"" (Ibid p224) And that is the true light that the quote must be taken as, making noise to provoke. False propaganda meant to inflame. Fights were started and the Newspapers proclaimed that there was this little known party, as it was not very large in Berlin at the time, fighting the Communists and Socialists. "The publicity was meant to be derogatory but in the next few days 2600 applications for membership were received," (Ibid p224) So this all served their purpose. And Toland, immediately after using the quote, and in the very next sentence of the same paragraph states, "This was followed by a long dissertation on Lebensraum, in Hitler's continuing effort to pound this concept into the membership. Sixty-two million Germans he said, were crowded into an area only 450,000 kilometers square. "This is a ridiculous figure when one considers the size of other nations in the world today." There were two solutions: either decrease he population by "chasing our best human material out of Germany" or "bring the soil into consonance with the population, even if it must be done by war. This is the natural way which Providence has prescribed." (Ibid p225)

Notice a couple of things here, first that he only uses one line calling himself a socialist and this is meant to inflame the Socialists and the rest of the Left, just get publicity and to confuse those that may not know the reality behind their party. The latter of which Hitler makes clear in his detailed policy of Lebensraum which has nothing to do with socialism. So not only does he merely state without any justification that he is a socialist, he makes it clear that his policy is not a socialist one but a racial and colonial one. So Hitler does not at all expound on the socialist statement, but he goes into detail on Lebensraum, which makes it clear that there is no real socialism behind his 'socialist' statement but there is to his expansionary and racist policies. "Again and again he hammered at race and the fact that Germany's future lay in the conquest of eastern territories. Over and over he preached his pseudo-Darwinist sermon of nature's way: conquest of the weak by the strong." (Ibid p226) As an honest reading of Toland would indicate; something that those that use this quote like Ray has obviously not done, but had probably only acquired it from a cheap Web search, probably from a Heritage institute or Glen Beck site; The mentioning of 'Socialist' was only propaganda. It is part of a larger section by Toland treating that subject and the attempt by the Nazi to develop support while weakening the other parties. Except for the racial policy and expansion, Hitler, when the party was first building its support, would say anything, no matter how disingenuous, to try and be attractive to every segment of the political society.

"The Nazis continued to be a catch-all party of social protest, with particularly strong support from the middle classes, and the relatively weak support from in the traditional industrial working class" Richard J Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich" p295

101 comments:

  1. You should read:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George Watson is dishonest.

      Firstly, his primary source is Hermann Rauschning's "Hitler speaks" which is a proven fraud.

      In Mein Kampf Hitler writes:

      The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

      Another one of his "sources" was imprisoned by Hitler for trying to take over a business from one of Hitler's capitalist allies.

      He also ignores the first genocides in africa committed by GERMAN CONSERVATIVES like Lother Von Trother etc.

      To call Watson a repulsive liar is being very kind to him. He is far worse than that.

      Delete
    2. Just because he wasnt a fan of marx...doesnt mean he was a fan of socialism. Hitler before he and rohm rebranded the workers party to nazi party he was part of a radical left group called iron cross.

      Delete
    3. Rauschning is not a proven fraud. Challenged after his death, maybe, but not a proven fraud.

      Delete
    4. This only distinguishes Hitler's desire to use what Marx himself had said was a necessary step towards communism. Hitler wanted the state control aspects of Marx's idealization, and simply didn't want to let that go.

      Just as all other Marxists proved they precisely wanted to do as well, despite their dishonest rhetoric to the contrary.

      Hitler was simple a more honest Statist. He still agreed with state control and slavery of the masses in contrast to lasseiz-faire unregulated free markets.

      Delete
    5. "Another one of his "sources" was imprisoned by Hitler for trying to take over a business from one of Hitler's capitalist allies. " -- Sounds pretty socialist to me. I think you need to go and find out what capitalism and socialism mean. To imprison a competeing business is as socialist and communist as it gets. Capitalism is support of a free market and free competition.

      Delete
    6. @Clark
      Yes he is a proven fraud since 1985.
      You are out to date.

      Delete
    7. https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

      Delete
    8. So, Nazi, "The full name of the political party was the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" - the National Socialist German Worker's Party."
      Socialist in the title didn't mean he was a socialist?
      Really??
      He made the government in charge of healthcare, gave lots of free education and free metal illness services, as well as free Jewish problem reduction.

      He's right up Bernie's ally and if you want to spin it some other way, try!
      Hilter blamed the Jews.
      Bernie blames the "rich" and companies.
      But somehow thinks the government has been the savior the whole time and we need more government.
      Actually, we need
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCd0OjjCz88

      Delete
    9. Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, German Democratic Republic, are they democratic-republics? Healthcare in Germany was there before Hitler, it was given by Bismarck. Public education has been a thing of every civilized nation since the Roman times. Bernie is socially liberal, supports LGBTQIA rights, marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Hitler hated gays and hated Africans. You're doing the association fallacy. Bernie Sanders is a Jew. Kind of hard for him to be a Nazi. You're horribly pathetic.

      Delete
    10. And you're only comparing groups and not ideas. Bernie supports those groups and happens to be part of the group Hitler persecuted. So what? His ideas are similar to Hitler's. If Hitler supported those groups and was Jewish ( oh wait ) how would their campaigns be different? Now, I'm not saying Bernie wants to put all the rich people in camps, but he is railing against the affluent just like Hitler did.

