Hitler was a communist

[nobody_cares]

Hitler was in fact left wing as he believed in the supporting the workers over the communist. He believed in huge building and state projects to reduce unemployment and nationalisation of industry.The Nazi party is actually short for National Socialists.

As for their social policy it was remarkably similar to Stalinist Communism. They both hated free speech. They both hated minorities. They both commited enormous massacres.



<_<

[Kez]

you are quite possibly the most stupid bell-end that has ever graced this forum, this is quite an accomplishment.

congrats

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Hitler was in fact left wing as he believed in the supporting the workers over the communist.

Prove it and explain what this means. Hitler favoured the elite class over the worker. A clearly uncommunist act.



He believed in huge building and state projects to reduce unemployment and nationalisation of industry.

All part of his grand plan for Europe, its all pretty much an aesthetic thing, remeber Hitler was an artist.


The Nazi party is actually short for National Socialists.

WOW&#33;


As for their social policy it was remarkably similar to Stalinist Communism. They both hated free speech. They both hated minorities. They both commited enormous massacres.

True.

[nobody_cares]

Kez if your going to call me stupid at least give me a reason.

Geist, Hitler DID faviur the worker over the manufacturing elite. His vision for Germany was a "classless society", if you dont believe me look at his speeches.

[monkeydust]

Nobody cares

I think you need to distinguish between what Hitler said and what he actually did.

The key to the Nazi party&#39;s success was its mass appeal. Their propaganda targeted capitalists, workers, agricultural workers, anti-semites, German nationalists and so on.

When Hitler actually came into power, however, he very much supported big business. Moreover, he barely implemented the Socialist points of his 25 point program at all.

Moreover, he actually vehemently attacked and persecuted all Marxist groups.

Some Communist he was.......... ;)

[Salvador Allende]

Who were some of the first people Hitler had arrested and sent to camps? Communists. If he was a Communist, he would kept them alive. But, Hitler believed that all Jews were Communists and all Communists were Jews simply because Marx was a Jew.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:34 PM
Hitler was in fact left wing as he believed in the supporting the workers over the communist.



This is nonsensical


He believed in huge building and state projects to reduce unemployment and nationalisation of industry.

Communism is a rejection of the state and of coersion. He may have called for nationalisation, but nationalisation in the hands of a well selected group of Nazi capitalists and governemtn bureaucrats.


His vision for Germany was a "classless society", if you dont believe me look at his speeches.

Hitler Munich 1924

I left Vienna a confirmed anti-Semite, a deadly foe of the whole Marxist world outlook...By Marxism I understand a doctrine which in principle rejects the idea of the worth of personality, which replaces individual energy by the masses and thereby works the destruction of our whole cultural life.

Dusseldorf 1932

German business life must be constructed on a basis of private property

Nuremburg 1936

These are only some of the grounds for the antagonisms which separate us from communism. I confess: these antagonisms cannot be bridged. Here are really two worlds which do but grow further apart from each other and can never unite

[Nyder]

The more a group or ideology is similar the more it is against each other. Socialism, Nazism, Communism, fascism, Leninism, nationalism, Marxism, etc, etc - all have the same principle of collectivism (society is like an organism that needs to be controlled, people are not individuals but part of a community), the abolishment of private property and altruism (sacrifice oneself for the sake of society).

Of course groups with similar ideals are going to be at conflict with each other. People in power often are.

[corruptwesterner90]

Hitler called it the Nationalist Socialist party to get the working man on his side.I asked that to my History teacher this week and that is what he said.Hilter a Communist.Fool&#33; :lol:

[New Tolerance]

Adam Smith is also a communist...

after all the goal of the invisible hand is to improve society, not just some individual. Except there is no state to control the people, there doesn&#39;t have to be, through competition people control and leverage each other.

George Bush is also a communist...

He runs some big government policies and believes that the ends justifies the means.

[mEds]

Two straight ignorant posts. What is your teacher some kind of fucking genius? Do you know how many biased/retarded/ignorant/stupid teachers are out there you fucking moron?
Fascism and MArxism are "different wings" of ideology. What don&#39;t you understand?

During posting new tolerance posted before I made this one. So exclude ignorant posts to him.

[corruptwesterner90]

My teacher is not Biased or Ignorant.You don&#39;t know him and he was telling me the fact not his Opinion.If he had said "Hitler is good" that would be his opinion.He told me the facts.You are the Ignorant one

[Shredder]

You&#39;re an idiot because we have this thread once a week.

The Nazi ideology is opposite of everything we believe.

The Nazi ideology is the distilled essence of capitalism. It bears a lot in common with capitalism&#39;s current pet Objectivism philosophy, particularly on the questions of wealth and selfishness.

Nazis in 10 seconds: The time of the Nazis in germany was a time of social unrest. Workers&#39; movements were particularly strong. The Nazi&#39;s started out by trying to call themselves a worker&#39;s party, but they had a hell of a time getting any workers. They turned to pulling other stunts. They failed a coup, then, defaulting to the polls, tacked on the word &#39;socialism.&#39; Seeing the futility of winning over enough workers, they pandered to bigotry. Eventually, they were elected due to the worker&#39;s vote being split between the Sellout Social Democrats and the (stalinist) commonust party. Fascism is capitalism showing its true colors when it&#39;s grasping for life.

I&#39;m glad you watched the history channel for 5 minutes and used your imagination to fill in the blanks, but next time read a book before you go running your mouth.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:34 PM
Hitler was in fact left wing as he believed in the supporting the workers over the communist.
?


He believed in huge building and state projects to reduce unemployment and nationalisation of industry.

Communism is not "big government", you are falling in the crappy "laissez faire" capitalist rethoric.


The Nazi party is actually short for National Socialists.

we already know that


As for their social policy it was remarkably similar to Stalinist Communism. They both hated free speech. They both hated minorities. They both commited enormous massacres.

