You're basing Hitler's position off his words versus his actions. He privatized more than any other Western country at the time, he repressed trade union activity and the wealth gap between the rich and the poor increased under the Nazis.www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI&t=2106shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHAN-RPJTiE&t=39swww.youtube.com/watch
@Ad_Quid_Orator It's true that Hitler privatized many industries, which is why he should be placed center-right on an economic axis. However, he certainly wasn't a laissez-faire capitalist either. No true laissez-faire capitalist would wish to suppress union activity, as it is simply a form of voluntary association, and there is nothing inherent to collective bargaining that precludes capitalism. Also, increasing the wealth gap is not a specifically desired goal of capitalism. It is simply an unintended consequence that is regarded neutrally by proponents of capitalism because it poses no issues on its face. A widening wealth gap means nothing in the context of overall economic growth, because every individual will have a higher standard of living than they had prior. My point is:Is privatizing industries a characteristic of the right? Yes. Is suppressing union activity a characteristic of the right? No. It doesn't concern right and left. Is widening of the wealth gap as a stated goal a characteristic of the right? No. It doesn't concern right and left.
@ShortCircuit Suppressing union activities and increasing the wealth gap is characteristic of the right and the reason you don't see it that way is because you're under the (false) presumption that the bigger the role the government has in economic matters, the more left wing it is. If government involvement benefits the working class, it's left wing while if it benefits the owners (as the Nazis did), it's right wing.
Government control is on the Y axis of the political spectrum, not the left-right.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Actually I am not. Right vs Left and Libertarian vs Authoritarian measure different things and are entirely independent of each other. Suppression of union activities can occur under authoritarian right states/economies, but it is a function of the authoritarianism, not a function of the rightism/capitalism. As for increasing the wealth gap, not only is it not an intended consequence, it's impossible to cause intentionally (unless you instituted regressive taxation, which is off-compass and is not supported by capitalists, socialists, or communists). Again, increasing the wealth gap is a natural, unintended consequence of capitalism that capitalists regard neutrally because we argue that it isn't necessarily a negative occurrence. And as for that last sentence, that is just downright ridiculous. Political ideology is defined by the policies themselves, not who they benefit. Perhaps the policies were designed to benefit a certain group, but an ideology is still defined by the policies, not the outcomes. You can say all you want that capitalism was designed to help everyone, but in practice benefits "the owners" (whatever that means). And to that I'd say that communism was designed to benefit the working class, but in practice benefits the political ruling class. You look at the USSR and tell me that it benefited the working class with a straight face.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Dude, I'm abundantly aware of the political compass and was directly referencing it in my original post. If I thought right vs left was the same axis as libertarian vs authoritarian, I would've said Hitler was as far left as possible (which would be false). But I didn't, did I? I said Hitler was center-right (which is correct).
@ShortCircuit If it was confiscation of the property of the wealthy elite then it would be (correctly) called authoritarian left wing policies just as repression of union activities is authoritarian right wing and by doing so you limit the capacity of workers to earn better wages and widen the wealth gap. Also, policies are aimed at outcomes and Hitler made business deals with the ruling elites of Germany to help them keep their wealth at the expense of the working class.
@Ad_Quid_Orator I never denied that union suppression might occur under authoritarian right states/economies. My claim was that it is a function of the authoritarian component, not of the right component. Which is why union suppression would not occur under libertarian right states/economies. It is unique to authoritarian right states/economies.
@ShortCircuit @Ad_Quid_Orator Well, I got into this one too late to really sort it out, but there appears to be a misconception about where capitalism and business interests fit into the ideological spectrum. For that, I offer my response to this question: What do you think about the companies that worked for Hitler's Germany? ↗What, in fact, Hitler said and did were consistent and came from the left.
I'll say (or said because I already brought it up) there's a misconception and that misconception is that more government control over the economy puts the Nazis further to the left; it doesn't. Inter-firm relationships were regulated by the government but that's not putting more power over the means of production to the working class (i. e. it wasn't "Socialist").
@ShortCircuit The implementation of control is an authoritarian component, what it controlled indicated that the Nazis were on the right. Although tbh, I don't like the term "were" when talking about the Nazis as a whole (even though this question is referring to Hitler) because while the Nazi party was disbanded in 1945 some unrepentant members of Nazi political organizations like the SS and Hitler Youth are alive to this day and they pretty much all support right wing groups.
