Ideological nature of Hitler and the Nazis.

[Andy Bowden]

It has been claimed on this board by libertarians and Capitalists that Hitler was somehow a Socialist because Germany had a planned(?*) economy and the phrase "national socialist" was used in the title of the Nazi party.

However, If Hitler was a Socialist why did so many clearly right-wing forces provide him with assistance? For example, Lord Rothermere supported Hitler when he annexed Czechkoslovakia - Lord Rothermere was the proprieter of the Daily Mail, which cannot be considered remotely left-wing by any objective standard.

There is also the support for Hitler by the British Royal family,

"...far to the right of even my husband's."

Diana Mosely, wife of British Fascist Sir Oswald Mosely, on the political view of Edward VIII

"...it would be a tragic thing if Hitler was overthrown."

Edward, Duke of Windsor in 1941 to the editor of the US Liberty Magazine.

There was also the support for Hitler by the international Capitalist class, William.S. Knudsen, head of GM described Nazi Germany as "The miracle of the 20th century". The US traded with Nazi Germany freely before they entered WW2.


*I have heard from someone that Hitler ran his munitions supply like the free market, instead of standardising shells, weaponry etc.

[Professor Moneybags]

However, If Hitler was a Socialist why did so many clearly right-wing forces provide him with assistance?

They preferred slavery under Hitler to death under the Communists.

[LSD]

They preferred slavery under Hitler to death under the Communists.

What!?

That doesn't even pretend to make sense.

The Nationalist party didn't ally with hitler because they feared communism (although they did), they did it because they, for the most part, agreed with him.

Same for the junkers and the industrialists. Hitler promised to make them rich and, oh by the way, he did!


Andy, nobody serious claims that Hitler was a socialist. His actions in power clearly dispell that myth.

Yeah, he used the word "socialist". Well, North Korea uses the word "Demoractic", it doesn't mean we believe them.

[Clarksist]

Well Hitler also let corporations do their own thing to their workers, letting the large corporations get much control doesn't sound very left wing. I will say that the National Socialist term is probably why most people think he's left wing.

[Andy Bowden]

Many on the right claim that Hitler was a Socialist - though they also lump together all anti-capitalists with Stalinism as well :rolleyes:

And the right-wing backers of Hitler would not have become slaves if he had won - in a memo sent by Rudolf Hess he ensures the occupation of Britain would be easy thanks to the "duke and his clever wife". Put simply, top ranking royal family members would have collaborated with the Nazi regime.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:53 PM
Well Hitler also let corporations do their own thing to their workers, letting the large corporations get much control doesn't sound very left wing.
Hitler ran Germany, not corporations, hence the totalitarian nature of his government. Had any corporation tried to operate outside his dictats, you can guess what would have happened.

And who cares if Hitler was left wing ? After 100 million dead under communism, it's not like any of you have got much to lose by adding a few more million to it.

[Publius]

From the Nazi Party's 25 Points:

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

Hitler wasn't a utopian socialist by any means. He didn't buy into that bullshit about it being better or superiour to capitalism, he just used it as a means of getting power.

He wasn't a 'socialist', but damn right he was a socialist.

Socialism affords the dictator more power than a capitalistic state, because that capitalistic state would ideally have a miniscule government, with few privilages.

[Invader Zim]

After 100 million dead under communism, it's not like any of you have got much to lose by adding a few more million to it.


Ah, the joys of R. J Rummel, the source of all who are too lazy to do any real research.

Try again sunshine, Rudi doesn't pull much weight in any real academic estimates on the subject. The realists understand that he is a sensationalist.

The fact is, if we take the USSR in the 1930's Rummel states thatt he figure is well over 15 million. However if we take other sources we can see figures such as 6-7 million. Fact is Rummel, accross the board produces figures with plenty of opposition. His refual to cite evidence, also reduces his credibility.

Then you get the issue of defining communism.

In short, your wrong.

[JudeObscure84]

Ok Engima the argument is not how many people commies killed. Its if Hitler was a socialist, and if you flip to any of the pages in Mein Kampf, he clearly states that he is not a Marxist but a staunch socialist. He was also ultra nationalistic, and hated liberalism. Hence, that is why he called his party the National Socialist Party.

I dont believe this. I provided quotes, excerpts and pages from Fascist doctrines and Hitler's own ideology, and there is still a debate?
I think we may have to reconsider what we call left and right anymore, because this is getting to be confusing. Hitler was right wing because he was nationalist, and rejected liberalism. Yet, the US is considered right wing because we embrace liberalism? Something's not right.

[Black Dagger]

That's why a lot of people don't put currency in the left-right paradigm, because it's simplistic and flawed.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:46 PM
After 100 million dead under communism, it's not like any of you have got much to lose by adding a few more million to it.


Ah, the joys of R. J Rummel, the source of all who are too lazy to do any real research.

Try again sunshine, Rudi doesn't pull much weight in any real academic estimates on the subject. The realists understand that he is a sensationalist.

The fact is, if we take the USSR in the 1930's Rummel states thatt he figure is well over 15 million. However if we take other sources we can see figures such as 6-7 million. Fact is Rummel, accross the board produces figures with plenty of opposition. His refual to cite evidence, also reduces his credibility.

I do apologise; it wasn't 100 million deaths, only 99,999,999. Well that's my argument refuted ! :rolleyes:


Then you get the issue of defining communism.

In short, your wrong.

15 million were Russians were starved after the government tried to force them into collectively-owned farms. That's communist enough for me.

[redstar2000]

Look. folks, you don't evaluate a political position based simply on words -- which are in the public domain and can be used and mis-used by anyone.

Anyone can call themselves a "communist", a "socialist", a "nationalist", a "libertarian", blah, blah, blah.

You have to dig deeper than that...at the very least, you have to look at more than just a self-assumed title.

The Russian Bolsheviks called themselves "communists"...but never in their entire history did they do anything to implement communism.

The "title" is wrong.

The Nazis had "socialist" in their name...but never in their entire history did they do anything to implement socialism.

The "title" is wrong.

It's more difficult in the case of groups that have not yet come to power...all you have is their words to go on.

But even then, you have the obligation to examine a generous sample of their words...a small group, for example, that calls itself "communist" but never speaks of what they think communism is or how they would implement it is...probably not communist at all.

(Another thing to watch out for on the left: people who "redefine" communism to strip it of its literal meaning so they can "use the word" to mean anything they want.)

Now, when the Nazis were a small Bavarian sect and Hitler made his earliest speeches, do you think he said or wrote anything about "socialism"? Do you imagine that he was even interested in the idea? His message was nationalist, anti-semitic, and anti-Marxist from the beginning and that never changed!

There was a "proletarian current" in the Nazi movement (mostly in Berlin)...who did want to add some socialist measures to Hitler's mix. Hitler fought them continuously...and the ones that he couldn't win over to his side ended up getting expelled -- the more prominent of them were later murdered.

And when the Nazis were in power, did they not rigorously respect and even continuously praise the core capitalist right of private ownership of the means of production? They were not "libertarian capitalists" or "free traders", of course. They regulated their capitalist economy to prepare it for the imperialist war that they knew they were going to fight.

But that was hardly a "Nazi deviation" from capitalist virtue -- all capitalist countries heavily regulate their economies to prepare for and fight major inter-imperialist wars. That was the lesson of World War I.

To call such regulation "socialist" is to make a mockery of the word...there was no intent to ever fundamentally change the structure of property relationships in the course of such regulations.

The USSR was a socialist country (for a while). Private ownership of the means of production was prohibited.

That was never even remotely the case in Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, or any fascist dictatorship in recorded history.

Fascism in all its forms was and remains rightist to the core.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

['Discourse Unlimited']

From the Nazi Party's 25 Points:
[...]


These were written by Hitler and his minions in 1920, over a decade before the NSDAP came to power. At this time, the Nazi Party membership was extremely limited.



There was a "proletarian current" in the Nazi movement (mostly in Berlin)...who did want to add some socialist measures to Hitler's mix. Hitler fought them continuously...and the ones that he couldn't win over to his side ended up getting expelled -- the more prominent of them were later murdered.


Yes indeed. Most working-class members of the NSDAP, many millions of whom were unemployed, joined the 'SA' (Sturm Abteilung - meaning stormtroopers) in the depression era. This was the Nazi private army, and the "brownshirts" were instrumental in Hitler's rise to power. The charismatic leader of the 'SA', Ernst Rohm, often spoke of the need to effect the 'true socialist revolution'... Meanwhile, membership in the army-like 'corps' increased to well over 4,000,000. Hitler was fearful, rather than supportive of the aims of Rohm, and had him executed during the 'Night of the Long Knives'.

Also, the NSDAP was funded (and Hitler's appointment as Chancellor supported) by a group of leading industrialists. I forget the figures involved - but I'm sure it amounted to millions of DM.

Hitler's party was "socialist" only in name.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'@Jun 9 2005, 02:52 PM
Hitler's party was "socialist" only in name.
And in principle. And in body count.

[Black Dagger]

And in principle. And in body count.

Yes, because in 'principal' socialists are ultra-nationalist, racist and genocidal. Body count? You know the nazi's executed 'socialists' right? Ironic too that it was 'socialists' who ended his 'socialist' genocide.

[Professor Moneybags]

But that was hardly a "Nazi deviation" from capitalist virtue -- all capitalist countries heavily regulate their economies

If the economies are heavily regulated, then it isn't capitalism; the economy should work the same way in war as it does in peace time- through supply and demand.


To call such regulation "socialist" is to make a mockery of the word...there was no intent to ever fundamentally change the structure of property relationships in the course of such regulations.

Government reguation is an intent to fundamentally change the structure of property relationships, assuming they were privately controlled to begin with.


That was never even remotely the case in Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, or any fascist dictatorship in recorded history.

Ownership without control is defacto ban on private ownership.


Fascism in all its forms was and remains rightist

Whatever that means...

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes, because in 'principal' socialists are ultra-nationalist, racist and genocidal.

If the shoe fits...


Body count? You know the nazi's executed 'socialists' right?

Rival socialists.


Ironic too that it was 'socialists' who ended his 'socialist' genocide.

Yes, rival socialists.

[JudeObscure84]

The Nazis had "socialist" in their name...but never in their entire history did they do anything to implement socialism.

Wrong. Read Mien Kampf. Never in the history of politicians has one man ever been so consistent with his message. That book is a manifesto unto itself and layed out Hitler's blueprint to what he was going to do to Europe.


Now, when the Nazis were a small Bavarian sect and Hitler made his earliest speeches, do you think he said or wrote anything about "socialism"? Do you imagine that he was even interested in the idea? His message was nationalist, anti-semitic, and anti-Marxist from the beginning and that never changed!