Nobody here denies this, maybe with the exception of comrade RAF and elijahcraig, and I&#39;m sure they will enjoy arguing against you.


The more a group or ideology is similar the more it is against each other. Socialism, Nazism, Communism, fascism, Leninism, nationalism, Marxism, etc, etc - all have the same principle of collectivism (society is like an organism that needs to be controlled, people are not individuals but part of a community), the abolishment of private property and altruism (sacrifice oneself for the sake of society).

Why can&#39;t you cappies understand that Communism isn&#39;t "big totalitarian freedom-hating collectivist anti-individualist government"????

You want individualism? Ok: I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU CAPPIE PIGS TO EXPLOIT ME BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN ME JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN THINGS&#33; There you have.

[corruptwesterner90]

Shredder I was just saying why it was called the Nationalist Socialist party.Why the hell did you start biting my head off and saying I know nothing about History.Stop being so Arrogant.

[New Tolerance]

When people here say that Hilter is not a communist, they simply mean that they don&#39;t support Hilter or his policies.

If you go fighting to define what it takes to make a person communist, then you might as well as try to debate what&#39;s north of the north pole. It&#39;s a defination, there&#39;s no point.

[corruptwesterner90]

How can Hitler ever be described as a Communist.He believed in a superior race,Genicide,Murder ect. Why would anyone ever say such an evil man could ever have any compassion for human beings&#33;

[New Tolerance]

I guess it depends on how you classify a person. Do you do it by their intentions? or do you do it by looking at what they actually do?

Those who look at intentions will probably say that Hilter is not a communist, but those who look at his actions and compare them to those of Stalin, they will probably say that he is similar to a "communist" (Marxist-Leninist to be exact), or the "communists" are similar to him.

[Shredder]

I was just saying why it was called the Nationalist Socialist party.Why the hell

Sorry, I was trying to attack "nobody cares" for starting the thread. I hate quoting from posts though, so I was trying to just start talking and hope you could figure out where i was jumping in. My fault, I guess.

[Misodoctakleidist]

The three key features of communism are;

1) No market
2) No classes
3) No state

Nazism has a market, classes and a state. Nazism glorifies the state and maintains the class system through force, it couldn&#39;t be further from communism.

[mEds]

No state as in No Government? Im lost here.

[New Tolerance]

1) No market
2) No classes
3) No state


You forgot one:

No shit

(joke)

[DSCH]

Hitler was a Communist. It&#39;s a fact.

http://moderncrusader.blogspot.com/

[Y2A]

Hitler was no communist you fools. Hitler had trade unionists and suspected communists thrown into the concentration camps.

[DSCH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 10:05 PM
Hitler had trade unionists and suspected communists thrown into the concentration camps.
So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Kim. What&#39;s your point?

By the way nice fascist hate signature.


the israeli people should die-Adamore

Every yankee soldier deserves to die, it pleases me to see on the news when yankee soldiers get killed.-shyguywannadie
I hope you get AIDS and die. May the LORD Jesus Christ destroy you and all those who think like you.

All Muslims and Atheists should be sent to the gas chamber or shot dead and buried in mass graves in this world so that they can burn in eternal hellfire in the next world.

[mEds]

DSCH you need to start thinking logically. Hitler himself said he detested communists. I also think you should be banned for excessive racism and hate.

A direct quote from DSCH (in case he edits it out):"All Muslims and Atheists should be sent to the gas chamber or shot dead and buried in mass graves in this world so that they can burn in eternal hellfire in the next world."

[Dyst]

All Muslims and Atheists should be sent to the gas chamber or shot dead and buried in mass graves in this world so that they can burn in eternal hellfire in the next world.
I see your not planning on ending the circle, DSCH. Typical capitalist thinking... You just said that this guy Y2A was a fascist or something because of his sig, now you are becoming the same fascist yourself... <_<

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 10:04 PM
Hitler was a Communist. It&#39;s a fact.

http://moderncrusader.blogspot.com/
lol, the first thing that site said
Dedicated to the defense of America and the Holy Land from the Satanic Saracen horde of hateful Arab Muslim Sand Nazi terrorist infidels. Our long term goals are the sacking of Mecca, the defiling and final destruction of the Kaaba idol, and the creation of a Zionist State with Mecca as it&#39;s capital. For it is written, "But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire."

[Maynard]

This, is indeed, the most tiresome argument.
Read this:http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm There are some points that are debatable however but still pretty good.



Hitler was in fact left wing as he believed in the supporting the workers over the communist
What ? He supported the workers over the communist ? I don&#39;t understand what that means...


He believed in huge building and state projects to reduce unemployment and nationalisation of industry
He was not alone in that during the 30&#39;s, in fact every nation was particpating in that sort of behaviour as a reaction against the great depression. FDR was also a Communist then :lol: Keynesian economics it&#39;s known as, not communism.


The Nazi party is actually short for National Socialists

North Korea is known as Democratic People&#39;s Republic of Korea, so you will agree then that North Korea is democratic ? Misoners are quite common place in politics and the socialism refered too there is a lot differnet than socialism that Marxists refer too.


As for their social policy it was remarkably similar to Stalinist Communism
Well, if you believe that, then Pinochet social policy was also similar to Hitler&#39;s, so he must be a communist. Hating free speech, minorties and massacres are more common in mixed market economies than Communism. How about Idi Amin ? Was he also a communist ? :lol:


His vision for Germany was a "classless society
Show me where he ever stated that.


So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Kim
They had "suspected communists" thrown in Jail ? A "communist" regime had suspected communists thrown in jail ? Why ? They were scared of a socialist revolution ? :lol:


By the way nice fascist hate signature.


All Muslims and Atheists should be sent to the gas chamber or shot dead and buried in mass graves in this world so that they can burn in eternal hellfire in the next world.


Who&#39;s talking about fascist hate ? Y2A was quoting a guy anyway, it wasn&#39;t him. What you said then was much worse than that quote anyway, as there a lot more muslims and atheists in this world. Both are sick, however.