@Ad_Quid_Orator I don't know why you keep bringing that up, because clearly I understand the difference between economic right/left and social libertarian/authoritarian. I recognize the PC as a legitimate model and have referenced it several times, and have given several explanations as to why Hitler is a center-right authoritarian, consistent with the PC. And, based on the few conversations I've had with @nightdrot I'm sure he also fully understands the difference between the two axis. I'm sure he is familiar with the differences between people like Pat Buchanan and Murray Rothbard. Neither of us are autistically screeching "goberment duz stuff = left". We are fully aware of the multiple dimensions of political theory, and haven't refuted any of the related points that you've made, so stop treating us like we aren't.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Actually, I don't disagree. However, it is not clear why government control over the economy is definitive either way. In any totalitarian system - as distinct from authoritarian system - government control of the economy is apt to be absolute. With the question of ownership amounting to little more than a piece of paper.In fact, Socialism stipulates the abolition of private property, government ownership of the means of production and a centrally planned economy. National Socialism was less concerned with these specifics but effectively ran the economy in the same way.Indeed, it is forgotten that Stalin - as a wartime expedient - allowed private ownership of some agricultural land. By that standard, he was not much of a socialist either.
P. S. It should also be added that part of the problem is that reality will take its' toll on ideology. Hitler and Stalin made accommodations to wartime necessities that were not obviously consistent with their ideological orientations. Therefore, to say, for example, that Hitler privatized some industries is to ignore the context of his action. Also, as already noted, that such privitzation was more real on paper than in practice.
Socialism doesn't advocate the abolition of private property, it's where workers own the means of production. Now you can argue that Hitler controlling inter-firm activities made the term "private property" meaningless but it wouldn't make it "Socialist" or "leftist" either because it wasn't done to benefit the collective.
Hitler was privatizing long before the outbreak of war.
@Ad_Quid_Orator On the first point - how is this" it's where workers own the means of production" the abolition of private property? If EVERYONE owns it in a classless Utopia then there is no private ownership. You are making a distinction without a difference.As to Hitler, his focus was the benefit of the race and ALL his actions were - at least in theory - directed toward that end. He was not regulating the state for the heck of it but directed to an ideological purpose.As to your last point. Yes, his immediate privitizations were done to alleviate the economic crisis he inherited - again his exercise of authority not being diminished by such privatizations. He needed trained managers and such and this he could get only through placing business in NOMINALLY private hands.It also being noted that, from the start, his purpose was to ready the state for the race war that "Mein Kempf" was the driving force in History. In that sense the whole management of his economy was a wartime expedient.
Socialism in and of itself doesn't advocate the abolition of private property but the most extreme form (Communism) does. As for privatization, it's not just that the Nazis reversed the trend to alleviate the crisis, it's also that they privatized more than any other western country at the time (all of whom were hit by the great depression).
Hitler did what he did to better the standard of living of the German race but he didn't do it by redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor but by plundering neighboring countries.
@Ad_Quid_Orator On your second point I have NEVER seen a stat on that. There was, for example, no nationalization of industries in the United States in the New Deal. Methinks you are mistaken on that one and, in any case, you cannot in one breath say that socialism did not advocate the abolition of private property and then in the next say that National Socialism was not socialist because it privatized companies. It also being relevant that, as I mentioned, that while both Hitler and Stalin were committed to their ideologies, reality often takes a toll on ideology and they both made accommodations where they deemed it necessary.Your last posting escapes me completely. Stalin inflicted the same pleasures on the Baltic States and later eastern Europe for all the same reason.As to the first point, that is not the distinction between socialism and communism. That distinction is, rather, the argument made in communism that a party elite would guide the worker to mankind's classless Utopia. Socialism did not make that case. Communism did. The abolition of private property was the expected outcome of both.
Socialism prohibits the means of production from being in private hands but that doesn't mean that individuals can't own property. That's why re-privitizing the means of production (more than any other western country at the time) [http://www. ub. edu/graap/nazi. pdf] wasn't "socialist" even though socialism doesn't completely abolish the ownership of private property. Yes, Stalin did exploit the lands and people of Eastern Europe but it was no where near as extensive as the Nazi exploitation of those regions.
@Ad_Quid_Orator You've got to be kidding!! Let me assure you as a person whose family lived under both the Nazis and the Communists - Poland and East Germany - you could not measure the difference with even a micrometer.Trust me, any reading of history will confirm it and we need not recur to experience of my family - but the exploitation of eastern Europe by the USSR was brutal.As to the other point, to repeat, first, both Hitler and Stalin made accommodations to circumstance. Second, we are tracing here the pedigree and root of their ideologies. Socialism defined History as defined by class, National Socialism by race. BOTH were socialist in that they supplanted the ideas of the Western Enlightenment and its rationalism - including its faith in free market economics - with an alternative identity. (Class or race, as the defining impetus of History and human action.) In both, private property was the servant of History's driving dynamic. Private ownership in the National Socialist system - allowing also for expedients - was the servant of that purpose and was little different than government ownership in actual practice.