      Delete
    11. "Bernie is literally Hitler!"
      So a man who is a Jewish, egalitarian, pro-LGBT, marched with Martin Luther King Jr., opposes NSA spying, cut military spending kind of guy is like Hitler, an anti-Semitic, social Darwinist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, Big Brother, military spender? What a joke. The only U.S politician that Nazis favorably compared to Hitler was Ronald Wilson Reagan. Leon Degrelle was an ardent National Socialist and a war criminal who fled to Franco's Spain after the Second World War. In Spain, he continued to praise Hitler and his government. In one of his papers he titled "How Hitler consolidated power in Germany", he writes "Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination and dynamism, in the need of every person of superior ability and skill to assume responsibility. He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability often refrains from running risks. Th economic failure of communism has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its competitors. State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all progress. For all men selflessly pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well deserve their reward. Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its abundant natural resources, of which ought to have made it an industrial and technological giant. Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the economy. He believed in elites "A single idea of genius," he used to say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an office." Leon Degrelle goes on to say this, "Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other way around. Since Hitler, only Ronald Reagan has seemed to understand this. As president, he realized to restore prosperity in the United States meant boldly stimulating the economy with credits and a drastic reduction in taxes, instead of waiting for the country to emerge from economic stagnation on its own." Leon Degrelle considered himself to be an ardent National Socialist, yet he was a supporter of Reaganite capitalist economics. Why? Because he saw the similarities between Hitler's capitalistic economic policies and Reagan's capitalistic economic policies. That's right, a vicious anti-Semitic Nazi collaborator who referred to himself as the spiritual son of Adolf Hitler, compared his beloved Führer to old Ronald Reagan, who is the conservative God.

      Delete
    12. "Hitler blamed the one percent, back then the one percent were Jews."
      Both of those statements are lies. It's the right that picks on religious minorities. Right-wing jihadists killing Jews and Christians and polytheists and atheists? Right-wing Christian who shot up a Jewish church? Trump saying to have a complete and total shutdown on Muslims entering the country no matter which country or what type of Muslim they are? Ring a bell? When the left as well as the alt-right and Donald Trump supporters talk about the 1%, they are talking about the rich, and the rich were on Hitler's side. They liked Hitler and Hitler liked them. *Hitler in discussion on socialism with Otto Strasser, 22nd May 1930* "...with what right do the workers demand a share in the possessions of a capitalist, not to speak of a share in control?" *Turning to Herr Amann, the Party's Press Chief*: "Would you be prepared to stand it if suddenly your typists began to criticize? The capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection, which again only proves their higher race, they have a right to lead. Now you want an incapable Government Council or Works Council which have no notion of anything to have a say: no leader in economic life would tolerate it." In the United States of America, German fascism dazzled many American leaders of capitalist industry. They were William Randolph Hearst], Joseph Kennedy (JFK’s father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Henry Ford], ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush (don’t forget him), National City Bank, Henry Luce (owner of Time-Life publication) and General Electric. These were not socialist sympathizers but famous and even iconic capitalists in the United States of America, but right-wingers’ arguments would have us believe they were socialists. "Krupp had been a loyal Nazi. He helped fund Hitler's rise to power. He gave signed copies of Mein Kampf to his workers. And Hitler reserved special seats for Krupp and his employees at the Nuremberg rallies."

      Delete
  2. The working class fought and dies for Hitler. He was a man of the "folk".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Read up on Fascism and Socialism. They are very close to each other. They were rivals, not opposites or very different. In the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis -- with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government. Maybe another way to say it is that Fascism and Socialism both are opposed to Democratic capitalism based on a moral foundation (Western Civilization).

    Take a look at Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism". It's a good read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jonah Goldberg? You're joking, right? How about reading the work of real historians and real political scientists and not the ratings of ideological partisan hacks such as Goldberb?

      Delete
    2. victoralz is right. The Nazis controlled the German economy, deciding what was produced and when. The Nazis even ordered Ferdinand Porsche to produce the Volkswagen and wrote arms manufacturer A.E. Krupp line of succession into the German constitution.

      "Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."

      (Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)

      Delete
    3. If it was a moment of weakness it is not debunked.
      Even in 1941 in nazi occupied Netherlands Hitler enacted laws which forbade employers to fire employees. Together with a flurry of socialist worker 'protection' laws. Nazi stands for national socialist

      Delete
    4. If it was a moment of weakness it is not debunked.
      Even in 1941 in nazi occupied Netherlands Hitler enacted laws which forbade employers to fire employees. Together with a flurry of socialist worker 'protection' laws. Nazi stands for national socialist

      Delete
    5. Nazi Germany had a Welfare State, national healthcare, Socia Security and all the social programs associated with Socialism.

      Hitler was not a Limited Gov't advocate or a Libertarian.

      Delete
    6. Goldberg's book is replete with hundreds of references to historian publications and documentation. Attacking the messenger shows a sign of insincerity to understand contrary viewpoints, because they may prove your current ones wrong.

      Delete
    7. Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Henry Ford], ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush (don’t forget him), National City Bank, Henry Luce (owner of Time-Life publication) and General Electric. These were not socialist sympathizers but famous and even iconic Capitalists in America, but Right-Wingers’ arguments would have us believe they were Socialists. Nazis enacted no new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former 'loafers' to death camps. Public healthcare was given by Bismarck before Hitler was born.
      Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in post-World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business, and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. Clearly you idiots have never heard of the horseshoe theory.“By 1931, Walther Funk….a greasy, shifty-eyed, paunchy little man whose face always reminded this writer [William Shirer] of a frog, gave up a lucrative job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper, the Berliner Boersenzeitung, joined the Nazi Party and became a contact man between the party and a number of important business leaders….several of his industrialist friends...had urged him to join the Nazi movement “in order to persuade the party of follow the course of private enterprise.” At that time the leadership of the party held completely contradictory and confused views on economic policy. I tried to accomplish my mission by personally impressing on the Fuhrer and the party that private initiative, self-reliance of the businessman, the creative powers of free enterprise, et cetera, be recognized as the basic economic policy of the party. The Fuhrer personally stressed time and again during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state economy and of so-called “planned economy” and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production.(Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 143 )"

      Delete
    8. It's not working, Debbie. You're trying to make Hitler appear to be rightwing (as is the biased author here) but it's falling flat. The government control of its population, business and commerce is leftwing socialism. Sorry, this is your legacy.

      Delete
    9. It's not working, Debbie. You're trying to make Hitler appear to be rightwing (as is the biased author here) but it's falling flat. The government control of its population, business and commerce is leftwing socialism. Sorry, this is your legacy.

      Delete
    10. "Nazis enacted no new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former 'loafers' to death camps. "

      Um...if you are going to have a biased opinion on politics, you really should study up on political ideologies, Debbie.

      A known issue with any authoritarian system, such as socialism, is that the sick, weak, different, and anyone else who has trouble working becomes a burden of the state. Dealing with these burdens is difficult, even for capitalists who dont have the additional computational complexities of state run economics.

      Every socialist government has done something different with these individuals. Some let them starve, some insist their workers work harder and for less to support them, and Hitler simply disposed of them, as you pointed out.

      Laissez faire policies let the public take care of their own problems, and the purpose of limited government is to ensure that they don't do it violently. Hitler wasn't that, like it or not, he was a socialist (fascists more technically, but thats oranges and oranges). Your own argument provided evidence, which is why they are falling flat.

      Now, if you and OP did what more knowledgeable Bernie fans do and try a more abstract argument on ethics, you might get a little further. I see you mentioned that Bernie wants to use the state to help, and Hitler used to state to hurt, a judgment of character, and thats a pretty common observation and a good start. This is the old "Monarchy is an excellent method of rule, should the king be good" concept. I would argue that the issue isn't the nature of the leader, but the mechanism by which he can exercise his nature. As long as power corrupts, we will have corrupt leaders, and the greater the power we give the state, the greater the eventual oppression. Or to put it in simple terms, if you give Clinton the ability to hurt people you don't like, don't be surprised when Bush uses it on people you do.

      Delete
    11. Unknown, Hitler was as far-right as you could get. Hitler didn't control the economy. There was a command economy, but there was also private ownership of the means of production.

      Delete
    12. As for you Duderino. Hitler was not a socialist. He was a command-capitalist. He privatized industries, hated multiculturalism, allied himself with the rich, and more.

      Delete
  4. Victoralz

    You are totally wrong.

    The communists were almost completely outlawed by the 1933 election. The Reichstag fire decree saw to that!

    The conservatives supported Hitler's "enabling act", the left opposed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That doesn't mean anything. Rival communists have fought each other many times. Communist China vs Communist USSR, Communist China vs Communist Vietnam, Communist Khmer Rouge vs Communist Vietnam. Did that make any of them any less communist, just because they fought one another? Certainly, when China broke away from the Soviets, there were pro-Russian Chinese elements who were jailed. The Communist Khmer Rouge even preached the racial inferiority of ethnic Vietnamese, to keep them out of Cambodian politics and put them into the grave. For Hitler to outlaw rival a socialist tribe is par for the course! What did Stalin do to Trotsky? Do you expect any less of hardline socialists?

      Delete
    2. Care to explain why private industry supported Hitler? Odd that private industry would support some one that hacks such as yourself claim was a raging socialist.

      Delete
    3. San

      Hitler privatized the economy,cut taxes for small business and supported conservative dictatorships in Europe: Franco being the prime example.

      Explain why Hugo Boss, Krupp, Flick etc. supported him?

      If you ally with conservaties while murdering socialists/ communists than you are mostly likely a rightwinger

      Delete
    4. Again, the mechanics of collectivism speak for themselves.

      The farthest right-wing ideology is Libertarianism, which fiercely pursues individualism free from state interference. The farthest left-wing ideology is communism, which which is all about collectivism. The fact is that those who are less talented and competent are likely to pursue collectivism to shore themselves up and offset their diminished personal talents, while those who are more talented and competent obviously are less likely to be attracted to collectivist behavior and thought. So that's why people of greater personal means are more likely to be libertarian.

      Likewise, if you look at the Nazi hatred of Jews, it wasn't because they were poor but rather because many were wealthy and successful. That again reflects the socialist propaganda against "elites" and its championing of the "common man".

      Even today, the strongest anti-semitic propaganda comes from the Left and from Islamists (another highly collectivist ideology). Furthermore, both of these groups mutually support one another in solidarity against the Jews. Hitler's favoritist tilt towards Muslims such as the Turks and even the Mufti of Jerusalem is well documented.

      Delete
    5. "Nazi hatred of Jews, it wasn't because they were poor but rather because many were wealthy and successful."

      Nonsense, Hitler supported the "Wealthy and Successful" "Aryan Germans" such as Krupp, Flick, Thyssen etc. his hatred of Jews was shared by most German conservatives and indeed capitalists at the time.

      You mention the Mufti of Jerusalem...Hitler was more keen to ally himself with European christian leaders than those from the middle east. His support for Franco proves my point.

      Hitler's antisemitism was typical of the Right....he associated Jews with Marxism(communism) and Social democracy

      Delete
    6. Capitalism does not mean a system of capital that is run by the government. That's called Fascism. Krupp, Flick, and Thyssen may have owned their properties, but their work and their product were dictated by the Fuhrer. That is not capitalism. That is what the Italians called Fascismo.

      "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

      Delete
    7. In the words of the Austro-libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."

      Delete
    8. Fascism the state still controls the corporations. They are just much more better economist than communists.

      Communist would nationalize a successful business and give it to their no experience family members and insiders to run that's why it goes into the crapper.

      Fascists would nationalize a business and allow the owner to continue to run the business but under the governments rules.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. san, The farthest "right wing" philosophy is libertarianism? Really?

      The LP party in the US was the first political party to have in it's national platform, the recognition of marital rights for everyone, regardless of orientation. Hardly a "right wing" proposition.

      I can only assume your political spectrum equates collectivism with the left and individualism with the right. Far too simplistic, I'm afraid.

      Delete
  5. Sounds like you are stretching....

    ReplyDelete
  6. can't wait to read your next column on how Obama does not really advocate socialist policies... makes for great fiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama and socialist policies? Yeah handing over billions in public funds to banks and Wall Street is really a "socialist" thing to do. You hacks who scream "socialist" in response to anything you don't like or don't agree with are quite annoying.

      Delete
    2. This piece is insightful, in that it points out the disingenuous use of language and posturing by a politician who seeks to undermine the institutions he is sworn to protect. It is unkind to suggest Obama is anything like Hitler personally, but the fascist elements and demagoguery in practice bear very strong resemblances to the practices of past regimes whose ulterior motives brought about some very undesirable consequences. In this sense, those who use the above quote may well misunderstand the context, but in context it seems to apply much more deeply.

      Delete
    3. Isn't Obamacare a socialist policy?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. In response to 71f2e... above:

      For the government to hand over billions in public funds to banks and Wall Street and Detroit car makers is actually a very good example of socialism. I know that many people claim otherwise, preferring instead to call it welfare capitalism or crony capitalism.. But bailouts are a good example of socialism because they're a clear cut case of the state deciding which businesses will succeed or fail, "commanding and controlling" the economy so to speak. It's centralized planning. Socialism versus capitalism is always a matter a degree, of course, with every modern country having variable degrees of both, but these bailouts were certainly not free market capitalism and in fact were much closer in letter and spirit to textbook definitions of socialism than many on the progressive left seem to realize.
      They mistakenly tout these as examples of Obama being pro-capitalist. .Just the opposite. (I just stumbled across this page and wanted to comment, years too late I see.)

      Delete
    6. So by your standards, Ronald Reagan and the modern GOP were/are socialists, and Reaganomics was the biggest socialist program in U.S. history. Interesting.

      Delete
    7. Could you explain what you mean?

      Delete
    8. @ Rhodes no, Reaganomics would be far from socialism (from what I remember), however the GOP is highly socialist (farming subsidies etc)

      Ill try to make it easy to understand. When you boil away all of the technicalities, socialism is pretty simple; state controlled distribution of public income. The state takes public money, and distributes it into the markets that our leaders believe are important or in need. This may be farmers, it may be wallsreet CEOs, it may be a house full of orphans.

      When the state taxes its people and dumps the money into wallstreet, or bank/auto bailouts, you have textbook socialism.

      When wallstreet, the banks, or auto companies rise (or fall) on their own, with no regulation or state intervention, you have capitalism.

      Im not well studied on Reaganomics, but from what I remember, there were massive tax cuts across the board. This may have the exact same effect of putting money into CEOs pockets, but that is not socialism. If however, Reagan had any sort of subsidy, like how the republicans give massive ammounts of money to corn farmers, that would be socialism.

      Delete
  7. The yoga Leftists will perform to deny the obvious never ceases to amaze.

    "Debunk"? No, doublethink.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Most of you people commenting here are idiots. The fact of the matter is that the political beliefs, words and actions of most people - Hitler included - can't be put neatly into on ideological box and have a simple label put on it. The only people who do that are ideologues and hacks. Though it does seem the far right in the US have a most annoying habit of denying that any horrors have come from the reaches of the far right and engage in the most despicable methods to prop up that "belief". Including lying about history to outright propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? My grandmother who escaped Nazi Germany wouldn't even allow us to use the word socialism around her. She lived through it up until 1938 when she was able to escape to America with my grandfather and a few great aunts and uncles. She had one sister who was deemed "mentally ill" by the state and taken away to the camps and killed.
      Despite what your left wing professors like to tell you in college about Nazism and the far right. Conservatives by definition want less government not MORE. The further right you go.. it takes you to anarchy(no authority). Nazism and communism are closely related. Both were completely antisemitic as well.
      So I will take my grandmother and grandfathers word on what life was like under the Nazi regime and how they personally extolled the virtues of capitalism and freedom over the tyranny of the state that they experienced under the National Socialist Party

      Delete
    2. You are a dunce.

      According to the United state holocaust memorial museum:

      "Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany were political opponents -- primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders. "

      Not a single conservative, capitalist or right wing politician is MENTIONED.

      Were Krupp,Flick,Hugo Boss,IG Farben and Siemens Socialists too?



      Delete
    3. You fellows just do not get it. Of course Krupp, Flick, Hugo Boss, IG Farben and Siemens supported Fascism because it protected them from competition. It provided them with slave labor and all they had to give up was control over their industries.
      You suggest that Obamacare is not fascist but it seek to do the same thing that Fascist economics always seek. To control business not to own it. Obamacare takes over control of medical care in the USA ands that is Fascism.

      Delete
    4. of course you say that ... you're a socialist

      there are 2 ways of thinking;
      rational; using facts as a reference point
      emotional; using your own feelings as a reference point

      you're obviously emotional, that's why you make horrible decisions, that's why you're such a loser and that's why you want socialism; to steal from the rational people

      of course you will never admit that because that would require rational thinking

      Delete
    5. "Most of you people commenting here are idiots."
      I fully agree. Of course they are.
      But we should not forget that the idiots will always be in the majority and therefore will win in the end.
      Our battle is lost, my friend.