How about some high school history for you ? :http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GER1933.htm It makes you wonder, if he was such a communist, why not just join the German Communist party instead and you know, stop fiving orders too hang members of such parties or stop calling Marxism a "jewish Conspiracy".

[Hybrid v9]

Here is a little chart showing left wing and right wing (at the extremes)

Communism <----------------- | -----------------&#62; Nazism (this is where hitler is at)

so obviously hitler wasnt a communist

Thats what I&#39;ve been taught, although I am open to learning

[DSCH]

...............Left-Wing.............................................. ..........Vs...................................... ..............Right-Wing
http://www.tliquest.net/truth/political%20spectrum.jpg

[Hiero]

That chart doesn express left wing and right wing. Someone explained it in the CC ill look for later.

[synthesis]

Hybrid and DSCH are both correct, to some degree. Hybrid&#39;s chart is accurate for the social dimension and DSCH&#39;s chart is right for the economic dimension, i.e., the level of control the State has over the economy. The Political Compass takes note of these two definitions of &#39;left&#39; and &#39;right&#39; wing and creates a system based on two axes instead of one, which is why it&#39;s so popular.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:13 PM
Fascism and MArxism are "different wings" of ideology. What don&#39;t you understand?

How the opposite of socialism can be "the other socialism".

[Rasta Sapian]

ok yall, Hitler was not a socialist, he invaded communist russia and ate shit,
however he was an artist an oviously a very convincing man ;)

o ya, DSCH, your chart is vaugue and incorrect, this is a revision which may bring you around full circle into the 21st century

peace yall

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:09 PM
The Nazi ideology is the distilled essence of capitalism.
What, Nazi Germany respected property rights ? Such as Poland&#39;s ? France&#39;s ? Belgium&#39;s ? Lol.

Mass invasion of another country in anything other than self-defence could only have come from an ideology that does not recognise property rights. I wonder which...


It bears a lot in common with capitalism&#39;s current pet Objectivism philosophy, particularly on the questions of wealth and selfishness.

Idiot (see above). (Let&#39;s also ingore the not irrelevent fact that Objectivism was
was invented by a Jew).


Communism is not "big government", you are falling in the crappy "laissez faire" capitalist rethoric.

Citing reality is rhetoric ?


Why can&#39;t you cappies understand that Communism isn&#39;t "big totalitarian freedom-hating collectivist anti-individualist government"????

Because it results in "big totalitarian freedom-hating collectivist anti-individualist government" everywhere it&#39;s tried.


He believed in a superior race,Genicide,Murder ect. Why would anyone ever say such an evil man could ever have any compassion for human beings&#33;

Who said communism was compassionate ?


Nazism glorifies the state and maintains the class system through force, it couldn&#39;t be further from communism.

Just replace "class" with "equality".

[Misodoctakleidist]

Citing reality is rhetoric ?

It is when "reality" is a pack of unsubstantiated lies.


Because it results in "big totalitarian freedom-hating collectivist anti-individualist government" everywhere it&#39;s tried.

Communism is by definition stateless, it can&#39;t, at the same time, be "big government."

Next time you think a society is communist, think to yourself; "is it stateless?" if the answer is "no" then it isn&#39;t communism.



Nazism glorifies the state and maintains the class system through force, it couldn&#39;t be further from communism.

Just replace "class" with "equality".

And you no longer have a description of Nazism, what you have is a description of an ideology which is neither Nazism or communism. How is this relevant?

DSCH, could you please explain how a stateless society can be "all government," I&#39;m fascinated.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 10:07 PM
All Muslims and Atheists should be sent to the gas chamber or shot dead and buried in mass graves in this world so that they can burn in eternal hellfire in the next world.
This is quite an ironic statement from someone who is accusing us of being Nazis.

[thatCHEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:48 AM
...............Left-Wing.............................................. ..........Vs...................................... ..............Right-Wing
http://www.tliquest.net/truth/political%20spectrum.jpg
Far too simplified. It is possible to have government and still have a totally free market. According to your chart this is not the case. Plus the chart mixes up government intervention and totallitarianism. All in all an awful, awful model.

[Professor Moneybags]

Communism is by definition stateless, it can&#39;t, at the same time, be "big government."

Next time you think a society is communist, think to yourself; "is it stateless?" if the answer is "no" then it isn&#39;t communism.

Well I guess it&#39;ll never exist then. But that&#39;s not the problem. It&#39;s the attempt that causes the problems.


DSCH, could you please explain how a stateless society can be "all government," I&#39;m fascinated.

You tell us. Explain how central economic planning, the supression of private property and individual rights and the enforcement of equality can take place in a stateless society. (As if the police state required to half enforce all of this is going to somehow "wither away". Lol .)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 05:23 PM
You tell us. Explain how central economic planning, the supression of private property and individual rights and the enforcement of equality can take place in a stateless society. (As if the police state required to half enforce all of this is going to somehow "wither away". Lol .)
I agree, a centralised "dictatorship of the proletarait" won&#39;t "wither away" becuase it replaces one class system with another.

Why do you pressume that I&#39;m a Leninist?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 05:23 PM
Well I guess it&#39;ll never exist then. But that&#39;s not the problem. It&#39;s the attempt that causes the problems.
Please give us an example of how LF capitalism was "successfully" implemented.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+May 17 2004, 06:42 PM--> (Misodoctakleidist @ May 17 2004, 06:42 PM)
Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 05:23 PM
Well I guess it&#39;ll never exist then. But that&#39;s not the problem. It&#39;s the attempt that causes the problems.
Please give us an example of how LF capitalism was "successfully" implemented. [/b]
That&#39;s the best part; partial LF was sucessfully implemented preciesely because it wasn&#39;t forced on anyone.

[Professor Moneybags]

You might find this (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457) interesting too. It explains National Socialism&#39;s debt to Marxism. (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Examples please...

