Nazi's and Communism???

[Bilan]

[QUOTE=Baseball;1849210][QUOTE=The Best Mod In Revleft History;1849202]

Oscar the Grouch pointed out one-- the national socialists can be argued to have been the first environmentalist government in office in Europe.

I think you misread what he said.
Do you have any evidence of anything that you are claiming?
Oscar the Grouch pointed out a modern fascist party. He didn't validate what you said.
Now, may we have a source for your claims.

Edit: From a quick look at wikipedia:

The 1930 elections changed the German political landscape by weakening the traditional nationalist parties, the DNVP and the DVP, leaving the Nazis as the chief alternative to the discredited SPD and the Zentrum, whose leader, Heinrich Brüning, headed a weak minority government. The inability of the democratic parties to form a united front, the self-imposed isolation of the KPD and the continued decline of the economy all played into Hitler's hands. He now came to be seen as de facto leader of the opposition, and donations poured into the Nazi Party's coffers. Some major business figures such as Fritz Thyssen were Nazi supporters and gave generously,[37] but many other businessmen were suspicious of the extreme nationalist tendencies of the Nazis and preferred to support the traditional conservative parties instead.[38]

^[37] Evans 2005, p. 372
^[38] Kershaw 2001, pp. 358–359

Another:

Fritz matured into a political conservative and a German nationalist. In 1923, he met former General Erich Ludendorff who urged him to attend a Nazi Party meeting that featured a speech by Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s speech and his bitter opposition to the Treaty of Versailles impressed Fritz, and he began to donate large sums of money to the Nazi Party.

The Thyssen companies continued to expand through the 1920s, and when August died in 1926, Fritz took over the family business. In 1928, he formed the United Steelworks which controlled more than 75 percent of Germany’s iron ore reserves and employed 200,000 people. He shaped German commercial life as the head of the German Iron and Steel Industry Association and the Reich Association of German Industry, and as a board member of the Reichsbank. He donated 650,000 Reichmarks primarily to the Nazi party, although he didn’t join it until 1933.

Fellow industrialist Emil Kirdorf negotiated with Fritz Thyssen between 1930-1933 for more funding for the Nazi party. Thyssen arranged a 250,000 marks credit at a subsidiary of the August Thyssen Bank of Germany. Fritz’s father had founded the bank in Rotterdam, Holland, and this Thyssen personal banking operation also had affiliations with the W.A. Harriman financial interests in New York. He also persuaded the Association of German Industrialists to donate three million Reichmarks to the Nazi Party for the March 1933 Reichstag election. The Nazi’s rewarded him by electing him a Nazi member of the Reichstag and appointing him to the Council of the State of Prussia, the largest German state.



Read more at Suite101: Fritz Thyssen Helped Finance the Nazi Party: Later Thyssen Renounces the Party and Flees to Argentina http://www.suite101.com/content/frit...#ixzz0y3WKd3gh

Now. Evidence, please.

[Nolan]

This is one of the mistakes which the Best Mod... Can teach his students in the future. The claims that big business funded the nazis in the 20s has long been destroyed. Big business gave money to EVERYONE (except the communists). While the Nazis did receive funds, it was never the lion share of the total which was donated.

this of course changed by the early 30s when the choices faced was to be murdered by the reds, or become slaves to the browns (and there was a fair amount of extortion as well).

Except there's the tiny fact that Fritz Thyssen, one of Germany's leading industrialists, was a member, only to bail out after the government took its insane ideology to its logical conclusion and had a war to fight.

[Baseball]

Can I get a source for this?

Henry Ashby Turner "German big business and the rise of the nazis

[Nolan]

Henry Ashby Turner "German big business and the rise of the nazis

To respond, I would recommend Fascism and Big Business.

[Baseball]

Funny these socialists weren't against private property and considered socialism as the whole rest of the world knows it to be a vast Jewish conspiracy.

What our history books don't tell us is that the nazis (and the Italian fascists) would have made Reagan proud with their attitude toward public utilities and workers wages.

National socialism is capitalism, not socialism. If Hitler would have gotten his way, the NSDAP would have been called the "social revolutionary party" and "national socialism" wouldn't be fooling the ignorant to this very day.

true- the national socialists were not against "private property" as long as that property was used as directed by the Nazis. In other words, there was no difference.

and yes- one could make the argument that the workers were worse off by 1939 under national socialist policies. But no nonsocialist should take such critiques seriously, given that they reject the claims that socialism benefits the workers.