Yes, he did. His message was nationalist, anti-semitic, anti-marxist and anti-bourgoise. To understand Nazism you have to understand its roots and philosophy. All it pretty much states is that international finance or what YOU guys call western capitalism or globalization, is a Jewish invention that wants to undermine the national soverignty of Germany and strip Germany's right of expansion and glory. And the next Jewish quest for global domination is Communism, which asks for international socialism which will strip the German man of his national identity and his right to rule. But above all Hitler hated Liberalism and embraced socialism because it above all embraced unity. Liberalism is a doctrine of individuality that places the individual seperate from the state and the nation. Nazism solidifies the individuals role in the state, as part of the state, and all his determinations and achievements are for the benefit of the national unity. This is why Hitler decided to be a socialist and not a libertarian. But his nationalism still trumped his socialism.



There was a "proletarian current" in the Nazi movement (mostly in Berlin)...who did want to add some socialist measures to Hitler's mix. Hitler fought them continuously...and the ones that he couldn't win over to his side ended up getting expelled -- the more prominent of them were later murdered.

http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/meinkampf/v2c7.htm


Consequently the bourgeoisie stared open-mouthed after the red car decked out with fluttering swastika flags, while in the outer sections numerous clenched fists arose whose owners seemed obviously burned up with rage at this newest 'provocation of the proletariat.' For only the Marxists had the right to hold meetings or to drive around in trucks.

Marxists do not hold a monopoly on the proletariat. You guys do not hold the rights to "social justice" and your definition of workers solidarity. Get over yourselves! There have been many on the LEFT, that have come in the name of workers rights, unity and solidarity. Anarchists, Syndicalists, Nazis, Nationalists, Fascists, Commies, Socialists. You cannot sit here and tear up another's work on your basis of worker unity, because they can turn around and do the same thing. Thats why they become Nazis, because they can see the holes in your rhetoric and thats why you're Marxists because you see the hole in theirs. Its a struggle for the same rhetoric.

......and that is why I am a Libertarian. :D


But that was hardly a "Nazi deviation" from capitalist virtue -- all capitalist countries heavily regulate their economies to prepare for and fight major inter-imperialist wars. That was the lesson of World War I.

WWI destroyed international finance in the eyes of many. Capitalism "failed" to many people. In order to combat the advantage the Commies had now, people went to the Fascists for a different approach. Do you see now why people became Fascists? Because after capitalism had "failed" them, they rejected your international communism, and sided with the nationalists. Workers would've rather appealed to thier own nationalism, than with communism. They werent brainwashed. To say otherwise would imply that whole nations are stupid and gullible. they knew exactly what they were getting into.


That was never even remotely the case in Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, or any fascist dictatorship in recorded history
This is such a stupid notion. It seems as though I will forever be repeating myself. This is a slap in the face to the even basic tenets of Fascist philosophy. Fascists based thier ideals on more guild socialism and syndicalism than anything else. It was more like trade unionism, but ones that had to be administered by the state. Private enterprise was subject to and of the state. Profit must never go beyond the national interest.


Fascism in all its forms was and remains rightist to the core

We really have to re-define left/right.

[JudeObscure84]

Body count? You know the nazi's executed 'socialists' right?

this is so dumb. The Reds fought with Social Democrats who sided with the Whites.

During the Cultural Revolution, Mao ordered the cleansing of those rival Communist members who had bourgeouise tendencies.Maoism rejected Bolshevism.

During the time of Surkano's rule in Indonesia, the Communist PKI, was going to overthrow the socialist Sukarno, even supposedly by his word to start a coup.

The National Syndicalists in Spain fought with the Anarcho Syndicalists. While the Anarchists fought with the Stalinists and Socialists within the Republican ranks.

During the Night of Long Knives in Germany, the Nazis killed off rival socialist parties who put the socialism above the nationalism in national socialism. In Germany, the Nazis fought the Social Democrats who in turn fought the Marxists.

Stalin killed Trotsky for goodness sake. Troyskyites hate Stalinists.

During the Sino-Japanese war, the KMT split into two factions; right and left. The left side of the KMT, who were socialists, sided with the Japanese Fascists! Thats right, the left wing nationalists of the KMT sided with the Japanese nationalists.

I
ronic too that it was 'socialists' who ended his 'socialist' genocide.

Yes, the same rival socialists who signed a pact with them not two years before. So it was Hitler who brought about the wrath himself by breaking the pact.

[Raisa]

Yall!

This is honestly how simple it is.

The Nazi's were National Socialists.
Look at what they believed in.

But that is not anywhere near what most leftists are.

Leftism is about Liberating the Working People from Capitalist Wage Slavery.

The Nazi's wanted to put Germany on top because they thought that their people and their country was the best.
That doesnt do anything for the world's working class. Just their own people. At the expense of others. And that is what makes them National Socialists.

They were in it for the Nation.

National Socialist.

[monkeydust]

Wrong. Read Mien Kampf. Never in the history of politicians has one man ever been so consistent with his message. That book is a manifesto unto itself and layed out Hitler's blueprint to what he was going to do to Europe.


Very debatable.

I think it's fair to say that Hitler had some broad aims, and that he intended to achieve them from the start if he could. However Mein Kampf was by no means a "blueprint" for what he eventually did.

Need I remind you that one commentator at the time described his book as "the ravings of a lunatic". It's not some systematic theory in the least.


Yes, he did. His message was nationalist, anti-semitic, anti-marxist and anti-bourgoise. To understand Nazism you have to understand its roots and philosophy. All it pretty much states is that international finance or what YOU guys call western capitalism or globalization, is a Jewish invention that wants to undermine the national soverignty of Germany and strip Germany's right of expansion and glory. And the next Jewish quest for global domination is Communism, which asks for international socialism which will strip the German man of his national identity and his right to rule. But above all Hitler hated Liberalism and embraced socialism because it above all embraced unity. Liberalism is a doctrine of individuality that places the individual seperate from the state and the nation. Nazism solidifies the individuals role in the state, as part of the state, and all his determinations and achievements are for the benefit of the national unity. This is why Hitler decided to be a socialist and not a libertarian. But his nationalism still trumped his socialism.


I think you're confusing and oversimplifying a number of issues here.

1. You're right that Jews were often associated with capitalism, and accordingly there was some in the Nazi Party who disliked financiers as "jewish parasites". But the main thrust of anti-semitism for Hitler was in his associating jews with Communism; he thought Communism to be some "jewish global conspiracy" which he had to fight.

2. Again, you're correct to say that Hitler emphasized the community above the individual, and in this respect he was opposed to Liberalism as a political ideal. But this does not make him a socialist in any sense at all. His community - Volksgemeinchaft - was based around nationalism, not some "workers movement" for solidarity.

Don't forget that within five months of getting into office Hitler banned trade unions, and had all communists he could find carted off for a nice dose of "protective custody" at Dachau concentration camp.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike many here, I accept that Nazism embodied some Socialist elements in practice. To give one example, in 1937 the Nazis opened the Hermann Goring Steelworks, and forced businesses to help pay for it even though it was a state enterprise in direct competition to them. The industrialist classes in Germany were, unsurprisingly, very pissed off.

Nevertheless, the overwhelming trend in the history of the Third Reich was to support the capitalist class in private - though sometimes regulated - endeavours. Some businessmen were even in the Nazi government. Carl Krauch, Director of the chemical giant IG Farben, was a key figure in the implentation of the Nazis second economic four year plan.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:24 PM
Leftism is about Liberating the Working People from Capitalist Wage Slavery.
Great. We're going to be liberated from an anti-concept.


The Nazi's wanted to put Germany on top because they thought that their people and their country was the best.
That doesnt do anything for the world's working class.

It does plenty for Germany's, that's why they backed it.

[JudeObscure84]

Very debatable.

I think it's fair to say that Hitler had some broad aims, and that he intended to achieve them from the start if he could. However Mein Kampf was by no means a "blueprint" for what he eventually did.

Need I remind you that one commentator at the time described his book as "the ravings of a lunatic". It's not some systematic theory in the least.


OMG, I dont mean that it was an exact blueprint like anyone would've actually known what he was exactly going to do during WWII. But it was infered in each one of his references towards the different races and nations. And ofcourse it was the ranting of a raving lunatic. Where did you get that I meant that it was a systematic theory?



1. You're right that Jews were often associated with capitalism, and accordingly there was some in the Nazi Party who disliked financiers as "jewish parasites". But the main thrust of anti-semitism for Hitler was in his associating jews with Communism; he thought Communism to be some "jewish global conspiracy" which he had to fight.

At the time, international finance was crippled and discredited in the eyes of many. Did you know that we were once closer to a globalized economy in 1913, than in 1970? The depression and the first world war destroyed any credibility for a globalized world (atleast for the time being). Capitalism was not even an issue to debate. The issue at hand was the attempts made by the Communists to try thier luck at the advantage they had to over run the workers.
Hitler, like many Nazis saw this at the Jews 2nd attempt to undermine Germany's soverignty.

Jeez, you guys like to undermine Nazis but cant even scratch the surface of thier ideology.


2. Again, you're correct to say that Hitler emphasized the community above the individual, and in this respect he was opposed to Liberalism as a political ideal. But this does not make him a socialist in any sense at all. His community - Volksgemeinchaft - was based around nationalism, not some "workers movement" for solidarity.

Again, you are thinking like a Marxist. His nationalism was above all the root of his beliefs, but you cannot run an economy on nationalism alone. He needed an economy, and it was not based on liberalism, but guild socialism. It was where private industry was respected but the profits would never go beyond the national interest. His economic planning was based more or less on the way the Scandanavian countries are run. A welfare state.


Don't forget that within five months of getting into office Hitler banned trade unions, and had all communists he could find carted off for a nice dose of "protective custody" at Dachau concentration camp.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Hitler was not against trade unions. He was against trade unions that didnt tow the party line. They had to be unions based on Nazi ideology.

http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/meinkampf/v2c12.htm


Above all, the trade unions are necessary as foundation stones of the future economic parliament or chambers of estates.

yet....


From this highest standpoint alone, the National Socialist movement must recognize the necessity of a trade-union activity of its own.

He explains it all in this chapter. His trade unions are different than that of Marxist trade unions, but Hitler was a trade union man from the get go.



Unlike many here, I accept that Nazism embodied some Socialist elements in practice. To give one example, in 1937 the Nazis opened the Hermann Goring Steelworks, and forced businesses to help pay for it even though it was a state enterprise in direct competition to them. The industrialist classes in Germany were, unsurprisingly, very pissed off.

More than just some. Hitler believed his was the true socialism. His idea of class struggle was of national unity in which all individuals(German) were equal according to their specific duty. They were like all equal parts in a machine that is Germany. Let him explain....