      Delete
    6. Obamacare isn't a form of radical authoritarian nationalism so it isn't fascist. Quit using that word as if you think you know what it means.

      Delete
  9. Hitler did nothing but describe his dogma as "socialism" (e.g. see "Mein Kampf" and "Triumph of the Will" where the term "Nazi" and "Fascist" never appear as a self-description and where "socialist" is used in a droning manner). Although an ancient symbol, the swastika was altered by German socialists and used it to represent crossed S-letters for their "socialism." It is always important to point out that the Nazis were socialists ("National socialists" - and they did not call themselves Nazis nor Fascists) and that Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy (author of the pledge) were also self-described "national socialists" who touted (from 1888 and 1892 onward) what they called "military socialism," and they wanted the military system imposed on all of society to promote socialism (the pledge and government schools were part of that plan), and they deliberately promoted their views worldwide, including in Germany, before German national socialists picked up the same behavior. Socialists want people to use the term "Nazi" and to forget all of the above about national socialism in the USA, Germany and globally. See the work of the symbologist Dr. Rex Curry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "German socialists and used it to represent crossed S-letters for their "socialism."

      Dumbest thing i have ever heard. The Swastika was an ancient hindu symbol and had nothing to with "s-letters".

      National socialism, in practicse, is a capitalist ideology which promotes private property and anti communism.

      Heard of Krupp, Flick, Hugo Boss and IG Farben. Capitalists like Rex Curry try to deny the capitalist nature of nazi germany by denying the crimes of German capitalists.

      Delete
    2. Hitler didn't copy the swastika from an ancient Hindu symbol. He copied it from a Christian cross that was in the church in which he spent many hours as a young boy.
      You know, if you write "dumb" and derivatives at every few lines nobody will take your comments seriously. Derogatory comments are of common use among those who don't have any rational argument to expose.

      Delete
    3. All your arguments have utterly failed.....I actually have an argument..... do you think "Hugo Boss" and Kurt schmidt(founder of Allianz) were "socialists" Too?

      You are a complete and utter joke.

      Delete
    4. Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Henry Ford], ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush (don’t forget him), National City Bank, Henry Luce (owner of Time-Life publication) and General Electric. These were not socialist sympathizers but famous and even iconic Capitalists in America, but Right-Wingers’ arguments would have us believe they were Socialists. Nazis enacted no new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former 'loafers' to death camps. Public healthcare was given by Bismarck before Hitler was born.
      Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in post-World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business, and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. Clearly you idiots have never heard of the horseshoe theory.“By 1931, Walther Funk….a greasy, shifty-eyed, paunchy little man whose face always reminded this writer [William Shirer] of a frog, gave up a lucrative job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper, the Berliner Boersenzeitung, joined the Nazi Party and became a contact man between the party and a number of important business leaders….several of his industrialist friends...had urged him to join the Nazi movement “in order to persuade the party of follow the course of private enterprise.” At that time the leadership of the party held completely contradictory and confused views on economic policy. I tried to accomplish my mission by personally impressing on the Fuhrer and the party that private initiative, self-reliance of the businessman, the creative powers of free enterprise, et cetera, be recognized as the basic economic policy of the party. The Fuhrer personally stressed time and again during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state economy and of so-called “planned economy” and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production.(Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 143 )"

      Delete
  10. I don't understand why so many on the left don't see the significant similarities with fascism and socialism. What can we infer about a country, like Nazi Germany, that had a nationalized health care system, nationalized education and an economy built upon central planning? Doesn't socialism primarily follow the same path? Does anybody on the left honestly think that private ownership actually existed in Nazi Germany; that all business owner's were not at the behest of the totalitarian regime? My philosophy on the matter, is that tyranny has no ideological bias. When the people of any community empower a government that strips them of all their rights, and puts their livlihoods at the behest of those in power, does it really matter if they are on the left or the right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Germany had a nationalized healthcare system since the 19th century and most countries have nationalized education.

      Private ownership DID exist in Nazi Germany. Hence the trials of the great German capitalists at Nuremberg.

      Delete
    2. Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Henry Ford], ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush (don’t forget him), National City Bank, Henry Luce (owner of Time-Life publication) and General Electric. These were not socialist sympathizers but famous and even iconic Capitalists in America, but Right-Wingers’ arguments would have us believe they were Socialists. Nazis enacted no new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former 'loafers' to death camps. Public healthcare was given by Bismarck before Hitler was born.
      Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in post-World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business, and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. Clearly you idiots have never heard of the horseshoe theory.“By 1931, Walther Funk….a greasy, shifty-eyed, paunchy little man whose face always reminded this writer [William Shirer] of a frog, gave up a lucrative job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper, the Berliner Boersenzeitung, joined the Nazi Party and became a contact man between the party and a number of important business leaders….several of his industrialist friends...had urged him to join the Nazi movement “in order to persuade the party of follow the course of private enterprise.” At that time the leadership of the party held completely contradictory and confused views on economic policy. I tried to accomplish my mission by personally impressing on the Fuhrer and the party that private initiative, self-reliance of the businessman, the creative powers of free enterprise, et cetera, be recognized as the basic economic policy of the party. The Fuhrer personally stressed time and again during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state economy and of so-called “planned economy” and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production.(Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 143 )"

      Delete
  11. There is a fine line between fascism and socialism, whether the government actually owns the means of production or have taken business over by over regulation of it. The government now controls healthcare through obamacare and therefor controls 1/4 of the economy. So yes Hitler was a socialist of a different breed. No they didn't take ownership of business but they did nationalize it. Leftist who claim that claim that fascism is a right wing group show either just how far they are to the left or are ignorant of the political spectrum.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j7M-7LkvcVw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hitler found his greatest support in traditionally conservative small towns. He campaigned with attacks on Marxism, making it clear that by Marxism he meant the Social Democrats. Hitler appealed to morality, attacking free love and what he inferred was the immorality of Berlin and some other major cities. He promised to stamp out big city corruption. He called for a spiritual revolution, for a "positive Christianity" and a spirit of national pride. Hitler repeatedly called for national renewal. He and his National Socialists benefited from the recent upheaval in the Soviet Union and the rise in fear and disgust for Bolshevism. His party's posters read:

      If you want your country to go Bolshevik, vote Communist. If you want to remain free Germans, vote for the National Socialists.