[#FF0000]

To counter you both:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

Ludwig Von Mises - Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, Liberty Fund Inc, 2005, pg.30

[Baseball]

To respond, I would recommend

The blurb presented does not suggest such a response, It suggests that the Nazis favored Big business o er small business.

[#FF0000]

true- the national socialists were not against "private property" as long as that property was used as directed by the Nazis. In other words, there was no difference.

tbh I always saw the economic system in Nazi Germany as something sort of similar to a welfare state.

Meanwhile, socialists don't advocate for a welfare state.

So we're back at Nazis and Communists being different again.

[Nolan]

true- the national socialists were not against "private property" as long as that property was used as directed by the Nazis. In other words, there was no difference.

Excuse me for seeing it this way, but private property is private property. Unless you think that if we elected CEO's to every Congress seat we magically have socialism - which is not a bad analogy to the corporatist system.

and yes- one could make the argument that the workers were worse off by 1939 under national socialist policies. But no nonsocialist should take such critiques seriously, given that they reject the claims that socialism benefits the workers.

I'm not going to respond to the "socialism doesn't benefit workers" claim here. That's for another thread.

You're missing the point - it was in no way socialist.

[Baseball]

Except there's the tiny fact that Fritz Thyssen, one of Germany's leading industrialists, was a member, only to bail out after the government took its insane ideology to its logical conclusion and had a war to fight.

Armand Hammer supported Lenin.

[#FF0000]

Armand Hammer supported Lenin.

Why, that changes everything.

[Baseball]

tbh I always saw the economic system in Nazi Germany as something sort of similar to a welfare state.

Meanwhile, socialists don't advocate for a welfare state.

So we're back at Nazis and Communists being different again.

I never said nazis and communists were identical. I said both were left wing ie socialists.

[#FF0000]

Seriously I don't care what insane industrialist supported who.

What in the Nazi agenda suggests they are on the left?

[Nolan]

The blurb presented does not suggest such a response, It suggests that the Nazis favored Big business o er small business.

Oh really? Let's look at it again:

The book, which was written before the Second World War broke out, examines the development of nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy and its relationship with the capitalist families there. Its main thesis is that Fascism supported the heavy industrial sector (represented in Germany by Krupp, Emil Kirdorf, etc.) to the detriment of lighter industrial sectors, dedicated to building consumer goods.

I think a better point, as Michael Parenti pointed out, is that who fascism supported is more important than who brought fascism to power.

[Baseball]

Why, that changes everything.

It simply points out that Hitler had his useful idiots amongst the capitalists as well.

[Baseball]

Oh really? Let's look at it again:



I think a better point, as Michael Parenti pointed out, is that who fascism supported is more important than who brought fascism to power.

yes. Its not on point.

[Nolan]

I suppose Rothbard is a useful idiot too:

"[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Fascism and Nazism were the local culmination in domestic affairs of the modern drift toward right-wing collectivism. It has become customary among libertarians, as indeed among the Establishment of the West, to regard fascism and communism as fundamentally identical. But while both systems were indubitably collectivist, they differed greatly in their socioeconomic content. Communism was a genuine revolutionary movement that ruthlessly displaced and overthrew the old ruling elites, while fascism, on the contrary, cemented into power the old ruling classes. Hence, fascism was a counterrevolutionary movement that froze a set of monopoly privileges upon society; in short, fascism was the apotheosis of modern State monopoly capitalism. [10] Here was the reason that fascism proved so attractive (which communism, of course, never did) to big business interests in the West – openly and unabashedly so in the 1920s and early 1930s. [11]"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html[/FONT]

[#FF0000]

It really doesn't matter what certain people thought.

I seriously want to know what makes the Nazis left wing.

Is it the ardent nationalism, militarism and expansionism or the execution of millions of immigrants and trade unionists and communists and socialists and leftists?

I mean I think that stuff is more telling than a milquetoast environmental policy and social welfare net.

[Nolan]

Where the Bolsheviks had limited deals with western capitalists, the nazis were joined at the hip with western capital.

http://www.historycooperative.org/jo...1/pauwels.html

[Nolan]

It really doesn't matter what certain people thought.

I seriously want to know what makes the Nazis left wing.

Is it the ardent nationalism, militarism and expansionism or the execution of millions of immigrants and trade unionists and communists and socialists and leftists?

I mean I think that stuff is more telling than a milquetoast environmental policy and social welfare net.

Oh no, dear Mod. This is what made Hitler a leftist: