Shoulda gone to school.Ad hom....how childishly pathetic.
Where the fuck did I do that? Put the crack pipe down son.
Says the clown who can't fucking read.
Was Hitler A Socialist? Of Course, He Was
- Thread starter Rightguide
- Start date
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
EdgySubMic
Owned gay slave
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2024
- Posts
- 157
Correct. In my post I only focused on the communists, because those would have threatened the wealth of the rich much more than the Social Democrats, and since my reply was about why the rich would support the Nazi's...
But indeed, quite a few former communists became Nazi's later on – another sign that both ideologies have some common roots.
Quite a lot of American Communists became neoconservatives. Common roots?
Last edited:
On a political spectrum:
Nazism is more complicated than fascism when trying to place it on a political spectrum. The majority of scholars identify Nazism, in practice, as a bizarre form of right-wing extremism.[31] Many Nazis were advocates of third-positionism when it came to economics. This meant that they opposed both socialism (especially communism) and capitalism, despite many being advocates of the right to own private property (so long as you were an Aryan... but that goes without saying). They differ from capitalists (in economics) because they openly advocated a symbiosis between the state and big business. The state would favor certain companies (German-owned, of course) in return for them doing favors to the state. Basically, the Nazis openly endorsed crony corporatism. Up until relatively recently, this economic nationalism was shunned by mainstream conservatives. However, since the rise of ultra-conservatism and right-wing populism in the West, these third-position policies have quickly become the ethos of right-wing economic practices. For instance, Steve Bannon and the alt-lite's intellectual wing have expressed explicit third-position economic policies. While not an economic isolationist like Bannon, Donald Trump follows a model very similar to (but much, much older than) economic nationalism — the precursor to capitalism, corporatism, and socialism: a crony 17th-century system known as mercantilismhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png. Even populists on the economic "left" support economic nationalism, as many right-wing counterparts do. While they are both protectionists, the only difference between the pure economic isolationism of the third position and the mercantilism of the right is that the former is obligatory, and the latter is coercive via tariffs. However, they both encourage state intervention when setting market prices.
One might also note that Nazis expanded universal healthcare programs, but the goal was never about improving the life of the general public, but of a combination of Eugenics and conquest,[32] in much the same manner that a country might provide healthcare for its military. Some versions of socialism (especially Democratic Socialism) do in fact come in the form of generous social safety nets instead of direct worker ownership, but the very definition of socialism is that everyone (or at least the working classes) does "own" the industries; if the industry relies upon slavery or ethnic underclasses who have no say, it's by definition not socialism. In the sense that there were social safety nets, they existed only for Aryans alone, to be subsidized by the ethnic underclasses. Note that public healthcare in Germany was already in existence for 40 years prior to the Nazi takeover, regardless of what the GOP might say about Obamacare.
Notable Americans try to push Nazism to the other side of the political spectrum or deny that Nazism was truly right-wing. While it's evident that Nazism is entirely different from the politics of their own party's establishment (in that Nazism is much further to the right with its advocacy of antisemitism, genocide, misogyny, etc.), that does not automatically discount their right-wing elements. However, its odd form of right-wing politics is removed from today's mainstream conservatism (neoconservatism should tell you that quite blatantly). Many on the right refuse to accept this, as they are unable to comprehend two basic notions: that "right and left" are both simplistic and arbitrary concepts depending on the context of the time and place (for instance, laissez-faire capitalism, which is now generally seen as being right of center, was once as radical in 1790 as socialism is seen today); that both wings incorporate countless individual schools of thought, and are not indicative of singular and universal ideologies. Partisanship is an entirely separate issue, as, though it is not as common anymore due to polarization, there can exist left-leaning Republicans (though that is generally no longer the case) and right-wing Democrats (such as the Clintons and Jimmy Carter... not to mention that the political spectrum, which was once a contextually simple concept, has been made more complicated than it even should have been in the first place. The most extreme ideology of right-wing thought is, by definition, monarchism, to which mainline fascism like that of Italy in the 1920s and 30s was very similar.
The Nazis were much more obsessed with race than their Italian counterparts. As it is understood today, the idea of race did not come about until globalization began before the Age of Enlightenment. The Nazis were generally not anti-religion (although a few Nazi leaders were quite so, notably Goebbels and Rosenberg, and even Hitler occasionally criticized Christianity in private); rather, they were very anti-church. They didn't like other powerful organizations exerting control over their subjects and monitored the clergy closely to spot even the slightest evidence of disloyalty. They also did not like religious groups with values that strongly conflicted with their own — for instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses were ruthlessly oppressed by the Nazi regime because they opposed military service and loyalty oaths. It is very similar to the modern alt-right phenomenon: socially far-right (for the same reasons as the OG Nazis) and organizationally collectivistic. They are generally considered a constituency of the American right due to their history of association with the GOP and, more recently, paleoconservative and populist movements, Donald Trump being a great example of the latter (although Trump seems to hold views more in line with monarchism than Nazism, which, in some ways, is even worse). "Alt-right" is a term originally coined by the Nazi cosplayer Richard Spencer to describe an ideology that was an alternative to traditional right-wing thought, particularly conservative, hence "alternative to the right", as he put it.
So economically and socially — Nazism gives you the worst of both worlds. It's almost like the system was a contradictory, incoherent mess cobbled together based on the increasingly insane and drug-addled rantings of a failed artist.
In any case, Nazism was primarily concerned with Aryan racial purity and territorial conquests; racism and imperialism were its defining features. Like most imperialist regimes, conquests were made to benefit the imperialist power's population; in this case, the German volk. Lebensraum existed for fear that Germany was on the brink of starvation and needed resources. German motives for invading Poland, Russia, etc., were equally racist and imperialist. The need for Germany to expand was commonly defended by Germans with the belief that Slavs and Jews were destined to be serfs for Aryans, and the extermination of Slavs and Jews was defended by Germany's perceived need for land and resources.[33] It cannot be stressed enough that this type of thinking was frighteningly common among other Western powers. Only their aggressive pursuit of war and genocide made them unique. Regarding economic policy, the Nazis were unremarkable and very much inside the mainstream. Therefore, if someone does not aggressively support war and genocide, no matter what side of the political spectrum they're on, they shouldn't be compared to the Nazis.
Nazism is more complicated than fascism when trying to place it on a political spectrum. The majority of scholars identify Nazism, in practice, as a bizarre form of right-wing extremism.[31] Many Nazis were advocates of third-positionism when it came to economics. This meant that they opposed both socialism (especially communism) and capitalism, despite many being advocates of the right to own private property (so long as you were an Aryan... but that goes without saying). They differ from capitalists (in economics) because they openly advocated a symbiosis between the state and big business. The state would favor certain companies (German-owned, of course) in return for them doing favors to the state. Basically, the Nazis openly endorsed crony corporatism. Up until relatively recently, this economic nationalism was shunned by mainstream conservatives. However, since the rise of ultra-conservatism and right-wing populism in the West, these third-position policies have quickly become the ethos of right-wing economic practices. For instance, Steve Bannon and the alt-lite's intellectual wing have expressed explicit third-position economic policies. While not an economic isolationist like Bannon, Donald Trump follows a model very similar to (but much, much older than) economic nationalism — the precursor to capitalism, corporatism, and socialism: a crony 17th-century system known as mercantilismhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png. Even populists on the economic "left" support economic nationalism, as many right-wing counterparts do. While they are both protectionists, the only difference between the pure economic isolationism of the third position and the mercantilism of the right is that the former is obligatory, and the latter is coercive via tariffs. However, they both encourage state intervention when setting market prices.
One might also note that Nazis expanded universal healthcare programs, but the goal was never about improving the life of the general public, but of a combination of Eugenics and conquest,[32] in much the same manner that a country might provide healthcare for its military. Some versions of socialism (especially Democratic Socialism) do in fact come in the form of generous social safety nets instead of direct worker ownership, but the very definition of socialism is that everyone (or at least the working classes) does "own" the industries; if the industry relies upon slavery or ethnic underclasses who have no say, it's by definition not socialism. In the sense that there were social safety nets, they existed only for Aryans alone, to be subsidized by the ethnic underclasses. Note that public healthcare in Germany was already in existence for 40 years prior to the Nazi takeover, regardless of what the GOP might say about Obamacare.