The National Socialist trade union is no organ of class struggle, but an organ for representing occupational interests. The National Socialist state knows no 'classes,' but politically speaking only citizens with absolutely equal rights and accordingly equal general duties, and, alongside of these, state subjects who in the political sense are absolutely without rights.

They were cogs of the state that serve the national interest. What is capitalistic about this? What is liberal about this? To a Marxist like yourself this is horrible and especially to a Libertarian like myself this is even more horrible. This is why we both teamed up in WWII to defeat this brand of socialism.


Nevertheless, the overwhelming trend in the history of the Third Reich was to support the capitalist class in private - though sometimes regulated - endeavours. Some businessmen were even in the Nazi government. Carl Krauch, Director of the chemical giant IG Farben, was a key figure in the implentation of the Nazis second economic four year plan.

It's great that you know your history well but it still does not serve your point. There were also plenty of Nazis that at the end of the war became prime spokesmen for Communist East Germany. They were noted as brown on the outside, red on the inside. It doesnt matter how many businesses you own in Germany, you were still a slave to the state, because nationalism mattered above all. Hitler would slit your throat, capitalist or socialist, it didnt matter, if you deviated from the national in national socialism. I mean you have to remember that ALL supposed socialist countries have to steal from the richest markets in order to distribute the wealth. When China took over Hong Kong they didnt ravage the industrial city to the ground, they taxed the hell out of it in order to distribute the wealth. All socialist countries run like that. They never kill off the capitalist, they always kill of the poorest, and enslave the rich. Thats the only way they can survive. Nazi Germany was just an example of the same rule that dictators have in third world countries.

[JudeObscure84]

Leftism is about Liberating the Working People from Capitalist Wage Slavery.

The Nazi's wanted to put Germany on top because they thought that their people and their country was the best.
That doesnt do anything for the world's working class. Just their own people. At the expense of others. And that is what makes them National Socialists.

They were in it for the Nation.

National Socialist.

Thats what leftism is about to you. You see, leftist rhetoric is so broad and general that anyone can take it and run with and claim it to be true socialism. Stalinism, Maoism, and Nazism are just prime examples.

BUT LET ME GIVE THE HISTORY OF THE FUNDIE ROOTS OF NAZISM......

1.) First the great depression and WWI, put a damper on international finance. Globalization was discredited and no one wanted anything to do with lassiez faire capitalism or liberalism. Hitler comes along and realizes that the Jewish upper class salvaged all of their money for a reason. They were behind all of it!! The Joos invented this international brotherhood stuff through trying to unite the world through international capitalism, so in the end they could be the bourgouise and apply the law of Moses on the people of Germany. They were trying to subject the world and Germany by denying the Aryan races right to rule.

2.) After the Jew failed to take over the world the first time. The Joos are trying thier luck at Marxism and international communism. This too was going to create another bourgouise rule led by the Bolshevicks. This was going to undermine the national unity of Germany. This had to be stopped at once. So Hitler focused his attention on attacking the communists and then the Jewish upper class that horded thier money from the first attempt at taking over through international finance. Why do you think that they hated the Jews so much? Why do you think that they confiscated Jewish businesses? It was because Hitler believed that they owed it to the German people for exploiting them through thier attempt at globalizing thier market.

3.) The German people were not duped. They were not brainwashed. They knew exactly what they were getting into because in thier sick minds, it made sense. You have to understand that a couple of years before Hitler came about. The German people were carrying wheel barrells full of Deutch-marks to buy a loaf of bread! They were poor as hell. Listening to Hitler made sense to them. They willingly rejected the Communists, because they saw it as another Jewish plot. They wanted Fascism. They wanted true socialism and national unity. The National Socialist German Workers Party gave them that.

4.) In summary, capitalism had failed them. It wasnt even an issue, it was living proof to them. But they didnt want Communism, either. There were plenty of nations that did not want communism, but Fascism, because they saw it as a better option! Spain, Japan, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Vichy France, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Manchuria, Thailand,Argentina, even Free India! They and thier people all rejected Communism.

Fascism came about as a result of the trust people had during the roaring twenties in liberalism, and then the sudden collapse of the international market, which discredited capitalism in the eyes of many. Well instead of running to the next option, the communists, they ran to the nationalists instead. Your precious proletaraiat ran to the Fascists instead, in numbers and rank.

[monkeydust]

OMG, I dont mean that it was an exact blueprint like anyone would've actually known what he was exactly going to do during WWII. But it was infered in each one of his references towards the different races and nations. And ofcourse it was the ranting of a raving lunatic. Where did you get that I meant that it was a systematic theory?

For a start, you said this...

"Never in the history of politicians has one man ever been so consistent with his message. That book is a manifesto unto itself and layed out Hitler's blueprint to what he was going to do to Europe. "

...which strongly implies to me that you believed Mein Kampf was some "master plan" that Hitler had had from the start. Indeed, you say that never has a politician in actions been so consistent with his message.

Clearly this is wrong. You'd be hard pressed to find any serious historians today who don't believe Hitler was something of a pragmatist.



Again, you are thinking like a Marxist. His nationalism was above all the root of his beliefs, but you cannot run an economy on nationalism alone. He needed an economy, and it was not based on liberalism, but guild socialism. It was where private industry was respected but the profits would never go beyond the national interest. His economic planning was based more or less on the way the Scandanavian countries are run. A welfare state.


This is a downright lie.

Hitler certainly allowed profits to rise above the national interest. Industrialists like Krupp and the IG Farben works made millions of marks in profit under Hitler.

I'd be interested to hear in what respect you consider Hitler to have implemented a welfare state in a way comparable to Scandinavia.


How many times do I have to repeat myself? Hitler was not against trade unions. He was against trade unions that didnt tow the party line. They had to be unions based on Nazi ideology.


In other words, he was against actual trade unions. He banned them all!


He explains it all in this chapter. His trade unions are different than that of Marxist trade unions, but Hitler was a trade union man from the get go.


See above...


More than just some. Hitler believed his was the true socialism. His idea of class struggle was of national unity in which all individuals(German) were equal according to their specific duty. They were like all equal parts in a machine that is Germany.


Hitler didn't have any concept of class struggle; only of national struggle.


The National Socialist trade union is no organ of class struggle, but an organ for representing occupational interests. The National Socialist state knows no 'classes,' but politically speaking only citizens with absolutely equal rights and accordingly equal general duties, and, alongside of these, state subjects who in the political sense are absolutely without rights.

I've seen this quote before. There's two reasons why Hilter would have said this:

1. In ideological terms Hitler viewed people as "classless" insofar as they were all elements of one larger nation and had no singular importance abstracted from that. His "equality" had absolutely no political or economic aspect.

2. Hitler - shock horror - very often lied. This quote sounds far better than saying "sorry lads, we're not going to raise your wages again this year, and I'm afraid your working conditions aren't going to be much better either, and, true, I've banned your trade unions and all your political parties and furthermore sent your mates off to a concentration camp.......but you still support me, right?" And the second one is actually closer to the truth.


It's great that you know your history well but it still does not serve your point. There were also plenty of Nazis that at the end of the war became prime spokesmen for Communist East Germany. They were noted as brown on the outside, red on the inside. It doesnt matter how many businesses you own in Germany, you were still a slave to the state, because nationalism mattered above all. Hitler would slit your throat, capitalist or socialist, it didnt matter, if you deviated from the national in national socialism. I mean you have to remember that ALL supposed socialist countries have to steal from the richest markets in order to distribute the wealth. When China took over Hong Kong they didnt ravage the industrial city to the ground, they taxed the hell out of it in order to distribute the wealth. All socialist countries run like that. They never kill off the capitalist, they always kill of the poorest, and enslave the rich. Thats the only way they can survive. Nazi Germany was just an example of the same rule that dictators have in third world countries.

That's all very nice, however I'm afraid it doesn't alter the fact that the groups that benefited the most under national socialism was big business. Do you want me to start listing a few points:

1. Industrialists like Fritz Thyssen and Krupp bankrolled the party to get it into power.

2. Business no longer had to worry about strikes or worker agitation, since trade unions and strike activity were banned.

3. Real wages were kept remarkably low until the end of the Reich (and then they were still far less than they were in 1928).

4. Industrialists such as Krauch were actually in the Nazi government, and helped to shape its economic policy.

5. The Nazi Minister of Economics, Schacht, was very much pro-business.

6. Rearmament boosted industry considerably.

7. Business no longer had to fund the expensive welfare contributions it had to under Weimar.

etc. etc.

No one is arguing that the Third Reich was capitalist, it clearly was not. The point, however, is that, whilst in the Reich there were considerable restrictions imposed on business' operation, private industry was almost invariably used in favour of state-ownersip (socialism). Moreover, big business largely benefited in Germany as a result of Nazism.

[JudeObscure84]

...which strongly implies to me that you believed Mein Kampf was some "master plan" that Hitler had had from the start. Indeed, you say that never has a politician in actions been so consistent with his message.

Clearly this is wrong. You'd be hard pressed to find any serious historians today who don't believe Hitler was something of a pragmatist.

right anyone looking at it after everything had occured could easily see that this madman carried out what he percieved to be dominance.


This is a downright lie.

Hitler certainly allowed profits to rise above the national interest. Industrialists like Krupp and the IG Farben works made millions of marks in profit under Hitler.

I'd be interested to hear in what respect you consider Hitler to have implemented a welfare state in a way comparable to Scandinavia.

I never said that he wasnt corrupt. Im speaking of his doctrine. You keep confusing the two. If he implements something it doesnt mean that its going to work the way he preached. Its the same way China preaches but does not adhere, and why Nike profits over people in a Communist nation. To admit that Hitler actually achieved his aim is to admit that National Socialism works.
And the Scandanavian point was to show the similarities between his platform and that of the Democratic Socialists, economically.


In other words, he was against actual trade unions. He banned them all!
Why cant he be against Marxist trade unions? He banned all trade unions that didnt tow the party line, not trade unionism is general. What do you think the corporative were in Fascist Italy, or the unions under nazi supervision were? This is ridiculous. I will not debate with you if you insist on defining everything partcularily Marxist. As if you own the very definition of that word.


Hitler didn't have any concept of class struggle; only of national struggle.

Which is exactly why he was not a Marxist, but a National Socialist.


I've seen this quote before. There's two reasons why Hilter would have said this:

:rolleyes: and you know both reasons. I forgot he couldnt have possibly meant what he said.



1. In ideological terms Hitler viewed people as "classless" insofar as they were all elements of one larger nation and had no singular importance abstracted from that. His "equality" had absolutely no political or economic aspect.

Yes. :D


2. Hitler - shock horror - very often lied. This quote sounds far better than saying "sorry lads, we're not going to raise your wages again this year, and I'm afraid your working conditions aren't going to be much better either, and, true, I've banned your trade unions and all your political parties and furthermore sent your mates off to a concentration camp.......but you still support me, right?" And the second one is actually closer to the truth.