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 06:52 PM
You might find this (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457) interesting too. It explains National Socialism&#39;s debt to Marxism. (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457)
I&#39;ve read this before; it&#39;s complete, for want of a better word, shit.

The author clearly has no comprehension of Marxism whatsoever.

[Don't Change Your Name]

All Muslims and Atheists should be sent to the gas chamber or shot dead and buried in mass graves in this world so that they can burn in eternal hellfire in the next world.

Thank you. This is one of the reasons I am not a believer. May I ask why you have an atheist&#39;s quote in your signature?

"If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." - Mikhail Bakunin


What, Nazi Germany respected property rights ? Such as Poland&#39;s ? France&#39;s ? Belgium&#39;s ? Lol.

Nice attemp. Maybe you should explain me why, every time that the capitalist order was in crisis and there were more chances of a socialist revolution, there was always some militaristic fuhrer ready to defend it. They day when you find absolute evidence that Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet and Videla hated private property I will start believing that they were "leftists".


Mass invasion of another country in anything other than self-defence could only have come from an ideology that does not recognise property rights. I wonder which...

I suppose Bu&#036;h is a communist then :rolleyes:


(Let&#39;s also ingore the not irrelevent fact that Objectivism was
was invented by a Jew).

So was what you call "Communism".


Because it results in "big totalitarian freedom-hating collectivist anti-individualist government" everywhere it&#39;s tried.

Communism was never tried with the exception of the Spanish collectives and in Ukraine with the Makhnovites. You are just confusing communism and leninism. Even leninists would prove you wrong.


You tell us. Explain how central economic planning, the supression of private property and individual rights and the enforcement of equality can take place in a stateless society.

You seem to think we want to steal your house and your possesions. You&#39;re mistaken if you think the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba were communist. And you of course ignore the nature of capitalism and why we criticize it.


(As if the police state required to half enforce all of this is going to somehow "wither away". Lol .)

That&#39;s why I&#39;m an anarchist. Maybe you should get more information concerning the different variations of leftist ideologies and how they criticize each other, maybe you would learn interesting things, like that there are many leftists that actually want to eliminate the state.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+May 17 2004, 06:55 PM--> (Misodoctakleidist @ May 17 2004, 06:55 PM)
Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 06:52 PM
You might find this (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457) interesting too. It explains National Socialism&#39;s debt to Marxism. (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457)
I&#39;ve read this before; it&#39;s complete, for want of a better word, shit.

The author clearly has no comprehension of Marxism whatsoever. [/b]
Wow. These argments keep getting better and better don&#39;t they ? I think he has a perfect comprehension; polylogic leads to moral realtivism.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:34 PM
Hitler was in fact left wing as he believed in the supporting the workers over the communist. He believed in huge building and state projects to reduce unemployment and nationalisation of industry.The Nazi party is actually short for National Socialists.

As for their social policy it was remarkably similar to Stalinist Communism. They both hated free speech. They both hated minorities. They both commited enormous massacres.



<_<
What kind of babbling bullshit is this? Naturally a moron who hasn&#39;t studied a minute of history and is probably repeating something he heard off some conservative dimwit. Hitler believed in racial Aryan supremacy over other races, advocated German nationalism, he had the working class in heavier chains than before, and on countless times supressed Communist and other left wing rallies. None of Adolf Hitler&#39;s ideas even closely resembled Communism. Communism is about internationalism, workers working together of all backgrounds, and standing by your comrades abroad as they throw off their bourgeoisie through a Socialist Revolution. Hitler&#39;s policy was nothing more than an extreme version of Capitalism. Economy was nationalized, but private profits and the extension of privatization was party of the policy of the "thousand year reich". Why don&#39;t you cite one thing from Hitler&#39;s speeches or program that involved anything remotely similar to the Communist ideology. Get your head out of you ass, and into a book. You just might learn something.

[Dune Dx]

wow 3 pages Nobody_cares will be so pleased he only rights this stuff so you guys reply to it. A while ago he started a thread called Tony Blair our messiah, He just likes to argue with people.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by DSCH+May 16 2004, 10:07 PM--> (DSCH @ May 16 2004, 10:07 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 10:05 PM
Hitler had trade unionists and suspected communists thrown into the concentration camps.
So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Kim. What&#39;s your point?

By the way nice fascist hate signature.


the israeli people should die-Adamore

Every yankee soldier deserves to die, it pleases me to see on the news when yankee soldiers get killed.-shyguywannadie
I hope you get AIDS and die. May the LORD Jesus Christ destroy you and all those who think like you.

All Muslims and Atheists should be sent to the gas chamber or shot dead and buried in mass graves in this world so that they can burn in eternal hellfire in the next world. [/b]
You are a complete fool, you name me one credible historian who has claimed that Hitler was a communist, just one.

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"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."

Adolf Hitler

[hobosexual]

i do believe, i do believe that hitler hated communists. now im not a history major but during hitlers rise to power didn&#39;t he try to eliminate all communist opposition. there was one instance where one of his nazis actually burnt down some building and they blamed on some wayward commie.

hitler was facsist wasn&#39;t he, or at least tried to be. he almost worshipped mussolini(spelled that wrong :rolleyes: )

facsism and communism are two way different things though i guess it&#39;s understandable to get mixed up between the two, because they are both socialist governments but are both on the complete opposite sides of the political spectrum.

why dont you go read mien kampf, and the communist manifesto and see if you see a little bit a difference there.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 18 2004, 06:25 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 18 2004, 06:25 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:55 PM

Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 06:52 PM
You might find this (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457) interesting too. It explains National Socialism&#39;s debt to Marxism. (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457)
I&#39;ve read this before; it&#39;s complete, for want of a better word, shit.

The author clearly has no comprehension of Marxism whatsoever.
Wow. These argments keep getting better and better don&#39;t they ? I think he has a perfect comprehension; polylogic leads to moral realtivism. [/b]
If you were actually in any way impressed by The essay then you&#39;re not even worth debating with.