Notable Americans try to push Nazism to the other side of the political spectrum or deny that Nazism was truly right-wing. While it's evident that Nazism is entirely different from the politics of their own party's establishment (in that Nazism is much further to the right with its advocacy of antisemitism, genocide, misogyny, etc.), that does not automatically discount their right-wing elements. However, its odd form of right-wing politics is removed from today's mainstream conservatism (neoconservatism should tell you that quite blatantly). Many on the right refuse to accept this, as they are unable to comprehend two basic notions: that "right and left" are both simplistic and arbitrary concepts depending on the context of the time and place (for instance, laissez-faire capitalism, which is now generally seen as being right of center, was once as radical in 1790 as socialism is seen today); that both wings incorporate countless individual schools of thought, and are not indicative of singular and universal ideologies. Partisanship is an entirely separate issue, as, though it is not as common anymore due to polarization, there can exist left-leaning Republicans (though that is generally no longer the case) and right-wing Democrats (such as the Clintons and Jimmy Carter... not to mention that the political spectrum, which was once a contextually simple concept, has been made more complicated than it even should have been in the first place. The most extreme ideology of right-wing thought is, by definition, monarchism, to which mainline fascism like that of Italy in the 1920s and 30s was very similar.
The Nazis were much more obsessed with race than their Italian counterparts. As it is understood today, the idea of race did not come about until globalization began before the Age of Enlightenment. The Nazis were generally not anti-religion (although a few Nazi leaders were quite so, notably Goebbels and Rosenberg, and even Hitler occasionally criticized Christianity in private); rather, they were very anti-church. They didn't like other powerful organizations exerting control over their subjects and monitored the clergy closely to spot even the slightest evidence of disloyalty. They also did not like religious groups with values that strongly conflicted with their own — for instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses were ruthlessly oppressed by the Nazi regime because they opposed military service and loyalty oaths. It is very similar to the modern alt-right phenomenon: socially far-right (for the same reasons as the OG Nazis) and organizationally collectivistic. They are generally considered a constituency of the American right due to their history of association with the GOP and, more recently, paleoconservative and populist movements, Donald Trump being a great example of the latter (although Trump seems to hold views more in line with monarchism than Nazism, which, in some ways, is even worse). "Alt-right" is a term originally coined by the Nazi cosplayer Richard Spencer to describe an ideology that was an alternative to traditional right-wing thought, particularly conservative, hence "alternative to the right", as he put it.
So economically and socially — Nazism gives you the worst of both worlds. It's almost like the system was a contradictory, incoherent mess cobbled together based on the increasingly insane and drug-addled rantings of a failed artist.
In any case, Nazism was primarily concerned with Aryan racial purity and territorial conquests; racism and imperialism were its defining features. Like most imperialist regimes, conquests were made to benefit the imperialist power's population; in this case, the German volk. Lebensraum existed for fear that Germany was on the brink of starvation and needed resources. German motives for invading Poland, Russia, etc., were equally racist and imperialist. The need for Germany to expand was commonly defended by Germans with the belief that Slavs and Jews were destined to be serfs for Aryans, and the extermination of Slavs and Jews was defended by Germany's perceived need for land and resources.[33] It cannot be stressed enough that this type of thinking was frighteningly common among other Western powers. Only their aggressive pursuit of war and genocide made them unique. Regarding economic policy, the Nazis were unremarkable and very much inside the mainstream. Therefore, if someone does not aggressively support war and genocide, no matter what side of the political spectrum they're on, they shouldn't be compared to the Nazis.
RandyRebecca
Bisexual Woman · 41
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2022
- Posts
- 1,590
Do you believe North Korea to be democratic? Its official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The Nazi Party was the exact opposite of socialism. Look up Otto Strasser, Strasserism, Beefsteak Nazis and the Night of the Long Knives, to see what happened to the "Nazi left".
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
Nice false equivalency.
No it wasn't. It was definitionally socialist.
It wasn't MARXIST, which is also socialist, but in a different way.
Sure, none of that makes Nazis some how not socialist.
They were socialist, just not Marxist.
Last edited:
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
Almost EXACTLY like his Soviet counterpart.
Because that's the true equity....that's how real egalitarianism is done.
EdgySubMic
Owned gay slave
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2024
- Posts
- 157
You don't get what the word "socialist" means, just like the vast majority of Americans. If you did, you would get that one can aim for the supremacy of certain social "ties" (for lack of a better word) based on different grounds: class (Marxism being one example); nation or race (Nazism being one example); religion; or a combination thereof.
I won't deny that the more leftist Nazis were eliminated in favor of the more rightist ones (*), but that doesn't mean that the Nazi ideology wasn't socialist – as opposed to one that emphasizes individual freedoms. The so-called Volksgemeinschaft was key: the "Volk" (**) took precedence over the individual and, by decree of the party (i.e. Hitler and the party ideologues behind him), it had to. Anyone who disagreed with the official party line quickly became a "Volksveräter" (a traitor of the "Volk") and was treated as such.