Thats ridiculous! Then why didnt the proletariat run to the Marxists who were also competing for thier voice and offered them something better? Hitler spoke the truth about the holes in Marxism and how it dissolved the national unity. Hitler wasnt lying. The people aggreed with him, and the ones they sent to die were the "enemies" and those that did not agree with national unity.
You apologize too much for the crimes of the Nazis by saying that the people were hoodwinked and bamboozled into Hitlers propaganda. People are not really that idiotic, just wicked.


1. Industrialists like Fritz Thyssen and Krupp bankrolled the party to get it into power.

2. Business no longer had to worry about strikes or worker agitation, since trade unions and strike activity were banned.

3. Real wages were kept remarkably low until the end of the Reich (and then they were still far less than they were in 1928).

4. Industrialists such as Krauch were actually in the Nazi government, and helped to shape its economic policy.

5. The Nazi Minister of Economics, Schacht, was very much pro-business.

6. Rearmament boosted industry considerably.

7. Business no longer had to fund the expensive welfare contributions it had to under Weimar.

etc. etc.

No one is arguing that the Third Reich was capitalist, it clearly was not. The point, however, is that, whilst in the Reich there were considerable restrictions imposed on business' operation, private industry was almost invariably used in favour of state-ownersip (socialism). Moreover, big business largely benefited in Germany as a result of Nazism.

Thank You. I rest my case. The quote you highlighted that was from me is only proved by the quote Im highlighting, by you, as your rebutal. All socialist countries, especially ones conquered for socialism, turn out the same way. They create a new bourgouise,a new ruling class and a new order that serves the new ruling class. then this is where you guys wail..."but they arent really communistor socialist".
Even anarchists can tell you this much. All in the end it becomes is state owned businesses. All it ever will be, since mans ultimate fate is a liberal democracy, is corruption, torture and concentration camps.

[monkeydust]

I never said that he wasnt corrupt. Im speaking of his doctrine. You keep confusing the two. If he implements something it doesnt mean that its going to work the way he preached. Its the same way China preaches but does not adhere, and why Nike profits over people in a Communist nation. To admit that Hitler actually achieved his aim is to admit that National Socialism works.


Well Hitler was actually fairly uncorrupt, by many standards - it's not like he took bribes from people very often if at all.

The distinction you make there is precisely what I want to emphasize to you. Hitler initially preached against business; in practice he supported it.


And the Scandanavian point was to show the similarities between his platform and that of the Democratic Socialists, economically.


What is that similarity?


Why cant he be against Marxist trade unions? He banned all trade unions that didnt tow the party line, not trade unionism is general.

No. On the 2nd May 1933 Nazis not only banned all Trade Unions but they took their funds to boot.

Can you name even one trade union that wasn't banned under Nazism?


I will not debate with you if you insist on defining everything partcularily Marxist. As if you own the very definition of that word.


I'm not defining stuff in "marxist" terminology anywhere here.

By trade unions, I mean....trade unions.

They all got banned. Fact.


and you know both reasons. I forgot he couldnt have possibly meant what he said

He could've meant what he said, but seeing as the National Socialist "trade union" - the German Labour Front - wasn't actually a trade union at all...I think he was lying.


Thats ridiculous! Then why didnt the proletariat run to the Marxists who were also competing for thier voice and offered them something better?

Some did. The exiled KPD - that's the German Communist Party - was still something of a force in Germany until about 1936 (thought it was limited to distributing pamphlets, giving talks and so on.)

I think a major reason as to why the proletariat didn't run to the Marxists was because (a) the marxists were made illegal and (b) those that tried to collaborate with them got carted off to concentration camps - in hordes!


Hitler spoke the truth about the holes in Marxism and how it dissolved the national unity. Hitler wasnt lying. The people aggreed with him, and the ones they sent to die were the "enemies" and those that did not agree with national unity.


Pah...

If the people really agreed with him, why did the overwhelming majority not vote for his Party in March 1933 even after he'd become Chancellor and even though his SA were intimidating those voting for other parties?

I'm aware that those sent to concentration camps were "enemies". That included a huge number of communists and even socialists. 1.3 million were sent even before the war.


You apologize too much for the crimes of the Nazis by saying that the people were hoodwinked and bamboozled into Hitlers propaganda. People are not really that idiotic, just wicked.


Balls, balls, balls.

I will not attempt to completely excuse the German populace. However I think you'll find that the vast majority did not vote for Nazism on account of its anti-semitism or racial policies; in fact Hitler initally tried to "tone down" that aspect of the regime.

Read any book full of accounts from ordinary Germans of the time. Most simply wanted a job (the unemployed numbered way over 6 million), to overthrow the ToV and to have some order in their lives.


All it ever will be, since mans ultimate fate is a liberal democracy

Someone's been reading a bit too much Fukuyama, I can see...

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 8 2005, 08:57 PM
After 100 million dead under communism, it's not like any of you have got much to lose by adding a few more million to it.
Sorry but there has never been any communist systems for people to have died as a direct result of.

And besides every 1.3 seconds someone dies as a Direct result of capitalism, every 3 seconds its a small child.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Anarcho [email protected] 14 2005, 11:14 AM
Sorry but there has never been any communist systems for people to have died as a direct result of.

Yes there have. The fact that they didn't end up being heaven on earth only proved that communism was unrealisable, not that that they weren't trying to put communism into practice.


And besides every 1.3 seconds someone dies as a Direct result of capitalism,

Care to explain how ?


every 3 seconds its a small child.

Oh it's the "for the sake of the children" argument again. You people are pathetic.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 14 2005, 01:47 PM

every 3 seconds its a small child.

Oh it's the "for the sake of the children" argument again. You people are pathetic.
Yes, the children can defend themselves&#33; <_<

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:57 PM
Yes, the children can defend themselves&#33; <_<
From what, exactly ?

[RedAnarchist]

Moneybags, try to realise the context of people&#39;s posts will you?

I was referring to your post, commenting that you must seem to think that children are capable of defending themselves.

[JudeObscure84]

Well Hitler was actually fairly uncorrupt, by many standards - it&#39;s not like he took bribes from people very often if at all.

The distinction you make there is precisely what I want to emphasize to you. Hitler initially preached against business; in practice he supported it.

which is exactly the conclusion all socialist dictators come to in the end. they have to take over the businesses in order to survive. Why is Hitler the only dictator in history to actually "support" the big businesses, and the only one who "bamboozled" his way into power under rhetoric?


What is that similarity?

where you can have all the capitalism you want as long as it benefits the state.


No. On the 2nd May 1933 Nazis not only banned all Trade Unions but they took their funds to boot.

Can you name even one trade union that wasn&#39;t banned under Nazism?

Then you do NOT understand Fascism one bit. The German Labor Front was the collective of workers that would settle dispute like the Corporative in Fascist Italy and the National Syndicate in Flange Spain.


I&#39;m not defining stuff in "marxist" terminology anywhere here.

By trade unions, I mean....trade unions.

They all got banned. Fact.

Yes, you are. Hitler said he was going to ban all trade unions and establish a single union under the supervision of the Nazi Party. What part of that do you not undestand? All leftist trade unions, all current trade unions to him at the time needed to be banned.


He could&#39;ve meant what he said, but seeing as the National Socialist "trade union" - the German Labour Front - wasn&#39;t actually a trade union at all...I think he was lying.

He did mean what he said. And who are you to say that the GLF was not a trade union? To you it wasnt a trade union. But this was the same way all dispute were settled in the corporative fascist state. it was forced. it was useless. Even the CNT in Anarcho-syndicalist Spain set up mini-commitees that turned into little fascist states.
Look its obvious that you know little of Fascist ideology and it&#39;s concepts born in guild socialism and syndicalism. Its a whole different brand of socialism and control to keep liberalism in check, and combat communism.


Some did. The exiled KPD - that&#39;s the German Communist Party - was still something of a force in Germany until about 1936 (thought it was limited to distributing pamphlets, giving talks and so on.)

I think a major reason as to why the proletariat didn&#39;t run to the Marxists was because (a) the marxists were made illegal and (b) those that tried to collaborate with them got carted off to concentration camps - in hordes&#33;

So Hitler stormed in with a couple of guys, took over and cast a spell on the whole of Germany? Hitler had support, massive support. People were not going to let the Marxists come in and take over thier nation like the clamor that was happening in Russia. I was speaking strictly of why people didnt run to the Marxists at all? Before and after Hitler recently came into power. The Nazi Party was the bulwark of the lumpenproletariat and those recently impoverished by the depression. The reason why Hitler became more popular than the communists is because the commies were appealing to the already impoverished workers, while Hitler appealed to a new class of impoverished workers, ones that always saw communists as the enemy.
Hitler&#39;s ideas of the Jewish scheme behind both international finance and communism, grew widley among the german workers and they found a new movement in a socialist group that wasnt totally hostile to captialist ideas such as money and class struggle.

The Nazi&#39;s incorporation of socialistic principles appealed to those disaffected with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "Soviet socialism" of elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#Ideological_competition


Pah...

If the people really agreed with him, why did the overwhelming majority not vote for his Party in March 1933 even after he&#39;d become Chancellor and even though his SA were intimidating those voting for other parties?

I&#39;m aware that those sent to concentration camps were "enemies". That included a huge number of communists and even socialists. 1.3 million were sent even before the war.

1.3 million out of country of 60 million or more? Then who was pushing the people in to the concentration camps if not other Germans? Why do you seperate the Nazi Party from the German people?


Balls, balls, balls.

I will not attempt to completely excuse the German populace. However I think you&#39;ll find that the vast majority did not vote for Nazism on account of its anti-semitism or racial policies; in fact Hitler initally tried to "tone down" that aspect of the regime.

Read any book full of accounts from ordinary Germans of the time. Most simply wanted a job (the unemployed numbered way over 6 million), to overthrow the ToV and to have some order in their lives.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,347726,00.html (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,347726,00.html)

Most simply over looked the murderous policies of the regime because Hitler kept them fed with Jewish bourgouise money and stolen goods from the Soviet bloc states. Have you ever seen Schindler&#39;s List? Most factories used Jewish or Slavic slave labor while the owners pocketed millions and fed thier annual taxes to the state, which then in return would pay for the social benefit of the Germans.
You see this is how socialism would really work, through slave labor.


Someone&#39;s been reading a bit too much Fukuyama, I can see...
:D Indeed. While flawed the idea has merit.

[monkeydust]

which is exactly the conclusion all socialist dictators come to in the end. they have to take over the businesses in order to survive. Why is Hitler the only dictator in history to actually "support" the big businesses, and the only one who "bamboozled" his way into power under rhetoric?