It contains no quotes or examples to back up his arguments, the only theories he refers to are those of Dietzgen, who he refers to as a "Marxian philosopher" and claims that he somehow represents Marx.

His talk of "polylogicism" is complete fiction. Marxism doesn&#39;t reject logic and it doesn&#39;t reject theories purely by calling them "bourgeois," the ridiculousness of his assertions are so that he ominously fails to provide any evidence whatsoever.


Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the "bourgeois" origin of the physicists.

This is laughable, when had Marx ever rejected the laws of physics? Marx had the utmost respect for all science, he considered himself to be scientific in his approach. Yet again there is no evidence is suppot of these absurd claims


The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bour*geois" economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism.
Yet again there is no evidence provided, perhaps becuase it is pure fiction.


As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the un*soundness of their adversaries&#39; ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind.

This is pure rhetoric, he provides no souces, evidence or example, this is a shameful attempt to discredit Marxism on the basis of fairytales.


No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require.
Another comment which has gone completely unexplained without evidence or sources.


The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objec*tively true but are only "ideological" statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of abso*lute truth.
This is completely make-believe; Marxists don&#39;t claim that there can be no objectivity, this is the work of his imagination.

So far I&#39;ve quoted pretty much every sentence, henceforth I will only mention thing that are wrong or irrelivent for reason which i havn&#39;t already advanced.


Ricardo, Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois

He seems to ignore the fact that Einstein himself was a Marxist. Also, Marx agreed with Ricardo on some issues.

He seems to be under the impression that Marxists reject science as "bourgeois," this is the opposite of the truth; Marxists have great respect for scientific method, much more so than many other ideological stances such a capitalism.

Throughout the article Von Mises doesn&#39;t seem to grasp the fact that Marx was a bougeois; if he had bothered to take this into account he would have realised he was talking bullshit and not bothered to waste his time putting such ignorance into words.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 18 2004, 08:16 AM
Hitler&#39;s policy was nothing more than an extreme version of Capitalism. Economy was nationalized, but private profits and the extension of privatization was party of the policy of the "thousand year reich".
Remind me again which part of LF requires "superiority over other races" and "nationalism". As I said before; this is all a result of polylogism that is inherent in both communist and nazi philosophy.


Why don&#39;t you cite one thing from Hitler&#39;s speeches or program that involved anything remotely similar to the Communist ideology. Get your head out of you ass, and into a book. You just might learn something.

Lol.

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the common good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper."

....Straight from the horse&#39;s mouth.


This is pure rhetoric, he provides no souces, evidence or example, this is a shameful attempt to discredit Marxism on the basis of fairytales.

90% of everything you lot post on this entire board are proof enough of the polylogical tricks you try and play.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 09:57 PM
Remind me again which part of LF requires "superiority over other races" and "nationalism". As I said before; this is all a result of polylogism that is inherent in both communist and nazi philosophy.
The bit about "the poor people is poor because they are useless lazy bums and the rich must have everything because they are exceptional successful hard working individuals, and the poor must be left to die in the streets because it&#39;s their fault, and those who have rich parents should inherit because they also deserve it because it&#39;s part of their genes and their parents have the right to ruin all our free market and equality of opportunity shit" sounds very much as "the Jews are evil by nature and must be killed and the Aryans must conquer all those inferior animals" to me.


Lol.

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the common good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper."

....Straight from the horse&#39;s mouth.

"It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in this world has ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such achievements have always been due to the triumph of the individual. Successes achieved through coalitions, owing to the very nature of their source, carry the germs of future disintegration in them from the very start; so much so that they have already forfeited what has been achieved. The great revolutions which have taken place in human thought and have veritably transformed the aspect of the world would have been inconceivable and impossible to carry out except through titanic struggles waged between individual natures, but never as the enterprises of coalitions." - Adolf Hitler

Straight from Mein Kampf, which you can find on this nazi website. (http://www.***************/books/mein_kampf/)

Sounds a lot like the capitalist argument of "we are all better of if we work as individualists and all those socialist policies dont work and enslave all those successful exceptional individuals that deserve to be rich just because we say so".

The "paleolibertarian" Hoppe had simmilar views to those Hitler had:

"the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

Hitler also thought that:

"The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all."

Sounds like those capitalists who claim that we are divided in "strong" and "weak" classes (not all of them claim this however).

Note that also Hitler had some "collectivist" ideas too, such as thinking that "self-sacrifice" was an Aryan "characteristic" and simmilar rubbish.

Overall, on economical issues and attitudes, I think he was a centrist with a certain tendency towards the right.

[Nyder]

If Hitler is not a communist by his actions, then technically you can argue that no one has ever been a communist because communism hasn&#39;t never existed.

Then again, Karl Marx invented communism. And he wrote down his infamous 10 point plan which outlined the steps necessary to &#39;achieve&#39; communism. Hitler&#39;s Germany enacted every single step of that plan.

And anyone who calls Hitler a capitalist obviously still does not understand the difference between a government and the free market.

[Shredder]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 06:52 PM
You might find this (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457) interesting too. It explains National Socialism&#39;s debt to Marxism. (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457)
I can say with 100% faith that the writer of the essay has never read a sentence of Marx. It comes through clearly that he formulated his opinion of Marxism based on false, passing comments by his right-wing free marketeer heroes.

The misrepresentation of the Marxian ideology was so great that I had to read the essay repeatedly to determine whether the author was referring to Karl Marx or some other Marx. Eventually I used pan-human deduction to discover the source of the misrepresentation.

The "polylogism" of Marxism is actually no different than what the author admits at the top of his essay: people use false logic all the time.

Allow me to give you an example. In popular bourgeois examinations of "human action", humans are said to act in their own self-interest. I agree. But where these apologists of capital start to use bourgeois-logic (read: where they are wrong) is when they begin to call all charity irrational. Once a man has secured his own life, what next? Capital insists that the man goes on to accrue material wants, or "values." This is vague enough to be true, but not the way capitalists attempt to wield it.