(*) Note that it is also important to understand why they were eliminated: Once Hitler was in power and building his military, he needed to secure the support of the military and the economically right parts of society more than he needed the left, who by then he already had mostly under control. And he certainly didn't tolerate anyone who didn't agree with him and who he could do without. Especially if they actively undermined his own interests. To quote Rudolf Hess in 1934: "Die Partei ist Hitler, Hitler ist Deutschland, und Deutschland ist Hitler!" (The party is Hitler, Hitler is Germany, and Germany is Hitler!) Any Nazi party member who caused problems for Hitler was on his expedited way out before he knew it.
(**) I don't have a good translation of "Volk" into English, as neither "people" nor "folk" have the same connotation of "unity" that "Volk" has.
Last edited:
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
"Socialist" is not the opposite of "individualist."
EdgySubMic
Owned gay slave
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2024
- Posts
- 157
I did not write "individualist".
It is not the opposite of "libertarian" either.
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
Socialist?
Absolutely is.... you can't have socialism without the authoritarianism to force it.
Noam Chomsky is being neither stupid nor humorous when he calls himself a "libertarian socialist."
EdgySubMic
Owned gay slave
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2024
- Posts
- 157
That's a bit of an extreme (American) view of (non-Nazi) socialism. From what I observe (I follow US politics rather closely for professional reasons), the right in the US has a tendency to declare that anything that limits a personal freedom, or that costs them a dollar that they do not immediately benefit from themselves, is socialism (or even worse: communism). And since it limits a specific freedom that they personally want, or costs them something, it must be bad bad bad. However, one person's freedom ends where another one's begins, and living together in a society has costs that have to be shared for the benefit of all.
Being European, I'm used to what is called Social Democrats, who definitely cannot be called authoritarians. (As always, it's a spectrum, which is why Noam Chomsky can correctly make his "socialist libertarian" statement.) Having said that, some of their policies definitely do limit personal freedoms more than I agree with and I would prefer not having those imposed on me. But certain personal freedom policies of the (at least when viewed in the European context) center-right party that I vote for don't match my own opinions either.
For all clarity: I'm interested in intellectual honesty and open-mindedness. Contrary to some in this debate, I do not call Hitler a socialist because "Left bad; Hitler & Nazi bad; Call Hitler socialist and left Nazi to annoy/attack them." I call him one because he was one, based on where his (inconsistent) philosophy and ideology evolved from, and based on what it contained. If I were a non-Nazi socialist, I would still can him a socialist, without seeing that as an attack on myself.
For even more clarity: I do not want to tell US people how to run their country (even if I sure do have opinions about that), which is why I try to limit my posts to "Was Hitler a socialist?" However, I will make one exception to that rule: I expect the US government to not interfere in European politics either. When VP-elect JD Vance starts calling the German AfD party – who are die-hard neo-Nazis in all but name – “the only solution for Germany", then I definitely do wonder... Remember: “Nazi bad”.
PS: I'm not German, despite fluently speaking German and knowing a lot about German history.
That's because what the Nazis really were/are is not socialists, but RW nationalist populists -- like the Tea Party/MAGA movement. Trump and Vance like the AfD for the same reason they like Hungary's Orban -- no party in Germany is more hard-line against immigration than the AfD.
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
Again, they are definitionally socialist.
You like the others conflate Marxism with socialism.
No, the Tea Party Maga movement are LIBERAL nationalist, not socialist.
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
What can I say....
I'm a product of my environment.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/l3nW5hP4Krt98LnwY/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952p2hcuxqepek1m3b9i9d4cypy1e8pazj4c32zikib&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=ghttps://i.gifer.com/2ghC.gif
Not in any small-l libertarian sense. Nobody is, who takes a hard line on immigration. An open border as as essential an element of liberty as a free market, or free speech, or gun rights.
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
That's why overall they are liberals, not libertarians.
LOL no it's not.
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2024
- Posts
- 3,160
Defacing others' posts is unethical. But there is no ethical standard here with you and the other PB Proud Boys.
If you think after all this i am a Democrat you are beyond stupid.
Remember, chud: eat the breakfast, and defecate later. Study the difference.
( 6 9 )
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2024
- Posts
- 3,160
UltraChud is so dumb this is wasted.
Maybe the little bitch is threatening the world with SuperMAGA.
Deport all like them to North Korea.
( 7 7 )