Business didn&#39;t take over "in the end". It was supported by the regime from the outset. If anything business did worse as time progressed, though of course it was a varied reaction and it still benefited more than it had under Weimar.

Of course Hitler wasn&#39;t the "only" dictator to do this. I don&#39;t see why that&#39;s even relevant, however. The point is that Hitler supported big business over workers the vast majority of the time. Comparison with other dictators isn&#39;t needed to establish this fact or its significance with regards to the economic priorities in the Reich.


Then you do NOT understand Fascism one bit. The German Labor Front was the collective of workers that would settle dispute like the Corporative in Fascist Italy and the National Syndicate in Flange Spain.


For someone who knows so much about the Third Reich you seem to have a shallow understanding of the true nature of the German Labour Front.

The DAF was not structured to "settle disputes" - at least not in favour of the workers. I don&#39;t know where you got this idea from, but it is false.

The German Labour Front did not allow workers to air grievances to their employers. They certainly weren&#39;t allowed to "bargain", and strikes - perhaps one of the TU movements strongest weapons - were made illegal as a method for political levering. In short, if workers had a problem with their employers, there was nothing they were free to do about it. The best they could do was report them to their nearest party functionary.

In fact the DAF&#39;s main emphasis was not on "settling disputes" at all. It revolved more around getting workers involved with supposedly "positive" ventures. Take the Strength Through Joy schemes: they allowed workers, paying contributions, to go on collective trips to, say, the movies or skiing or a trip to the beach.

Whether or not they "liked" this is another matter entirely; what is in question here is whether the DAF existed, as you say, to "settle disputes" for workers.

It did not.


Yes, you are. Hitler said he was going to ban all trade unions and establish a single union under the supervision of the Nazi Party. What part of that do you not undestand? All leftist trade unions, all current trade unions to him at the time needed to be banned.


The part I don&#39;t understand is why you consider the DAF to be a "trade union" in any real sense - even the Nazis didn&#39;t call it that. Neither were worker fooled by the pretence.

Let us consider a few points about the DAF:

-Workers could not be involved in its leadership or organization.
-It was essentially compulsory by 1939. There was no "opt out" like most trade unions.
-It was not allowed to use strikes as a political tool.
-It was not even allowed to use sit ins or other challenging tactics to gain support for the workers&#39;.

etc etc.

You may call this a "trade union". You can cite the fact that the Nazis may have considered it so all day long as well if you like. If you want to believe theirrhetoric, be my guest. Just don&#39;t expect anyone to take you seriously.


He did mean what he said. And who are you to say that the GLF was not a trade union? To you it wasnt a trade union. But this was the same way all dispute were settled in the corporative fascist state. it was forced. it was useless. Even the CNT in Anarcho-syndicalist Spain set up mini-commitees that turned into little fascist states.
Look its obvious that you know little of Fascist ideology and it&#39;s concepts born in guild socialism and syndicalism. Its a whole different brand of socialism and control to keep liberalism in check, and combat communism.


Yes, I am saying that the DAF (no one calls it the GLF, tut tut) was not a Trade Union.

I think it&#39;s worth noting at this juncture how National Socialism - though often dobbed "fascism", and in many respects just that - was not your run-of-the-mill fascism of Mussolini.


So Hitler stormed in with a couple of guys, took over and cast a spell on the whole of Germany?

Where did I say or even imply that?


Hitler had support, massive support.

In the last free election in Germany he had the support of 32% of Germans. Even then, many of those voters were "lukewarm", and looking rather for a solution to the depression than a national revolution in Hitler&#39;s sense. After this period assessing the popularity of Nazism is very difficult to do, and I&#39;d advise you not to make sweeping remarks like that unless you can actually back them up.

In my mind, 32% isn&#39;t "massive". The Communists and Socialists combined had far more.


The reason why Hitler became more popular than the communists is because the commies were appealing to the already impoverished workers, while Hitler appealed to a new class of impoverished workers, ones that always saw communists as the enemy.


This is a little confused.

Hitler was more popular than the Communists with the general population; if we&#39;re looking at the workers alone it&#39;s a different issue.

The class you might be thinking of are the groups of artisans, small shopkeepers and small businessmen in Germany. They were a strong base of National Socialist support.


1.3 million out of country of 60 million or more? Then who was pushing the people in to the concentration camps if not other Germans? Why do you seperate the Nazi Party from the German people?


errr.....Nazi Party officials?

And where did I say that the Nazi Party was completely separate from the German people anyway? Stop evading and answer the two questions I posed to you before that response.


Most simply over looked the murderous policies of the regime because Hitler kept them fed with Jewish bourgouise money and stolen goods from the Soviet bloc states. Have you ever seen Schindler&#39;s List? Most factories used Jewish or Slavic slave labor while the owners pocketed millions and fed thier annual taxes to the state, which then in return would pay for the social benefit of the Germans.
You see this is how socialism would really work, through slave labor.


The Reich used slave labour in the war...it&#39;s not thought that it was common knowledge either.

If you want to start a debate over whether or not Socialism inevitably leads to slave labour start another thread. In any case, Nazism was not Socialism - is that clear?


Indeed. While flawed the idea has merit.

:o :o :o

I&#39;m gonna start a whole new thread on your good pal Francis for that&#33;

EDIT: the thread on Fukyamama will have to wait. I have exams tomorrow and the next couple of weeks, and frankly can&#39;t be arsed. But I WILL do one in a couple of weeks. You can hold me to that.

MonkeyD

[JudeObscure84]

Business didn&#39;t take over "in the end". It was supported by the regime from the outset. If anything business did worse as time progressed, though of course it was a varied reaction and it still benefited more than it had under Weimar.

Of course Hitler wasn&#39;t the "only" dictator to do this. I don&#39;t see why that&#39;s even relevant, however. The point is that Hitler supported big business over workers the vast majority of the time. Comparison with other dictators isn&#39;t needed to establish this fact or its significance with regards to the economic priorities in the Reich.

Fail to see your point. Hitler railed against the Jewish upper class and thier businesses. They were supported by businesses that saw the communists as a bigger threat. Hitler told them that their businesses were safe as long as they submited to the national cause and thats pretty much it. On the workers half, he still made the same deal and the DAF(dont act like you are so cool &#39;cus you use the german abriviation) was his deal. If you didnt like it you were against the national cause.


For someone who knows so much about the Third Reich you seem to have a shallow understanding of the true nature of the German Labour Front.

The DAF was not structured to "settle disputes" - at least not in favour of the workers. I don&#39;t know where you got this idea from, but it is false.

you get more ridiculous by the post. I never said it really did settle disputes, but was just a rouse to settle internal management. The workers really didnt benefit at all, but just because they didnt doesn&#39;t mean it wasnt under the guise of doing so.


In fact the DAF&#39;s main emphasis was not on "settling disputes" at all. It revolved more around getting workers involved with supposedly "positive" ventures. Take the Strength Through Joy schemes: they allowed workers, paying contributions, to go on collective trips to, say, the movies or skiing or a trip to the beach.

Whether or not they "liked" this is another matter entirely; what is in question here is whether the DAF existed, as you say, to "settle disputes" for workers.

It did not.

Theoretically the DAF existed to act as a medium through which workers and owners could represent their interests. It was a guild or a corporation built on the foundation of fascist ideology. Ofcourse it didnt really work that way and it was just an industrial control over the workers and thier interests.


The part I don&#39;t understand is why you consider the DAF to be a "trade union" in any real sense - even the Nazis didn&#39;t call it that. Neither were worker fooled by the pretence.

Let us consider a few points about the DAF:

-Workers could not be involved in its leadership or organization.
-It was essentially compulsory by 1939. There was no "opt out" like most trade unions.
-It was not allowed to use strikes as a political tool.
-It was not even allowed to use sit ins or other challenging tactics to gain support for the workers&#39;.

etc etc.

You may call this a "trade union". You can cite the fact that the Nazis may have considered it so all day long as well if you like. If you want to believe theirrhetoric, be my guest. Just don&#39;t expect anyone to take you seriously.

But the point is that I am not believing thier rheotic. I know its a lie but one that they intentionally believed in. Thats the whole point of this debate is that they believed their own hype as true socialism. If you have no idea how different fascist parties worked, then how would you know what they thought were ideal unions? You are just basing it on what trade unions are generally to what the Nazis distorted it to mean with the DAF.


Yes, I am saying that the DAF (no one calls it the GLF, tut tut) was not a Trade Union.

I think it&#39;s worth noting at this juncture how National Socialism - though often dobbed "fascism", and in many respects just that - was not your run-of-the-mill fascism of Mussolini.

National Socialism was still similar to Italian Fascism. Thier nationalist identity was more racial than Italy&#39;s nationalism. They both had the same concept of a corporatist state. Hitler borrowed the ideas of Fascism and took it to form his own brand.


In the last free election in Germany he had the support of 32% of Germans. Even then, many of those voters were "lukewarm", and looking rather for a solution to the depression than a national revolution in Hitler&#39;s sense. After this period assessing the popularity of Nazism is very difficult to do, and I&#39;d advise you not to make sweeping remarks like that unless you can actually back them up.

In my mind, 32% isn&#39;t "massive". The Communists and Socialists combined had far more.

Name one leader that swept the masses with more than 75% of the vote in any liberal democracy in a general election? Even Salvador Allende, that many of you in here whine was so freely elected, got just as much as that percent. And how do you know if those were lukewarm people? In the elections of 1932 the party reached a total of 13.75 million votes and so became the largest voting bloc in the Reichstag. You are forgetting that the "people" werent all that were voting. There&#39;s also the upper middle class, then other party members not associated with the Nazis. After the Reichstag fire, Hitler held a Reichtstag election in March of 1933. The Nazis obtained 43.9%; with their right-wing Nationalist DNVP allies included, they controlled a simple parliamentary 51.8% majority coalition. The Centre Party conceded to the Nazi support and secured thier victory. The people spoke. The Nazi Party had gained the largest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932.


This is a little confused.

Hitler was more popular than the Communists with the general population; if we&#39;re looking at the workers alone it&#39;s a different issue.

The class you might be thinking of are the groups of artisans, small shopkeepers and small businessmen in Germany. They were a strong base of National Socialist support.
Well alot of that class became workers themselves. WWI created a whole new class of pissed off nationalist workers. It wasnt until the depression that workers actually considered Hitler&#39;s party seriously.


The Reich used slave labour in the war...it&#39;s not thought that it was common knowledge either.