In reality, all the subject seeks is a certain, for lack of a better term, "satisfaction." Capital insists that the satisfaction comes from objects. But all human action is in the place of the subject, i.e. the person. The satisfaction can only be some type of action in the brain. Now, when marketeers try to rationalize their own greed by calling charity irrational, they have committed, in our view, a logical fallacy--"bourgeois logic". They assume that as an incontrovertable principle of human action that humans cannot receive the elusive &#39;satisfaction&#39; through anything but possession of objects. But firstly this is unbased, and secondly, at odds with man&#39;s social history. There is nothing to suggest that the satisfaction of owning an object is intinsically greater than the satisfaction of giving that object away. Such preference can only be learned.

The ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. And the ideas of human action are no different. The mistake bourgeois theoreticians make is one of method. They do not accrue facts and advance on a scientific basis. They look at capitalism and try to cram facts into this mold. The principles of human action are made not to explain human action, but to create apologia for capitalism.

Lenin once remarked, "The task of a bourgeois professor is not to lay bare the entire mechanism, or to expose all the machinations of the bank monopolists, but rather to present them in a favourable light." This perfectly explains our stance on classes and logic.

Even logic itself was evaded by reactionary forces of religion. My backward mother used to tell me, "you can&#39;t arrive at the Truth through reason&#33;" And one imagines when such a phrase was coined.

Another example of class logic, Prof. Moneybags, can be seen in your own reasoning. Whenever the apologists of capital try to compare Hitler to communism-- and we see this once a week--it is a coruscant example of bourgeois logic in action.

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the common good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper." (I assume this was Hitler?)

Here, and in every &#39;Hitler was a commie thread,&#39; the politicians of reaction use the same faulty class logic again. They try to cram the diverse and multidimensional field of political ideologies into a tight 2 dimensional frame. Your objective is not to seek the truth, but to cast capitalism in a favorable light.

The political spectrum doesn&#39;t just go from left to right, but up and down and all over. It can&#39;t even be contained in the cartesian "political compass". Politics could only really be described in warped space, with overlaps and wormholes where one ideology shares large bits of another. But Hitler above tries to avoid that in order to cast himself in a favorable light. We see time and time again where fools come here and try to call the EU "socialist". Bourgeois&#33;

Socialism describes only economic relations (while communism generally connotes a form of state--none--as well). Yet what Hitler says above amounts to is saying that he will not use a socialist economic base at all. Instead he outlines a form of state--an authoritarian police state--and calls it socialism. Through manipulation of logic, a word describing economy is used to describe the state instead. Bourgeois. Genuine reason can conceive of either an egalitarian or authoritarian type of state resting on any economic relations.

Another way Marx has been sabotaged is by misinterpreting another use of the adjective "bourgeois." When a Marxist, speaking to others, posits a new idea in contrast to science in general, he might prefix it with "bourgeois." For example, if Lev Landau were to talk to some local Marxists about his breakthrough theory of phase transitions, he might say something like, "bourgeois physics tries to determine the state of matter based on its individual atoms." But the physics referred to is the same one he intends to contribute to.

In closing, it&#39;s not polylogism, it&#39;s self-trickery on the part of the ruling class. And if I ever see such nonsense again, I will turn into the incredible hulk and smash.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 19 2004, 12:55 AM
The bit about "the poor people is poor because they are useless lazy bums and the rich must have everything because they are exceptional successful hard working individuals, and the poor must be left to die in the streets because it&#39;s their fault, and those who have rich parents should inherit because they also deserve it because it&#39;s part of their genes and their parents have the right to ruin all our free market and equality of opportunity shit" sounds very much as "the Jews are evil by nature and must be killed and the Aryans must conquer all those inferior animals" to me.
Then you&#39;re daft; you can&#39;t tell the difference between economic and political power, the metaphysical and the man-made or forced vs non-forced actions.

None of us are trying to "kill" the so-called poor (by contrast- it&#39;s you lot that want to kill the rich) and genetics doesn&#39;t even come into it.


Sounds like those capitalists who claim that we are divided in "strong" and "weak" classes (not all of them claim this however).

I don&#39;t remember anything about wanting to divide people in to classes. Class warfare is a Marxist invention.


Note that also Hitler had some "collectivist" ideas too, such as thinking that "self-sacrifice" was an Aryan "characteristic" and simmilar rubbish.

Hitlers philosophy came mostly from Neitsche and Hegel; Neitsche in particular advocated individualism, but only as a means of achieving the "common good".


Now, when marketeers try to rationalize their own greed by calling charity irrational, they have committed, in our view, a logical fallacy--"bourgeois logic".

The ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. And the ideas of human action are no different.

In other words, you believe that two different socio-economic groups use "different logics", just as it says in the text.

"But don&#39;t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class."


Your objective is not to seek the truth, but to cast capitalism in a favorable light.

You accuse us, we accuse you.

[refuse_resist]

Hitler was a right-wing Nazi. Need we say more?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 09:10 AM
Hitler was a right-wing Nazi. Need we say more?
Right wing socialist ? What does that make me then ?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Prof, can you please give us one example of Marx refering to "proletariat logic" and "bougoire logic?"

Wait...I&#39;ll answer that for you; No, there isn&#39;t one.

Do you really believe that Einstien rejects his own theories becuase he&#39;s a Marxist?

[Shredder]

In other words, you believe that two different socio-economic groups use "different logics", just as it says in the text.

We believe that the economic base influences people in such a way that they are not using correct logic. If that is polylogism... fine.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:04 PM

In other words, you believe that two different socio-economic groups use "different logics", just as it says in the text.

We believe that the economic base influences people in such a way that they are not using correct logic. If that is polylogism... fine.
That kind of Marxist rhetoric that man&#39;s nature is determined by his economic base is an unproven scientific fallacy.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 04:29 PM
If Hitler is not a communist by his actions, then technically you can argue that no one has ever been a communist because communism hasn&#39;t never existed.

Then again, Karl Marx invented communism. And he wrote down his infamous 10 point plan which outlined the steps necessary to &#39;achieve&#39; communism. Hitler&#39;s Germany enacted every single step of that plan.

And anyone who calls Hitler a capitalist obviously still does not understand the difference between a government and the free market.
Seeing as noone as addressed this,

If Hitler is not a communist by his actions, then technically you can argue that no one has ever been a communist because communism hasn&#39;t never existed.

What a great point&#33; Except that so called &#39;primitive&#39; communism has existed. And just &#39;cause a communist society hasn&#39;t existed, doesn&#39;t mean that people aren&#39;t communist (just like there were democrats when absolute monarchs were the rule).

"There has been no technological communistic long lasting society in modern human history". I think you will find most people here agree with that statement.

Then again, Karl Marx invented communism. And he wrote down his infamous 10 point plan which outlined the steps necessary to &#39;achieve&#39; communism. Hitler&#39;s Germany enacted every single step of that plan.
I don&#39;t know what 10 point plan you talk about, but Marx did not invent communism.

And anyone who calls Hitler a capitalist obviously still does not understand the difference between a government and the free market.
And I retort "anyone who calls Hitler a communist obviously still does not understand the differnce between a government and a free society (i.e. communism)".
Also, the right embraces a broad spectrum of ideas (just like the left). Hitler was a strong government type, he also supported corporations. Thus while he maynot have been a free marketer, he was still supportive of corporations (which exist in stage 2 capitalism).

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 19 2004, 06:32 AM
Then you&#39;re daft; you can&#39;t tell the difference between economic and political power, the metaphysical and the man-made or forced vs non-forced actions.
I&#39;m talking about how does each person&#39;s view concerning such things as "survival of the fittest" establish their economical ideology.


None of us are trying to "kill" the so-called poor

No, some of "yuo" want to exploit them, others just like to blame every single problem on this world to them.


(by contrast- it&#39;s you lot that want to kill the rich)

I don&#39;t


and genetics doesn&#39;t even come into it.

What do you think about inheritance?


I don&#39;t remember anything about wanting to divide people in to classes.

I said that not every one of you say that. It&#39;s usually those conservatives that justify their views by saying "the poor is poor just because they are poor", or "i&#39;m not a leftists because I see that some can and some others cant" and simmilar bullshit about how "losers" they are.


Class warfare is a Marxist invention.

Class warfare is the logical thing that happens when people has different interests. Class warfare explains why things like syndicates exist.


Hitlers philosophy came mostly from Neitsche and Hegel; Neitsche in particular advocated individualism, but only as a means of achieving the "common good".

Probably.

[Guest1]

Shouldn&#39;t we just trash these "Hitler was a Communist" threads? They&#39;re pointless trolling, absolutely not based in reality and definitely downright offensive.

[Red Skyscraper]

Why Hitler&#39;s party was called the National Socialists:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERgwp.htm

"Adolf Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word &#39;National&#39; before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had &#39;German blood&#39;. Jews and other &#39;aliens&#39; would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end."

[pandora]

Mostly because they came to power when the social democrats were in office,
This is bs because he was Machievellian, and any Machievellian knows the route to power is to lie about your intention publically while being thouroughly ruthless publically, [social darwinists]

If Hitler&#39;s party, Hitler was just a leader who came about later in the life of the party were such Commie&#39;s why did the black shirts kill Rosa Luxembourg and her lover? <_<

[Red Skyscraper]

^That&#39;s right. So to gain more attention and/or more voters, the Nazis either intimidated their competition out of office, or they stole left-wing policies and used them to their own advantage to gain popular support.

The Nazis were extremely right wing, and they will tell you this if you read some of their writings. They do not like anything that is Marxist and that promotes equality for the worker. They want unadulterated power and the ability to exploit others.

The whole idea behind the party calling themselves National Socialist was to disguise themselves as socialist and left wing when in fact the Nazis were right wing and they were looking to attract followers.

[Professor Moneybags]

I visited this place (http://thephora.org/) a few years ago and found it overrun with people of all political views. Yes, there are definitely some national socialists there and they were definitely socialists in the conventional sense of the word.

[Red Skyscraper]

Those people there are more along the lines of Stalinists or people who claim to be "socialists" but want right wing ideas as well. They&#39;re not even close to true socialists, and neither was Hitler. You can&#39;t put the two in the same category.

[Nyder]

These circular arguments are really starting to get tiring. How do you know that communism is a workable system if it has never even existed? Don&#39;t you think there is a reason that communism has never existed, despite so many countries having tried it, and the length of time they had to implement it?

[apathy maybe]

Fuck you&#39;re stupid. Or deliberatly ignoring the arguments.

Communism has existed (find above post). Communism is described as the type of society existing AFTER capitalism. While capitalism continues to exist, capitalists while continue to attempt to destry any attempt at either communism/anarchism or true socialism. Socialism is very similer to communism except that people have some power over others (government) and wages (while generally fixed) vary (but only by a small amount (say the heighest it not more then 4 times the lowest). And the whole fact that wages exist (even if they are paid by the government to the workers, and the workers then buy (using the wages earned by working for the government) from the government the goods needed to exist, plus any extras. Communism doesn&#39;t exist in a state. Plus all the other differences (including no racism).

