Communism vs Nazism [Archive]

IcarusAngel

23rd March 2010, 02:42

Hitler on capitalism

"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”

Yet two years later, in 1929, Hitler corrected himself, saying that socialism was “an unfortunate word altogether” to have used; dissembling, he said: “if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism”. Historian Henry A. Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Turner) reports Hitler’s regret at having integrated the word socialism to the Nazi Party name.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#cite_note-32)

Don't troll.

CartCollector

23rd March 2010, 02:42

Oh, if only this image could be shown to every person in the US. Though I have a feeling that 70% or more wouldn't get it and would still say silly things like "Communism is when people have no rights."

ZombieGrits

23rd March 2010, 02:51

perfect! somebody email this to Glenn Beck right away! :rolleyes:

Green Dragon

23rd March 2010, 03:02

Yet two years later, in 1929, Hitler corrected himself, saying that socialism was “an unfortunate word altogether” to have used; dissembling, he said: “if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism”. Historian Henry A. Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Turner) reports Hitler’s regret at having integrated the word socialism to the Nazi Party name.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#cite_note-32)

Don't troll.

Didn't Marx talk about the "communism of the stomach"

And Hitler never integrated the term "socialism" into the nazi party. He joined a party callled the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Richard Nixon

23rd March 2010, 03:05

Nationalism: While communism in theory is anti-nationalist and strongly internationalist-it's main labortaries in the USSR, China, Vietnam, and elsewhere have supported strong nationalist sentiment. Observe the cries of "Mother Russia" in the Second World War.

Capitalism: While fascists and Nazis are not totally communistic they have supported socialist policies-remember Nazis were National Socialists.

State: KGB, Red Army, People's Liberation Army all come to mind?

All in all, communism in practice have been quite different from communism in theory.

Nolan

23rd March 2010, 03:11

And Hitler never integrated the term "socialism" into the nazi party. He joined a party callled the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Not quite

Hitler became the DAP's 55th member and received the number 555, as the DAP added '500' to every member's number to exaggerate the party's strength. He later claimed to be the 7th party member (he was in fact the seventh executive member of the party's central committee; he would later wear the Golden Party Badge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Party_Badge) number 1). Over the following months, the DAP continued to attract new members, while remaining too small to have any real significance in German politics. On 24 February 1920, the party added "National Socialist" to its official name, becoming the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), although Hitler earlier suggested the party to be renamed the "Social Revolutionary Party"; it was Rudolf Jung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Jung) who persuaded Hitler to follow the NSDAP naming.

Green Dragon

23rd March 2010, 03:13

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Communism_vs_Nazism.svg

The image is too big for Revleft :crying:

What do you think of it?

Largely false:

Egalitarianism-- The National Socialists were definitely motivated by egalitarianism-- all germans were equal. Not only did they work to break down the various divisions within the German people (no such things as Bavarians, Prussians ect), they studied on how to make Germans biologically equal.

Nationalism-- Communist regimes from Cuba, to China to Vietnam were definite nationalist movements as well.

Discrimination-- the communist opinion, and hostility toward, certain economic minorites are well known and no further comment need be made on the reds supposed lack of discrimination.

Capitalism-- the nazis were against as well. however they rejected the communist proposal to dump the capitalist. Instead the browns proposed to keep the cappies in a strait jacket, which they basically did.

State-- Communists , of course, support the "state." That they choose to call it something different does not change the substance of that which they believe.

Religion-- The browns of course tried to destroy Judaism. They also targeted the catholic Church and to a lesser extent, the Lutheran. They absolutely tried to create a singel german Christianity by merging those two faiths in a single (egalitarian) christian religion.

Die Rote Fahne

23rd March 2010, 03:18

Didn't Marx talk about the "communism of the stomach"

And Hitler never integrated the term "socialism" into the nazi party. He joined a party callled the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Hitler joined the German Workers' Party.

Hitler was extremely popular in the party and held sway. The decision to change the name from "German Workers' Party" to "National Socialist German Workers' Party" likely involved Hitler.

Nolan

23rd March 2010, 03:26

[QUOTE]Egalitarianism-- The National Socialists were definitely motivated by egalitarianism-- all germans were equal. Not only did they work to break down the various divisions within the German people (no such things as Bavarians, Prussians ect), they studied on how to make Germans biologically equal.

I don't have to explain why this is bullshit. The nazis were social Darwinists. You completely missed the target. Try again.

Nationalism-- Communist regimes from Cuba, to China to Vietnam were definite nationalist movements as well.

The nation liberationism of socialist countries is distinct from the ultra-nationalism of fascist regimes. Socialist countries were internationalist.