If you want to start a debate over whether or not Socialism inevitably leads to slave labour start another thread. In any case, Nazism was not Socialism - is that clear?
not crystal clear. See you still havent proven how it wasnt socialism. You cannot prove how it wasnt socialism by using your definitions of what is socialism and comparing it to what Hitler deemed socialism,and saying where he was wrong . dont be like everyone else in here and bring up stuff about how Nazism isnt socialism because there is no workers this, or justice this, or that its racist. that doesnt prove anything. the proof lays on Hitlers definition of what he saw as true socialism; away from the deviation that was Marxism and away from Jewish hands. His rhetoric is what is in question. Is that clear?
If we were to go by those standards than NO socialist country out there is really socialist and just all rhetoric. But then how come some of you guys can come to that conclusion about every other socialist country, but when it comes to the national socialists, it wasn&#39;t even socialism at all?

Now we&#39;re just going to keep going in circles, because you are going to keep trying to prove to me how he wasnt socialist because of this and that, and I will keep saying thats because you do not understand thier ideological concept of socialism and nationalism, and how it differs from your particular brand of Marxian Socialism.
Heck even Hitler wanted to rename the Nazi Party into the Social Revolutionary Party. He tried to take control of the Bavarian govt. through an armed coup, and you&#39;re telling me he wasnt a revolutionary? This guy was the German answer to Lenin.

[JudeObscure84]

In a better perspective. Think of the Nazis as the crazed Islamic fundies today. Thier parties are strongly nationalistic, militaristic and ripe with anti-semitism. They reject liberalism, democracy and communism at the same time, but do not reject socialism in general. In fact they think social justice and brotherhood is completed in the Islamic Sharia law. the comparisons are just staggering. And what are people supposed to clasify these parties? I mean they are not left wing, yet they offer a brand of socialist utopia in the adoption of sharia law, yet they are not right wing in that they support capitalism, they believe that profit has to benefit the nation. Yet, they are strongly nationalistic, militaristic, fierce and reactionary.

Read Paul Berman&#39;s Terror and Liberalism. Good book written by a socialist. He goes through the history of 20th century Islamic politics and how its roots were influenced by Fascist and Stalinist ideology. Thier parties are megaphones for Islamic revivalism of the old Caliphate, just like the Nazis were horns for old German nationalism. Very similar indeed.

[monkeydust]

Fail to see your point. Hitler railed against the Jewish upper class and thier businesses. They were supported by businesses that saw the communists as a bigger threat. Hitler told them that their businesses were safe as long as they submited to the national cause and thats pretty much it.

Not so. Whilst there were attacks by SA men on Jewish businesses from the outset, in some cases the Party actually subsidized Jewish business in order to help employment figures. Antisemtitism officially only really came in after 1935 in earnest.

As for other businesses, Hitler didn&#39;t just tell them they were "safe". He gave them substantial material benefits as well, as I have expounded above somewhere above.


On the workers half, he still made the same deal and the DAF(dont act like you are so cool &#39;cus you use the german abriviation) was his deal

I&#39;m not acting like I&#39;m cool because I use the German abbreviation. I was pointing out the fact that you called it the GLF - which is never used - which demonstrates to me how unfamiliar you are with the literature, how little you&#39;ve read on this topic and therefore how limited your knowledge and understanding is inevitably going to be. That leads me not to trust many of your judgements on Nazi Germany because, whilst you have the superficial knowledge of certain events (see the March election below), you don&#39;t fully know their context.

As for the DAF...


I never said it really did settle disputes, but was just a rouse to settle internal management. The workers really didnt benefit at all, but just because they didnt doesn&#39;t mean it wasnt under the guise of doing so.

So finally you&#39;re conceding that the workers didn&#39;t substantially benefit from the DAF, and that it was in many ways not a trade union at all? That was my point all along.

And yes I&#39;m aware that it had the "guise" of a union at times. That&#39;s Nazism for you.


Theoretically the DAF existed to act as a medium through which workers and owners could represent their interests. It was a guild or a corporation built on the foundation of fascist ideology. Ofcourse it didnt really work that way and it was just an industrial control over the workers and thier interests.


Same as above. Emphasis added.

Does that really sound very socialist to you?


But the point is that I am not believing thier rheotic. I know its a lie but one that they intentionally believed in. Thats the whole point of this debate is that they believed their own hype as true socialism.

Whether or not they believed it is irrelevant. The fact is that they were not socialist. You and others entered this thread defending the position that they were.


Name one leader that swept the masses with more than 75% of the vote in any liberal democracy in a general election?

There have certainly been leaders who&#39;ve come to power on a vote of 50% or more; indeed, that&#39;s what Hitler had actually wanted and thought he could achieve.

Like I said, he didn&#39;t; so I fail to see where your contention that he had massive support in the early 30s comes from.


After the Reichstag fire, Hitler held a Reichtstag election in March of 1933. The Nazis obtained 43.9%; with their right-wing Nationalist DNVP allies included, they controlled a simple parliamentary 51.8% majority coalition. The Centre Party conceded to the Nazi support and secured thier victory. The people spoke. The Nazi Party had gained the largest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932.


Oh come on?&#33;

Do you really think I&#39;m that ignorant.

The March 1933 election was not a free election. You mentioned the Reichstag Fire. After that Hitler passed a set of laws (28Feb) suspending the civil rights of the populace. His SA accordingly went round terrorizing, even killing, other party members; breaking up meetings and gatherings; tearing down propaganda and intimidating people when they were at the ballot box.

Had the people spoken in any sincere sense? Clearly not. That&#39;s why serious historians don&#39;t think March 1933 on face value "counts" as a result to assess the Nazis&#39; popularity.


See you still havent proven how it wasnt socialism. You cannot prove how it wasnt socialism by using your definitions of what is socialism and comparing it to what Hitler deemed socialism,and saying where he was wrong

Do you mean to say that just anyone can say "I&#39;m a Socialist" and be believed whatever they do? Suppose they acted in a thoroughly UNsocialist manner. If they said "this is socialism in my terms, but still socialism" would we accept that?

Because this is where your argument leads. There is an objective - if only a broad - definition of Socialism that has an ideological history stretching back to the 19th century and perhaps before.

Nazism doesn&#39;t "fit" this definition in any real way at all. Thus Socialism in the Nazis&#39; terms is not Socialism at all using the actual definition of the word.


If we were to go by those standards than NO socialist country out there is really socialist and just all rhetoric. But then how come some of you guys can come to that conclusion about every other socialist country, but when it comes to the national socialists, it wasn&#39;t even socialism at all?


Who&#39;s going by those standards anyway. I&#39;m not. I think there have been many countries in the past that really were socialist, and a number more which had socialist elements.

I just don&#39;t agree with the view that Nazi Germany was one of them.


Now we&#39;re just going to keep going in circles, because you are going to keep trying to prove to me how he wasnt socialist because of this and that, and I will keep saying thats because you do not understand thier ideological concept of socialism and nationalism, and how it differs from your particular brand of Marxian Socialism.


Evasion.

Can you point out even one place where I have limited Socialsim to Marxist Socialism?

I just don&#39;t think National Socialism "fits" Socilaism in any terms: not the terms of the old "utopians" like Owen, Fourier and St.Simon; not in the terms of those reformist Socialists in the Fabian Society or the old SPD; not even in the terms of "third way" Socialists these days.

It isn&#39;t Socialism in any terms of Socialism.


Heck even Hitler wanted to rename the Nazi Party into the Social Revolutionary Party.

No he didn&#39;t. When on earth was that?


He tried to take control of the Bavarian govt. through an armed coup, and you&#39;re telling me he wasnt a revolutionary?

Are you telling me revolutionary equates to Socialist?

(Incidentally, it wasn&#39;t strictly revolutionary anyway...it would have been a coup, or to use the German terms, a Putsch, which doesn&#39;t involve a mass movement at all. 3 years earlier Kapp tried to do the same. Was that Socialist? Let&#39;s just say that he got overthrown by the workers and the socialists in Germany, shall we.)

[JudeObscure84]

Not so. Whilst there were attacks by SA men on Jewish businesses from the outset, in some cases the Party actually subsidized Jewish business in order to help employment figures. Antisemtitism officially only really came in after 1935 in earnest.

As for other businesses, Hitler didn&#39;t just tell them they were "safe". He gave them substantial material benefits as well, as I have expounded above somewhere above.

That still does not say much. Most dictators cater to the businesses that fund the regime.


I&#39;m not acting like I&#39;m cool because I use the German abbreviation. I was pointing out the fact that you called it the GLF - which is never used - which demonstrates to me how unfamiliar you are with the literature, how little you&#39;ve read on this topic and therefore how limited your knowledge and understanding is inevitably going to be. That leads me not to trust many of your judgements on Nazi Germany because, whilst you have the superficial knowledge of certain events (see the March election below), you don&#39;t fully know their context.

As for the DAF...

:lol: You gathered all that just because I didnt want to spell out German Labour Front. You are really arrogant.


So finally you&#39;re conceding that the workers didn&#39;t substantially benefit from the DAF, and that it was in many ways not a trade union at all? That was my point all along.

And yes I&#39;m aware that it had the "guise" of a union at times. That&#39;s Nazism for you.

I&#39;m not conceding. Thats what I have been arguing as well. Thats it was a horribly distorted version of a union. I never said that the workers benefited from these "unions" at all. they were obvious grabs for power, but the Nazis believed this as power for the state, therefore for the national benefit.


Does that really sound very socialist to you?

Coming from a Libertarian p.o.v......stereotipically yes, theoretically, socialism is such a broad ideology that anyone can come up with thier own brand and deviate from Marx.


Whether or not they believed it is irrelevant. The fact is that they were not socialist. You and others entered this thread defending the position that they were.

well then what the hell are we arguing about? Im trying to say that they believed it to be true socialism, you&#39;re saying so what....it wasnt really socialism? What kind of conclusion are we supposed to come up with if I keep presenting to you why they thought they were socialist and you keep arguing against thier own ideology in favor of saying how they dont match up to your criteria?


There have certainly been leaders who&#39;ve come to power on a vote of 50% or more; indeed, that&#39;s what Hitler had actually wanted and thought he could achieve.

Like I said, he didn&#39;t; so I fail to see where your contention that he had massive support in the early 30s comes from.

His support came during the depression. And when he came into power it skyrocketed. Im not trying to play it off as if no one dissented, and rejected his ideology.


Oh come on?&#33;

Do you really think I&#39;m that ignorant.

The March 1933 election was not a free election. You mentioned the Reichstag Fire. After that Hitler passed a set of laws (28Feb) suspending the civil rights of the populace. His SA accordingly went round terrorizing, even killing, other party members; breaking up meetings and gatherings; tearing down propaganda and intimidating people when they were at the ballot box.

Had the people spoken in any sincere sense? Clearly not. That&#39;s why serious historians don&#39;t think March 1933 on face value "counts" as a result to assess the Nazis&#39; popularity.

Hey I never said it was a free election, but it wasnt wholeheartedly corrupt because the Nazis still sunk in the polls and had to be cleared by the nationalist party and the centre party to gain more votes. Youre twisting my words up to make it seem as if there was hardly any opposition. Im not saying that, but what I am saying is that more people supported the NAzis than you think, and after Hitler came into power....he became even more popular.


Do you mean to say that just anyone can say "I&#39;m a Socialist" and be believed whatever they do? Suppose they acted in a thoroughly UNsocialist manner. If they said "this is socialism in my terms, but still socialism" would we accept that?

Because this is where your argument leads. There is an objective - if only a broad - definition of Socialism that has an ideological history stretching back to the 19th century and perhaps before.

Nazism doesn&#39;t "fit" this definition in any real way at all. Thus Socialism in the Nazis&#39; terms is not Socialism at all using the actual definition of the word.

Its been done plenty of times. To me right wing dictators are General Suharto, Chiang Kai Shek, Augusto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew and President Pervez Musharraf. They didn&#39;t come in the name of socialism but of straight military rule. I am one to believe that Hitler really believed in a horribly distorted variant of socialism that was strongly nationalistic. The elements of Nazism are still socialistic in their attempt to foisture a welfare state. Under Fritz Todt, Germany was under way with a massive public works project that even rivaled the New Deal. In short, the difference between Communist and Nazi is supposed to be one of intentions. Nazis did everything with thier eyes open what Communists did with thier eyes closed.


Who&#39;s going by those standards anyway. I&#39;m not. I think there have been many countries in the past that really were socialist, and a number more which had socialist elements.

I just don&#39;t agree with the view that Nazi Germany was one of them.

well I do. and whats it to you anyways? remember that they werent really socialist? ;)


Evasion.

Can you point out even one place where I have limited Socialsim to Marxist Socialism?

I just don&#39;t think National Socialism "fits" Socilaism in any terms: not the terms of the old "utopians" like Owen, Fourier and St.Simon; not in the terms of those reformist Socialists in the Fabian Society or the old SPD; not even in the terms of "third way" Socialists these days.

It isn&#39;t Socialism in any terms of Socialism.

No this is not evasion and stop coming up with all sorts of these delusions. You clearly deduce the regime from preconceptions of socialism. One may always trivilize socialism to benefit themselves, Hitler still opted for greater control in goverment and the German economy.


In a history of socialism, fascism deserves a place not only as the opponent which, for a time, threatened to obliterate the socialist movement. Fascism is connected with socialism by many crosscurrents, and the two movements have some roots in common, especially the dissatisfaction with the capitalist economy of the pre-1918 type. But another relationship is still more significant. Although fascism was ready to use forms of economic organization first suggested by the socialists - and very likely that use of socialistic forms would have increased if fascism had not all but destroyed itself in causing the Second World War - the Fascists have always repudiated the fundamental humanitarianism on which the socialist movement was based. Thus fascism permits some conclusions as to the consequences which will result from socialist economic policies applied without the ethical motivation of socialism.(European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements)

- Carl Landauer, Social Democratic historian


"Wages, prices, working conditions, allocation of materials: none of these were left to managerial decision, let alone to the market... Investment was controlled, occupational freedom was dead, prices were fixed, every major sector of the economy was, at worst, a victim, at best, an accomplice of the regime. As a general rule, business, particularly big business, declined or flourished in direct proportion to its willingness to collaborate."

- David Schoenbaum, Hitler&#39;s Social Revolution

Again we will be going around in circles, because maybe Im just under the impression that socialism is really about control of the economy, while you argue its more than that, and bring up points about free elections, human rights and worker interests. Basically, I&#39;m convinced that socialism can be evil, while it may so hard for you to believe that, that you think it had to be a guise. It couldn&#39;t possibly have been socialism by the real standards, other wise it would&#39;ve been different.


No he didn&#39;t. When on earth was that?

Hitler and Nazism, Louis Leo Snyder, pg 21. During the early stages of the Nazi Party, when Hitler became party member #7 in the DAP central commitee.


Are you telling me revolutionary equates to Socialist?

(Incidentally, it wasn&#39;t strictly revolutionary anyway...it would have been a coup, or to use the German terms, a Putsch, which doesn&#39;t involve a mass movement at all. 3 years earlier Kapp tried to do the same. Was that Socialist? Let&#39;s just say that he got overthrown by the workers and the socialists in Germany, shall we.)

Wolfgang Kapp didnt come in the name of true socialism.

[monkeydust]

We could quibble over these individual points till the cows come home. If you want me to respond to them individually, I will. However on the basis that it won&#39;t get us anywhere I propose to summarize what I consider to be your argument, and explain the problems with it, so as to make things a lot simpler.

You seem to be arguing along the lines of:

1. Socialism is a vague term that can mean nearly anything within a very broad ambit.
2. Nazism embodied some aspects of Socialism, such as a commitment to communitarian cooperation, an end to social divsion and opposition to a market completely independent of the state.
3. Furthermore Hitler and certain other nazis occasionally espoused claims to socialism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Therefore the Third Reich was socialist.

Is that broadly what you&#39;re saying?

On the basis that it is, I would attack the first premise, accept the second, and consider the third largely irrelevant in view of what the Nazis actually did and bearing in mind the context of what they said and why. To be clear, I&#39;ll put this in a little more detail.



1. "Socialism is a vague term that can mean nearly anything within a very broad ambit".

I agree that there&#39;s no single "objective" definition of Socialism with which we take take and use as a "template" to prescribe exactly what a polity should and should not have to be described as "socialist".

However I still think that there are certain broad , but objective, criteria which need to be fulfilled in order for something to be called "socialist". I don&#39;t consider dispute over different "forms" of Socialism - to the extent which you are taking them (i.e. if you say you&#39;re socialist and have a vague resemblance to that you are indeed socialist) - to be valid, since if this were the case ideologies would be meaningless and so amorphous that they could be justifiably applied without precision to anything one wanted. Under what you seem to be proposing, conceptual distinctions and ideological definitions become pointless altogether, sice "anything goes" within the broad boundaries of definition you&#39;re prepared to allow.

2. Nazism embodied some aspects of Socialism, such as a commitment to communitarian cooperation, an end to social divsion and opposition to a market completely independent of the state.

I do agree with this, but I think the extent to which it is true would need to be much greater for Nazi Germany to be considered socialist. Most of the points you bring up - price fixing, market regulation and so on - apply to many social democracies, take the Scandinavian states, which no one serious calls "socialist".

Did the Nazis practice state-ownership of the key industries? Very rarely.
Did the Nazis implement any substantive form of egalitarian redistribution? No
Did they place an emphasis on class or support workers? Not really.

These are criteria that are more central to Socialism; price-fixing, communitarian beliefs and so on can be coterminous with many other ideologies which are often not socialist in the least. Though they are things which many socialist states may practice, they themselves are no so central as to be the "hallmarks" for what is socialist and what is not.

3. Furthermore Hitler and certain other nazis occasionally espoused claims to socialism.

My dig with this one is much more simple.

Hitler had a material reason to proclaim the values of the workers and socialism insofar as it would engender him support and maintain stablity and acqeiscance amongst workers. Moreover, actions speak louder than words: Hitler proved not to address workers&#39; grievances in many ways - in fact he did the precise opposite most of the time.

Is this a little clearer?

[Socialist Dave]

If you study Hitler and the Nazi&#39;s, you may (like me) begin to think that they are not extreme right wing, but extreme Authortarian.

[JudeObscure84]

Is this a little clearer?

Much clearer. I&#39;m glad we&#39;ve finally cleared the smoke and can get on with the debate. but actually now it&#39;s more a matter of opinion than actually coming to a conclusion based on facts.


However I still think that there are certain broad , but objective, criteria which need to be fulfilled in order for something to be called "socialist". I don&#39;t consider dispute over different "forms" of Socialism - to the extent which you are taking them (i.e. if you say you&#39;re socialist and have a vague resemblance to that you are indeed socialist) - to be valid, since if this were the case ideologies would be meaningless and so amorphous that they could be justifiably applied without precision to anything one wanted. Under what you seem to be proposing, conceptual distinctions and ideological definitions become pointless altogether, sice "anything goes" within the broad boundaries of definition you&#39;re prepared to allow.

Coming from a libertarian, we see socialism more as rhetoric than actual economic practice. It really has no rational moral foundation, it just creates one as it goes along and reflects the time and the place. Thats why I believe that its so general and broad and can be used to push any means. I mean name one socialist book that actually talks about the creation of wealth and not just the distribution of it? Most of Hitler&#39;s stradegy was pretty much toil, plunder and provide benefits to the people. To any self respecting capitalist this is not only socialistic but barbaric. The point of liberalism is to move away from collectivized ideologies that group men and put the nation above the individual. Hitler was firmly against liberalism as much as he was against communism for the simple notion that it denies nationalism. yet he wasnt against socialism, because it provided him a basis for which to expell his brotherhood mantra on the workers. Yet, he grossly manipulated the term from its general concepts to form what he deemed true socialism and national unity. I am not one to correct him on his beliefs on the aspect of why its not socialism, but on why its fundamentally wrong to begin with.


Most of the points you bring up - price fixing, market regulation and so on - apply to many social democracies, take the Scandinavian states, which no one serious calls "socialist".

Which is what I argued and how they were very similar to the welfare states of scandanavia. And they do regard themselves as democratic socialists and have been hailed by progressives alike, and rejected by serious neo-liberals.


Did the Nazis practice state-ownership of the key industries? Very rarely.
Did the Nazis implement any substantive form of egalitarian redistribution? No
Did they place an emphasis on class or support workers? Not really.
I thought you would be different and not resort to the usual arguments about equal distribution and workers interest. Their deviation from Marxian socialism was a rejection of the premise of class struggle and instead focused on the national unity of classes and the struggle of the nation. Everyone was a cog to the state machine that worked for the national benefit. Hitler provided the people with benefits plundered from Jewish businesses and Slavic slave labor. It was a criminal state based on the redristubution of the enemy class to those who submitted to Nazi power.


These are criteria that are more central to Socialism; price-fixing, communitarian beliefs and so on can be coterminous with many other ideologies which are often not socialist in the least. Though they are things which many socialist states may practice, they themselves are no so central as to be the "hallmarks" for what is socialist and what is not.

I see. Well then they are certainly not capitalistic, or right wing in a liberal sense. Then Nazism is another anti-liberal cause that fought both liberalism and communism with its own brand of socialist authoritarianship. The ideal was always a nation of proletariats not a dictatoship of the proletariat, like the Bolshvicks.


My dig with this one is much more simple.

Hitler had a material reason to proclaim the values of the workers and socialism insofar as it would engender him support and maintain stablity and acqeiscance amongst workers. Moreover, actions speak louder than words: Hitler proved not to address workers&#39; grievances in many ways - in fact he did the precise opposite most of the time.