      Delete
    2. Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Henry Ford], ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush (don’t forget him), National City Bank, Henry Luce (owner of Time-Life publication) and General Electric. These were not socialist sympathizers but famous and even iconic Capitalists in America, but Right-Wingers’ arguments would have us believe they were Socialists. Nazis enacted no new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former 'loafers' to death camps. Public healthcare was given by Bismarck before Hitler was born.
      Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in post-World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business, and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. Clearly you idiots have never heard of the horseshoe theory.“By 1931, Walther Funk….a greasy, shifty-eyed, paunchy little man whose face always reminded this writer [William Shirer] of a frog, gave up a lucrative job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper, the Berliner Boersenzeitung, joined the Nazi Party and became a contact man between the party and a number of important business leaders….several of his industrialist friends...had urged him to join the Nazi movement “in order to persuade the party of follow the course of private enterprise.” At that time the leadership of the party held completely contradictory and confused views on economic policy. I tried to accomplish my mission by personally impressing on the Fuhrer and the party that private initiative, self-reliance of the businessman, the creative powers of free enterprise, et cetera, be recognized as the basic economic policy of the party. The Fuhrer personally stressed time and again during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state economy and of so-called “planned economy” and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production.(Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 143 )"

      Delete
  12. What I see here is that the so-called "debunkers" are supporters of socialism themselves. Blatant conflict of interest - hardly the credible crowd to be exercising objectivity or impartiality.

    Let's also note that Stalin and Mao killed similar numbers of people on the same scale as Hitler did.

    Collectivism is more likely to lead to mass-murder and other rights abuses. Another problem is that die-hard supporters of such ideologies lead themselves into a culture of denial and endless search for "counter-proofs" solely for the purpose of alleviating any subconscious feelings of guilt.

    But hey, I understand - it's very unpleasant to see one's own ideology exposed for its association with massive human rights violations. An inability to question one's own beliefs then leads to desperate exercises to "de-bunk" that which caused the unpleasant revelation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Collectivism.....Democracy is a form of collectivism you ignorant twit.

      Hitler,like most rightist, was a individualist who believed that all power should be concentrated in the hands of one man. The Fuehrer.

      You arguments were pathetically weak...Socialism is an economic ideology and you did mention ONE economic policy of the Nazis that could be described as Socialist.

      The fact that you deny that capitalists used slave labor with the endorsement of Adolf Hitler shows that you are willing to deny basic tenets of the holocaust just so you can fell better about your murderous ideology.

      Delete
    2. You are an incompetent at exposing arguments.

      Delete
    3. Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Henry Ford], ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush (don’t forget him), National City Bank, Henry Luce (owner of Time-Life publication) and General Electric. These were not socialist sympathizers but famous and even iconic Capitalists in America, but Right-Wingers’ arguments would have us believe they were Socialists. Nazis enacted no new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former 'loafers' to death camps. Public healthcare was given by Bismarck before Hitler was born.
      Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in post-World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business, and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. Clearly you idiots have never heard of the horseshoe theory.“By 1931, Walther Funk….a greasy, shifty-eyed, paunchy little man whose face always reminded this writer [William Shirer] of a frog, gave up a lucrative job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper job as editor of a leading German financial newspaper, the Berliner Boersenzeitung, joined the Nazi Party and became a contact man between the party and a number of important business leaders….several of his industrialist friends...had urged him to join the Nazi movement “in order to persuade the party of follow the course of private enterprise.” At that time the leadership of the party held completely contradictory and confused views on economic policy. I tried to accomplish my mission by personally impressing on the Fuhrer and the party that private initiative, self-reliance of the businessman, the creative powers of free enterprise, et cetera, be recognized as the basic economic policy of the party. The Fuhrer personally stressed time and again during talks with me and industrial leaders to whom I had introduced him, that he was an enemy of state economy and of so-called “planned economy” and that he considered free enterprise and competition as absolutely necessary in order to gain the highest possible production.(Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 143 )"

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You dont even need to "debunk" it. This quote by Hitler is utterly false. Toland invented it.

    You can yourselves get the book "Hitler: Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, Februar 1925 bis Januar 1933" in any good library and it is there the full May 1st 1927 speech, the exact one Toland is citing with nothing less than 10 different primary sources of that speech and ALL OF THEM DO NOT CONTAIN THIS QUOTE. It is a speech mainly about Lebensraum.

    John Lukacs, a conservative anti-soviet and anti-nazist historian, wrote in "The Hitler of History" that Toland invented a lot of stuff and many of his "curiosities" are invented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Very interesting....thanks for the info.

      I believe Toland just used Strasser speech and attributed to Hitler.

      Delete
  15. So I suppose calling themselves "National Socialists" was a bit of a gaffe, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the German National Socialists regarded conservative leaders such as Bismark and Fredrich the Great as Socialists....they defined the word socialism differently...a form of rightwing patriotism as the author mentions in another one his pages.

      the CEO of Allianz, Hugo Boss, Krupp etc. were all members of the National socialist party.