Discrimination-- the communist opinion, and hostility toward, certain economic minorites are well known and no further comment need be made on the reds supposed lack of discrimination.

Guilty as charged. ;)

Capitalism-- the nazis were against as well. however they rejected the communist proposal to dump the capitalist. Instead the browns proposed to keep the cappies in a strait jacket, which they basically did.

They advocated corporatism, which is harnessing the power of capitalism for the ends of the state. The bourgeoisie became the fascist elite. Even Junkers, who refused to comply, was expropriated but compensated for his nationalized company.

State-- Communists , of course, support the "state." That they choose to call it something different does not change the substance of that which they believe.

Define "state'' please. We know the Soviet Union and Cuba have a state.

Nolan

23rd March 2010, 03:38

Unlike Drexler and other party members, Hitler was less interested in the "socialist" aspect of "national socialism" beyond moving Social Welfare administration from the Church to the State. Himself of provincial lower-middle-class origins, he disliked the mass working class of the big cities, and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class (which some early Nazis espoused).

As for the socialism in national socialism.

Green Dragon

23rd March 2010, 03:40

I don't have to explain why this is bullshit. The nazis were social Darwinists. You completely missed the target. Try again.

Within the sphere of the German people, the nazis were egalitarians.

The nation liberationism of socialist countries is distinct from the ultra-nationalism of fascist regimes. Socialist countries were internationalist.

The National Socialists argued that Germans residing within Czechoslovakia, Poland, Italy, France (and of course Austria is german country) were being oppressed by those foreign governments and needed to be liberated from them into a single reich.

They advocated corporatism, which is harnessing the power of capitalism for the ends of the state. The bourgeoisie became the fascist elite. Even Junkers, who refused to comply, was expropriated but compensated for his nationalized company.

The "bourgeoise" wound up in the camps, if they did not tow the (National) Socialist line. But yes, the nazis thought the energy of capitalism was wasted in pursuit of profits and instead insisted upon it being directed toward the betterment of the state, profits or no profits.

Nolan

23rd March 2010, 03:44

Within the sphere of the German people, the nazis were egalitarians.

Still social darwinists. They held similar social theories to Mussolini, being fascist. The strong should rule.

The National Socialists argued that Germans residing within Czechoslovakia, Poland, Italy, France (and of course Austria is german country) were being oppressed by those foreign governments and needed to be liberated from them into a single reich. This is Pan-Germanic empire building, not national liberation from imperialism or colonialism. Your point?

ZombieGrits

23rd March 2010, 03:53

Within the sphere of the German people, the nazis were egalitarians.
Egalitarian = all humans are equal
Key word ALL. By your standards just about every regime that ever existed could be considered "egalitarian"

The National Socialists argued that Germans residing within Czechoslovakia, Poland, Italy, France (and of course Austria is german country) were being oppressed by those foreign governments and needed to be liberated from them into a single reich.
Internationalism is definitely not the same thing as irredentism or imperialism. Google it or something, I aint gonna spell the whole damned thing out for you

Bob George

24th March 2010, 09:48

Hitler was an altruist. He believed in self-sacrifice and servitude to the Aryan nation. Just like Communists believe in total commitment to the community, Nazis believed in total commitment to the Aryan nation.

Hitler wasn't a Capitalist. In fact, he never had a clearly defined economic policy at all. He said, "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." However, he did say that the government should have the power to regulate private property for the good of that nation. And this was carried out in practice too. This is totally contradictory to Capitalism and right-wing ideology.

Bud Struggle

24th March 2010, 13:07

Hitler was an altruist. He believed in self-sacrifice and servitude to the Aryan nation.

Well, I understand where you are comming from (though I disagree*) on that Hitler comment, but you should be careful when posting things like that around here. Your comment may be musconstrued that somehow you "favor" Hitler's positions or that you are a Fascist of some sort.

People around here (especially those from Europe where there seems to be REAL Fascists running about) are pretty touchy about any post that comes across as being pro Hitler or pro Fascist.

Welcome to RevLeft.

*There is a world of difference to being in service for the good of humanity and being in service to a racist bunch of thugs and murders.

Bob George

24th March 2010, 14:42

Well, I understand where you are comming from (though I disagree*) on that Hitler comment, but you should be careful when posting things like that around here. Your comment may be musconstrued that somehow you "favor" Hitler's positions or that you are a Fascist of some sort.

People around here (especially those from Europe where there seems to be REAL Fascists running about) are pretty touchy about any post that comes across as being pro Hitler or pro Fascist.

Welcome to RevLeft.