He appealed to them inso faras they agreed to obey the national interest. The worker was a cog to the state and his role was vital to the machine, but never a concern over the nation. In this aspect he railed on openly against class or workers struggle. The people that followed him agreed and thought communists were selfish workers, and the bourgousise selfish owners. they were both enemies of the state because they rejected national unity and strong leadership. He saw it as anarchy and mob rule. He already addressed plenty of issues you have against national socialism. First off Hitler doesnt even regard socialism espoused by the Marxists as even legit socialism because thier unity is not even stable nor sound. Its quibbles over workers disputes and rights and class envy. his reaction to that was an authoritatian state that forced unity among both classes under a fusion of nationalism. both workers and owners suffered under the Nazi regime, you know, not just workers.

[Ultra-Violence]

Hitler was a meth addict i cant understand how he could even run a country? he had poeple run His IDEOLOGIES for him. :ph34r:

[JudeObscure84]

Hitler was a meth addict

Oh yeah and he was a raver too. :lol:

[monkeydust]

Coming from a libertarian, we see socialism more as rhetoric than actual economic practice. It really has no rational moral foundation, it just creates one as it goes along and reflects the time and the place.

Whether or not it has a "rational moral" foundation needn&#39;t come into the equation; the fact remains that it does have some foundation - inasmuch as we can say any ideology does.

The doctrines of Socialism evolved over many years, through the writings of individuals, the policies of parties and groups and so on. Whilst there are and always were disputes about what it "really meant" - as there are in allideologies - Socialism still has more substance than just to be able to represent anything. This isn&#39;t my opinion; it&#39;s fact.

Many of its key themes - egalitarianism, communal ownership of key industries and an emphasis on class, for instance - were not adopted by the Nazis.

Many of the things it is staunchly against - racism, rabid nationalism, social darwnism - were encouraged by the Nazis.

Whilst there were some ways in which the two were similar and shared traits, using broad but nevertheless objective ideological definitions - not just "my opinions" - we can show that Nazism was not Socialism.

N.B I&#39;m referring to all Socialism, not just Marxism It is not just Marxism that speaks of these things but the entire Socialist tradtion.


Yet, he grossly manipulated the term from its general concepts to form what he deemed true socialism and national unity.

Exactly.

He may have called it Socialism, but by the definition of Socialism he was wrong. He may as well have adpopted a different name for it.


I thought you would be different and not resort to the usual arguments about equal distribution and workers interest. Their deviation from Marxian socialism was a rejection of the premise of class struggle and instead focused on the national unity of classes and the struggle of the nation.

The definitions I gave were not simply "marxist" definitions. All forms of Socialism advocate some degree of economic redistribution or state ownership of key industries. Even the Labour Party did. They were certainly not Marxist.


Everyone was a cog to the state machine that worked for the national benefit. Hitler provided the people with benefits plundered from Jewish businesses and Slavic slave labor. It was a criminal state based on the redristubution of the enemy class to those who submitted to Nazi power.


Your argument here seems to be:

1.Socialism involves cooperation and emphasis on the community above the individual.
2. Hitler also did this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, though he didn&#39;t accept all aspects of Socialism, he can still be accurately called a Socialist, especially since he said he was.

May I give a little analogy to demonstrate how this is faulty logic?

Imagine a scene when a patient - we&#39;ll call him patient x - comes in to a clinic to see a pair of psyciatrists.

He describes a lack of motivation to do anything, a flat mood, no energy, social isolation and a loss of any real "feeling" or "magic" in life. He asks them what is wrong with him. The two psychiatrists briefly retire to check their Diagnostic Statistic Manuals and to offer a diagnosis.

They turn to one page and look at the section on depression, to find the following symptoms:

- lack of motivation
- sleep disturbances or insomnia
- loss of energy
- feeling "low"
- loss of motivation
- suicidal thoughts
- feeling overwhelmed or hopeless
- flat mood
- a loss of zest in life

They then turn to look at the symptoms of schizophrenia. They find all of the above plus:

- delusions
- acute paranoia
- visual and/or auditory hallucinations
- confused speech and thinking

Psychiatrist Jude feels safe to say "Well, this guy could be experiencing depression or schizophrenia since the symptoms he describes are part of both disorders. We just can&#39;t know, and if wants to insist on one way or the other then we&#39;re not in a place to challenge him".

Psychiatrist Monkeydust, after offering a very pretentious analogy involving ideological distinctions, instead points out that whilst some features of depression - including low mood, insomnia, social isolation and lack of motivation - are present in schizophrenia, it is not these features that are the defining points of that disorder and make it schizophrenia and not something else.

Likewise with Socialism and Nazism. They both place some emphasis on cooperation, the community before the individual and so on, but these points exist in both Fascism and Socialism and it is not on the presence of these that we distinguish between the two, but on other points on which the two differ substantially.

Patient x didn&#39;t have hallucination, delusions or paranoia so he wasn&#39;t schizophrenic but depressed.

Likewise National Socialism didn&#39;t have such things as common ownership of key industries or economic redistribution - which to differing degrees are parts of all Socialism, not just Marxism - and hence it was a Fascist and nationalist and not a Socialist ideology.


(Incidentally, I have another thread on this topic with some interesting quotes on Hitler here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=27958&hl=hitler))

[JudeObscure84]

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/um/syndicalism.html

I tend to take the Fascists at face value, but I guess that&#39;s just me.

[JudeObscure84]

Have you ever heard of Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy? They were two self professed socialists who began this magazine called the Nationalist and a movement called "Nationalism". According to them nationalism and true socialism was giving up your individuality to the nation state and letting the federal government have absolute control for the well being of the nation. Francis Bellamy was famous for writing the pledge of aligence and US kids used the Roman straight armed while reciting the pledge. This was probably the earliest signs of nationalism and socialism as one. So Nazism is not something thats exactly unique or contradictory.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 9 2005, 02:59 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jun 9 2005, 02:59 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 10:46 PM
After 100 million dead under communism, it&#39;s not like any of you have got much to lose by adding a few more million to it.


Ah, the joys of R. J Rummel, the source of all who are too lazy to do any real research.

Try again sunshine, Rudi doesn&#39;t pull much weight in any real academic estimates on the subject. The realists understand that he is a sensationalist.

The fact is, if we take the USSR in the 1930&#39;s Rummel states thatt he figure is well over 15 million. However if we take other sources we can see figures such as 6-7 million. Fact is Rummel, accross the board produces figures with plenty of opposition. His refual to cite evidence, also reduces his credibility.

I do apologise; it wasn&#39;t 100 million deaths, only 99,999,999. Well that&#39;s my argument refuted &#33; :rolleyes:


Then you get the issue of defining communism.

In short, your wrong.

15 million were Russians were starved after the government tried to force them into collectively-owned farms. That&#39;s communist enough for me. [/b]
I just debunked everything in that post in my origional post.

Well done, you have added nothing to this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, very few serious historians consider Hitler to be a socialist. They recognise that his rhetoric, was nothing but propaganda. They also recognise that his social and political policies were exceptionally right-wing, reactionary, nationalistic and traditional. His economic policies are regarded as being centralist.

Of course libertarians are not serious hisorians, if they were then you probably wouldn&#39;t be libertarians.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:12 PM
I just debunked everything in that post in my origional post.
Come off it. Even the Russian government admitted starving several million people.


They also recognise that his social and political policies were exceptionally right-wing,

Did these historians offer a definition of "right wing" ?


reactionary,

Did they offer a defintion of "reactionary" too ?

[Invader Zim]

Come off it. Even the Russian government admitted starving several million people.

Yes, but not the 15 million you, and Rummel, would have us believe


Did these historians offer a definition of "right wing" ?

Conservative - reactionary stance on liberalism, that is the traditionally understood definition of the &#39;right-wing&#39; when refering to the political spectrum.



Did they offer a defintion of "reactionary" too ?

You clearly need this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198613474/202-1124801-7016667).

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:41 PM
Have you ever heard of Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy? They were two self professed socialists who began this magazine called the Nationalist and a movement called "Nationalism". According to them nationalism and true socialism was giving up your individuality to the nation state and letting the federal government have absolute control for the well being of the nation. Francis Bellamy was famous for writing the pledge of aligence and US kids used the Roman straight armed while reciting the pledge. This was probably the earliest signs of nationalism and socialism as one. So Nazism is not something thats exactly unique or contradictory.
This is essentially a restatement of what you&#39;ve said 4 or 5 times now. You still seem to be following the line of "if I can find a nationalist who says they&#39;re a socialist, then ipso facto Nationalism and Socialism are one and the same thing". This is clearly not true, and is anyway a tautology.

To point out the absurdity of such an argument, if I were able to find a number of hardline left-wingers who, seeking support from capitalists were to say "We&#39;re not against capitalism; in fact, we endorse it", would this be tantamount to Socialism and Capitalism being the same thing? No.

Please either develop a more valid argument or drop the proposition that the Third Reich was socialist.

As for the other link, I&#39;m afraid I fail to take anything from oswaldmosley.com at face value.

[Professor Moneybags]

Oh that&#39;s okay then. :rolleyes: (Assuming Rummel was wrong.)





Did they offer a defintion of "reactionary" too ?

You clearly need this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198613474/202-1124801-7016667).

I already have a dictionary. What do you want me to look up, "buzzword" ?

[JudeObscure84]

This is essentially a restatement of what you&#39;ve said 4 or 5 times now. You still seem to be following the line of "if I can find a nationalist who says they&#39;re a socialist, then ipso facto Nationalism and Socialism are one and the same thing". This is clearly not true, and is anyway a tautology.

this is not to say that nationalism and socialism are one and the same thing, no. Its that movements with this certain ideology do exist, and its nothing new. You seem to think that I believe that it all makes sense. I know its pretty misplaced but I am refering to how it can be used as a method of persuasion. Thats not to debunk any socialist movement out there that promotes a different agenda polar to the Nazis. But my point is that it existed and it had a rather coherent ideology pertaining to what it wanted to achieve.

So again you yourself are still toting the line that I believe that they are the same thing, which they are not. I know this, I dont even know where you got this. I was saying that the two can co-exist in a rather coherent ideology. And I for one take people at face value when they spend so much time inventing an ideology that fits their politics. I dont brush it off and say "ahh, they&#39;re just lying to decieve the public."

I mean where is your objectivism? Oswald Mosley does not have a right to his own ideology? Or is it because he&#39;s using terms and points that strictly belong to the "left"?
I still do not see how you can own these terms and not take Mosely at face value. Do you think somone would devote thier time and effort to promote something they believed in as a total lie? And thier is consistency in Moselys ideology and how it relates to his rampant nationalism. So I see no reason why not to believe he means, what he means.

[codyvo]

Nazi Grmany was about as socialist as America is democratic.