      Delete
    2. In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." In 1942, Hitler privately said: "I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative".“…definition of a “socialist” which he gave in a speech on July 28, 1922:
      Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land-that man is a Socialist. (Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Simon and Schuster 1960, William L. Shirer, pp. 85)”

      Delete
  16. Regardless of the semantical arguments pertaining to the language used by the Nazi party, what Hitler proved is how easily the ideals of socialism can be used to manipulate the masses and create a totalitarian state. I know that many who favor socialism want to differentiate themselves from anything Nazi, however that doesn’t mean you have the opportunity to ignore the many aspects of how the two are related. Central planning, for example, is a significant aspect of a socialist economy, just as it was under Nazi Germany. The private economy was heavily regulated, and in most other instances, the Nazi’s actually controlled production, under the guise of private ownership. Couple that with wage and price controls, forced employment through public works programs, the depletion of individual liberties in place of collective liberties, and state-sponsored media, healthcare and education, it becomes quite evident that Nazism, was indeed just another form of socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Might I point out Hitler named HIS party Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); Translated: National Socialist German Workers Party.

    ReplyDelete
  18. He mentions that several times...not too bright are you?

    I notice you are an American. Mussolini's party was called the Italian Fascist REPUBLICAN party whilist the first party to rule Islamic Iran was called the Islamic REPUBLICAN party.

    I also point out that the CEO of Allianz, Hugo Boss, Krupp etc. were all members of the National socialist party. They were all rightwing capitalists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like wealthy movie stars are right wing capitalist?!?

      Delete
  19. You are right when you say that Hitler wasn't a socialist. But he was staunchly anti-capitalist. He believed he had a "third way" economics that was neither capitalist nor socialist, but instead combined private enterprise with strong government and governmental regulation.

    You're also right that German socialists and communists strongly opposed him, while German conservatives (including Christian parties) supported him. But none of Germany's parties were in favor of capitalism or free markets; German "conservatives", then as now, were social conservatives and aligned with the church and the monarchy and were generally not fond of capitalism either.

    Socialism isn't represented in US politics at all, presumably because people have figured out by now that it doesn't work. Republicans advocate a capitalist, free market system. And Democrats are the ones who argue for strong government control of private enterprise. Like fascists, Democrats use socialist grievances, but offer strong government control over private enterprise as the alternative to either capitalism or socialism.

    This alternative to both capitalism and socialism doesn't work because it ends up even more corrupt than socialism. With socialism, there are at least some limits and controls on how much individuals can enrich themselves at the public's expense; with the "third way", government can shove nearly unlimited amounts of money into the hands of private industry, without the constraints of either a socialist state or a free market.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Very interesting, so you're saying that the left wing portion of germany was gullible enough to follow a false leader? What a surprise!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The author contradicts himself and goes off topic in his attempt to rewrite history. He states that Hitler's goal was to appeal to the left, and those were the words he choose! He then goes on to claim that Hitler's goal was to incite violence from the left in reaction to this statement. So is the left now made up of capitalists, to be so incensed by those words? Argument doesn't hold water. (old thread, I know)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hitler :"National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your quotes have no sources and the we are socialists quote is fake. That was said by Gregor Strasser, who was executed on Hitler's orders. "

      Delete
  23. Hitler :We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hitler: Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.

    ReplyDelete
  25. http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/nsdap/spirit.htm

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nice try at rewriting history. Silly, but then most ultra-libs are silly.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It takes something of willful ignorance to so completely misunderstand the National Socialist (Nazi) Party ideology as "not really socialist" because they "defined socialism differently", especially when the only thing wrong with Toland's quote is that he attributed it to the wrong Nazi Party politician: it was Strasser who said this in 1926, not Hitler. The Nazis did, of course, hate the Communists, which is why Hitler rejected Marx, and -- in fact -- why they ultimately ended up at war with each other. But the Nazis did not "define socialism differently" than other socialists; they simply did not believe in the "internationalism" of Marx/Lenin and Stalin. They did subscribe to "nationalism", which is why they were described as "right" by comparison to the Communist "left", but BOTH the "right" and "left" in Nazi Germany would have been considered part of the "left" everywhere else. Interestingly, I have an Italian friend who even today laughs about the fact that the "right" and "left" in America today would be considered part of the "right" in Italy. This merely demonstrates that "left" and "right" are not absolute ideologies -- unlike "capitalism" and "socialism" -- but relative descriptions of two points on any spectrum. So, the "nationalists" were "right" of the "internationalists", whereas the "socialists" are to the "left" of the "capitalists". The result is that the National Socialists were clearly "right" of the Communists (who were Internationalist Socialists), but on a spectrum that has the Communists way off to the "left" in America (there are multiple officially Communist political parties here), then the Democratic Party would be to the "right" of them and the Republican Party to the "right" of the Democrats. On that spectrum, however, the National Socialists would have been found between the Communists and the Democrats, NOT on the "far right" of that spectrum. That is, the entire "European" political spectrum exists only on what America would consider the "left" half of its own political spectrum; that's why my Italian friend laughingly refers to both American "right" and "left" as being "on the right" by comparison.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said! I will never understand people who think that the most right wing of all--which must be the conservative libertarians--are the ones to be feared the most. Their collective heat couldn't light a match. They only want to run their own lives. But, for some reason, the fact that they cling to their guns, their religion (or atheism), and their money, just terrifies the left-wing confiscatory big government types who want to take those things away.

      Delete
    2. Moron. Right-wing politics are for some forms of social inequality and social stratification according to Wikipedia. This would make the Nazis far-right.