*There is a world of difference to being in service for the good of humanity and being in service to a racist bunch of thugs and murders.
I think you misunderstood. I don't like altruism. I like rational self-interest. Calling Hitler an altruist is an insult, coming from me. That's not to insult people who consider themselves altruists though. I'm just of the opinion that being called to serve the community is no different if its by order of a tyrannical dictator or a democratic majority.

Bud Struggle

24th March 2010, 17:01

I think you misunderstood. I don't like altruism.

Fair enough. My apologies.

Barry Lyndon

24th March 2010, 17:18

I think another major distinction between the communists and the fascists is how half of the population was treated. In Nazi Germany, women were considered fit only to be breeders who would make lots of babies that would die in the Fuehrer's wars of conquest. In the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and elsewhere, women's emancipation was a priority. Women were educated and became doctors, engineers, teachers, political cadres, and soldiers, in societies that had previously regarded them only as chattel.
One of my favorite stories illustrating this difference was that during World War II a German air ace was shot down and captured by the Russians. He demanded to see the pilot that had bested him. When the Russians brought forth a woman, he thought they were playing some kind of joke on him and refused to believe she was the pilot, and was only convinced when she described the dogfight they just had in detail.

Dimentio

24th March 2010, 17:38

Hitler on capitalism

"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”

Hitler delved into economic populism when suitable. It was impossible in Germany to win elections in that time without being for some sort of "socialism". Hitler recognised that, even if it is documented that he had a strong personal bias against capitalists. He had an even stronger bias against egalitarianism. His actions during his time in power speak louder than words though - it was a series of policies which weakened the German working class, subjecting it to absolute submission underneath the factory owners (while the factory owners in their turn were made submissive in relationship to the state).

Nolan

24th March 2010, 17:40

Hitler was an altruist. He believed in self-sacrifice and servitude to the Aryan nation. Just like Communists believe in total commitment to the community, Nazis believed in total commitment to the Aryan nation.

And he believed that the strong should rule the weak. He was a social darwinist, which is totally contradictory to left-wing ideology.

Hitler wasn't a Capitalist. In fact, he never had a clearly defined economic policy at all. He said, "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." However, he did say that the government should have the power to regulate private property for the good of that nation. And this was carried out in practice too. This is totally contradictory to Capitalism and right-wing ideology.

Capitalism means private property (the private ownership of the means of production) and an owning class which rents the labor power of a working class. Those existed in Nazi Germany.

Hitler's policies were corporatist, just as Mussolini's. They sought a "third way" between what they called communism and capitalism.

As for him being against right-wing ideology- by your criteria, every king and emperor in history was a left-winger. That's an absolutely absurd notion. What made Hitler an extreme right-winger was not his economics but his social theories.

Barry Lyndon

24th March 2010, 17:48

People who absurdly try to deny that Hitler was a capitalist tend to ignore his actual policies upon coming to power, instead obsessively focusing on the name of his party, as if the names of the Democratic and Republican parties say anything about their actual policies.
What were the Nazis actual policies upon coming to power? Abolishing labor strikes, and passing laws which made the workers subordinate to their factory owners. Putting thousands of Communists, socialists, and trade unionists in concentration camps, before they did that to the Jews. Accepting huge amounts of money from the big German industrialists and capitalists, even foreign ones like Henry Ford.

“Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world movement[communism]? Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted this ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it prevail in other countries? The answer to these questions discloses the actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncompromising fight against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing less than a Jewish International.
It was the Jew who discovered Marxism. It is the Jew who for decades past has endeavoured to stir up world revolutions through the medium of Marxism. It is the Jew who is today at the head of Marxism in all the countries of the world. Only in the brain of a nomad who is without nation, race and country could this satanism have been hatched. And only one possessed of a satanic malevolence could launch this revolutionary attack. For Bolshevism is nothing less than brutal materialism speculating on the baser instincts of mankind. And in its fight against West European civilisation it makes use of the lowest human passions in the interests of International Jewry.”
-Speech by Joseph Goebbels, ‘Communism with its Mask Off’, speech to the annual congress of the Nazi Party, 13 September 1935.

Barry Lyndon

24th March 2010, 18:00

What about the Nazis expansionism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Under what was called 'Generalplan Ost' the Nazis were to conquer the USSR as 'Lebenstraum'(living space), where they would send Germans as settlers. The native Slavic population would either be exterminated and survivors would be a 'helot race'(in the words of SS chief Heinrich Himmler). This is classic colonialism-just like how the native population of the Americas was exterminated, and then the ethnically cleansed land was worked by black slave labor. German and even American corporations such as Ford and BMW were already making huge profits off of the slave labor that was being shipped into Germany from the East, and would have undoubtedly made even more had the Third Reich won the war.
How is this not capitalist?