Thus you may be able to claim that Hitler was a socialist (which he wasn&#39;t), but you can&#39;t claim with any truth what so ever that he was a communist.
Hitler wasn&#39;t a communist because,
He had a state, he liked his state and he wasn&#39;t going to change it.
He was a racist. etc
He wasn&#39;t a socialist because,
He &#39;earned&#39; far more then the ordinary worker. The corporate bosses &#39;earned&#39; far more then the worker. etc
The workers worked for corporations, not for the state. etc

These arguements are not circular. They are plain and simple. If you do not understand from these simple things, you are stupid.
communism = x
socialism = y
hitler = z
x,y and z are all different. Therefore x &#33;=(cannot equal) y. x&#33;=z. y&#33;=z.
How hard is it to understand?
Oh and the USSR = a (and b at a different time).
And a&#33;=x, a&#33;=y, a&#33;=z,b&#33;=x,b&#33;=y,b&#33;=z

[Nyder]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23 2004, 12:12 PM
Communism has existed (find above post).




Communism has existed but only on a small scale such as in tribes and small groups. It has never existed on a large scale.


Communism is described as the type of society existing AFTER capitalism.

And why is capitalism a necessary pre-requisite for communism?


Socialism is very similer to communism except that people have some power over others (government) and wages (while generally fixed) vary (but only by a small amount (say the heighest it not more then 4 times the lowest). And the whole fact that wages exist (even if they are paid by the government to the workers, and the workers then buy (using the wages earned by working for the government) from the government the goods needed to exist, plus any extras. Communism doesn&#39;t exist in a state. Plus all the other differences (including no racism).

Socialism in its most extreme form would be a tax rate of 100%. Thereby no one would receive any return for their labour except for a social dividend that would be available to all. The state would exist in that everyone would work for the government, being a united collective.

The only difference to communism is that communism would apparently have no central management, because that would mean hierarchy, order and authority. Really I can&#39;t see how that would work because free trade wouldn&#39;t be allowed but there would be no authority to enforce this. WTF?


Thus you may be able to claim that Hitler was a socialist (which he wasn&#39;t), but you can&#39;t claim with any truth what so ever that he was a communist.
Hitler wasn&#39;t a communist because,
He had a state, he liked his state and he wasn&#39;t going to change it.

I even said myself that Hitler wasn&#39;t communist because communism is an ideological fantasy and therefore impractical.

However, he was an alruist and a collectivist (in practice and through rhetoric) which are both the ideological underpinnings of communism and socialism.


He was a racist. etc

I really don&#39;t see how the definition of socialism excludes racism.


He &#39;earned&#39; far more then the ordinary worker. The corporate bosses &#39;earned&#39; far more then the worker. etc

I&#39;m not arguing how Hitler treated himself and his buddies. It&#39;s how he treated most of the population. No state has ever had total equality, not even your beloved Cuba.


He wasn&#39;t a socialist because,
The workers worked for corporations, not for the state

A corporation is where the means of production are privately owned. Hitler abolished private property through price controls, government spending and regulation. The businesses became state owned, therefore they were actually working for the state. That&#39;s how Hitler managed to re-invigorate industry in the early years of the Nazis.


These arguements are not circular. They are plain and simple. If you do not understand from these simple things, you are stupid.
communism = x
socialism = y
hitler = z
x,y and z are all different. Therefore x &#33;=(cannot equal) y. x&#33;=z. y&#33;=z.
How hard is it to understand?
Oh and the USSR = a (and b at a different time).
And a&#33;=x, a&#33;=y, a&#33;=z,b&#33;=x,b&#33;=y,b&#33;=z

All of those ideologies have the same underlying principles. Collectivism and altruism. You cannot argue that they are totally different variables when a lot of them, if graphed on an x,y axis, would intersect.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:29 AM
If Hitler is not a communist by his actions, then technically you can argue that no one has ever been a communist because communism hasn&#39;t never existed.

Then again, Karl Marx invented communism. And he wrote down his infamous 10 point plan which outlined the steps necessary to &#39;achieve&#39; communism. Hitler&#39;s Germany enacted every single step of that plan.

And anyone who calls Hitler a capitalist obviously still does not understand the difference between a government and the free market.
No it didnt you moron.


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Hitler most certainly did not abolish the ownership of property.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Hitler did not introduce income tax on a scale which this is talking about.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Hitler did not abolish inheretance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Sounds pretty standard of any government.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Sounds like the bank of England to me, is the UK communist?

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Hitler did not do this.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Hitler did not nationalise industry, Oscar Shindler is a prime example of private ownership of factories.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

same in any society, if you dont work, you dont get the benefits of society.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

You show me where Hitler did anything remotly like that.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children&#39;s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Free education and the ending of Child labour had already occured through out most of europe, long before Hitler.



At most Hitler did three of these. not all, and of those three nearly every western country has them as well, is America communist?


Stop trying to argue with people who know far far more than you ever will, boy.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 01:37 PM
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Hitler did not do this.
Were any dissenting, non-nazi opinions allowed ? No. If that isn&#39;t defacto centralization then I don&#39;t know what is.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 23 2004, 01:48 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 23 2004, 01:48 PM)
[email protected] 23 2004, 01:37 PM
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Hitler did not do this.
Were any dissenting, non-nazi opinions allowed ? No. If that isn&#39;t defacto centralization then I don&#39;t know what is. [/b]
Communications and transport?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 19 2004, 09:02 PM
Shouldn&#39;t we just trash these "Hitler was a Communist" threads? They&#39;re pointless trolling, absolutely not based in reality and definitely downright offensive.
I completely agree. I have never once seen a good argument put forth that anyone on this board actually shares ideological qualities with Hitler.

I&#39;m going to put forward the final word on this matter.

You capitalists can try to associate us with Hitler in any way you like. Whether or not Hitler followed Marx&#39;s program is debatable. If he did, then that is the one good thing Hitler ever did.

You can&#39;t try to dissuade us of an ideology that we believe to be completely dissimilar to Hitler&#39;s simply by comparing certain aspects of us to him and then saying that all the people Hitler killed had anything to do with those aspects when they obviously don&#39;t.

It&#39;s really this simple: Hitler was a militarist and a racist. This was what was accountable for almost all of the deaths, not his economic ideology. We are vehemently opposed to imperialism and racism; therefore, nothing we believe has anything to do with the huge numbers of people that Hitler killed.

Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.