      Delete
  28. Hitlers 25 points are nearly identical to the Democrat party platform. So you can pretend all you want.. Hitler was a Leftist. Right wing stand for Hands off government, Individual rights above all and Government out of our lives. Hardly Hitlers views..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly right! Free enterprise, individual rights, and limited government controls. So, in true Orwellian double-speak, the socialists in America reverse the meaning of words and call individualistic libertarians, "fascists," all the while aggregating to their own ends the power of the collective--exercising increasing control over markets and businesses and, with endless regulations and confiscations, encroaching on the rights of the individual to pursue life, liberty, and happiness using, as the founders intended, the resources yielded by his or her own industry, ingenuity, and thrift. The opposite of fascism--or any other form of collectivism.

      Delete
    2. You're a liar and you know it. Your definition of right-wing politics is fake. Right-wing politics hold that social stratification and social inequality are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hitler was this. About the 25 point programme. For these reasons, the Nazis never had a clearly defined economic programme. The original "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the party, adopted in 1920, listed several economic demands (including "the abolition of all incomes unearned by work," "the ruthless confiscation of all war profits," "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations," "profit-sharing in large enterprises," "extensive development of insurance for old-age," and "land reform suitable to our national requirements"),[22] but the degree to which the Nazis supported this programme in later years has been questioned. Several attempts were made in the 1920s to change some of the program or replace it entirely. For instance, in 1924, Gottfried Feder proposed a new 39-point program that kept some of the old planks, replaced others and added many completely new ones.[23]

      Hitler refused to allow any discussion of the party programme after 1925, ostensibly on the grounds that no discussion was necessary because the programme was "inviolable" and did not need any changes. At the same time, however, Hitler never voiced public support for the programme and many historians argue that he was in fact privately opposed to it. Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the programme in his book, Mein Kampf, and only talked about it in passing as "the so-called programme of the movement".[24]

      Hitler was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[25] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[26]

      Delete
  29. Marxism, Communism etc were rivals. Much like Gator Football VS Seminole Football. They don't like each other.Play the game different. But they are still playing Football. Its just a different spin on the same Game. Conservatives stand for Hands off Government, Individual rights and government out of our lives to make our own choices. Yes. There are those Reagan Democrats in the party that want to restrict Gay marriage and abortion. But a conservative could be for or against those things yet believes its none of Governments Business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see a lot of you trying to say that Hitler didn't like other socialist movements. But other than Love for this nation and strong Borders. You don't point out How Hitler was Conservative.

      Delete
  30. "It was to only try and wean some of the working class support over to him"

    And this is different from Obama, Clinton, Trump, Bush, Reagan, ... how? It is their promises that get politicians elected. If Hitler had promised to kill millions of Jews, few Germans would have voted for him.

    In any case, Hitler was indeed not a socialist, but he made many of the same promises. Hitler was also a social conservative, but many socialist countries were socially conservative as well (socialist countries attributed "deviant behavior" to "capitalist decadence").

    What was fundamentally wrong with fascism is the same thing that is fundamentally wrong with socialism, communism, and Christian conservatism: they all are looking for a strong leader to fix everybody's problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true at all about American conservatives--some wacko fundamentalists who shoot up abortion clinics being the exception. Even the social conservatives are relatively content to let the left-wingers find their own way to perdition. They just don't want their earnings used for things they don't agree with. Take a look at the Little Sisters of the Poor, for example, who were heard before the Supreme Court last week. They typically vote democrat because they actually do believe in government taking from the rich and giving to the poor. However, they don't want to be forced to support abortifacient drugs So, while usually, they are traditionally left-wing, on this issue, they are more libertarian. Libertarian, because they are not trying to use government to make everyone else comply with their moral code but, rather, they simply don't want to be forced to provide "care" that they consider harmful to a living being. I am not a Catholic so I enjoy the irony that the Catholics "voted" for Obamacare and, now that they have let the viper into their bosom, so to speak, it bites them. In any case, it is an oversimplification, if not downright inaccurate, to say that Christian conservatives are looking for a strong leader to fix their problems. It's not about fixing everyone's problems. It is about getting government out of everyone's business. If complete individualism is on the right wing of the political spectrum, then tyranny would be on the left. The problem with tyranny, however, is that it doesn't matter whether it is socialist, oligarchic, monarchic, fascist, or communist. Individual rights suffer and the tyrants (whether few or many) pick the winners and losers. What we have in this country is not a battle between traditional right-wing and left-wing political viewpoints but between those who think the job of government is to take care of everyone and those who think that the job of government is limited primarily to creating a level playing field for commerce, defending the nation from enemies, and some essential public works. In that sense, the right-wing is so far removed from fascism that it is a contest between laughable and pitiable to read the rantings of leftists describing as a "fascist" someone who wants to just be left alone with one's earnings and one's beliefs to live one's own life and pay for one's own choices. So, for example, a Christian conservative not wanting to pay for someone's "choice" to, for example, abort a baby that that person didn't have the self-discipline to exercise the "choice" not to conceive becomes a "fascist" position in the mind of the person who doesn't think anyone should have to pay for their own personal choices. Ironically, however, that confused leftist is the real fascist because he or she wants to use the collective to co-opt the government into enforce the confiscation of those funds from the individual. I used abortion as just one example of the fascistic collective forcing its politically correct version of morality on individuals and businesses. There are many others. We are in a time where the enumerated rights are not only devoid of government funded support but are under attack while rights that were never listed in the constitution are "discovered" and subsidized to the tune of gazillions of dollars--all of which must be confiscated by an increasingly collectivist government. So, yes, the words of fascists in the early 20th century echo from the mouths of the progressives of today--both Democrat progressives and Republican progressives in varying degrees.

      Delete