The Soviets didn't abduct 2+ million Poles to be used for forced labor in the USSR and kill another 2 million (on top of the 3 million Polish Jews who were killed). And are you honestly trying to compare the way the Germans were repressed in the Soviet puppet state of East Germany to how the Russians were treated in the Nazi-occupied areas?And you can tease out whether a decision was made under circumstances versus an ideological conviction by comparing the actions of Nazi Germany to other western countries at the time who faced a similar crisis. So no, privatization wasn't an expedient to the Nazis.As stated before, not having faith in the free market doesn't make an ideology socialist by default and viewing human history in the context of race versus class struggle is coming at the topic from two completely separate perspectives.
@Ad_Quid_Orator No, the Soviets enslaved whole countries and slaughtered those who opposed them mostly retail rather than wholesale - though you may recall Budapest, 1956, and Prague, 1968 as cases where the slaughter went wholesale. (Also, recall that history's highest body counts were racked up by Mao first and Stalin next.)As to your second point, it is not clear how comparing the real private ownership of the Western democracies to the faux private ownership - where you did what the state commanded or you didn't own it for very long - is not an apples to oranges comparison. Hitler could allow the illusion of private ownership because he did NOT confer the substance of it.This is what you seem to miss.As to your last point, I really cannot make out what you are saying. This sentence - "not having faith in the free market doesn't make an ideology socialist by default..." That is a banality. There are other ideologies that do not have faith in the free market - not least Socialism and National Socialism and even - in a different sense - Fascism, Falangism and so on.As to race vs class struggle, that was the difference between National Socialism and Socialism. Neither made a fetish of free markets.
P. S. By the way, scholars estimate that between 80,000 and 100,000 people may have been killed in East Germany beginning in 1945 as part of the Soviet Union's denazification campaign. That was just in East Germany.Also, in 1999, the Stéphane Courtois introduction to the Black Book of Communism gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed. In his foreword to the book, Martin Malia noted "a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million".
And what you seem to miss is that even if the government dictated the inter-firm relationships between companies that doesn't make it socialist or leftist. And Hitler did live up to the substance of private ownership in one key regard: the owners of the companies kept a larger share of the profits than they did under the Wiemar regime (which is completely at odds with socialism).Yeah, the Soviets "enslaved" whole countries because on top of the millions taken to Germany for forced labor (not relocation) it's not like those left behind in the occupied territories got off easy. They were still subject to far more ruthless repression under the Nazis than the Soviets. And while Stalin was a brutal dictator, he (contrary to popular belief) didn't kill more than Hitler. The reason many people believe this to be true is because they attribute all the deaths that occurred in the USSR from 1924 to 1953 to Stalin including the 15 million soviet citizens who died in the war. Most of those 15 million deaths should have been attributed to Hitler.
@Ad_Quid_Orator On the second point, I can assure you, it was a distinction without a difference. Well I recall my uncle telling me how they had their daughter walk the perimeter of their yard to make sure that they could not be overheard lest the Stassi come knocking. Also, how a co-worker was arrested and taken away - he had apparently said an indiscreet word to a co-worker. In the Communist system, even friends and family members were agents of the state. Nope, sorry, you are again making a distinction without a difference.As to the question of private property - as another friend of my uncle can attest who had his shop confiscated by the Nazis, whatever the theory, the free market stopped where it fell afoul of the dictates of the state.Indeed, free markets are impossible where there is not the free flow of information by which to allow private business to make decisions. Private businessmen were rewarded where they supported the aims of the state - where not, they usually ended up in the camps.In any case, for the 10th time, there was what the Socialists and National Socialists believed in theory and what necessity forced them to do. Ideology sometimes having to pay homage to hard realities.
Yeah, I generally agree with that. I think they were both shaped by the philosopher Hegel, who said everything is about struggle. For Marx, it was a struggle against the "evil" bourgeoisie. For Hitler, it was a struggle against the "evil" Jew.
The total number of people who died as a result of the policies is difference as well as how bad the exploitation was across the entire population. Injustices exist in every country but it doesn't make every regime as bad as another. Also, I'm not calling the Nazi regime "free market capitalist" (you're just making a strawman) but for the Nth time not being free market capitalist doesn't make them "Socialists" or "leftists".
Someone said it!
@Ad_Quid_Orator This sentence is two negatives - "but for the Nth time not being free market capitalist doesn't make them "Socialists" or "leftists"." NOT being free market, Doesn't make them socialist. (Leftists is not a term I used or would use as it does not mean very much.) No, but socialists are not pro-free market. Ditto are National Socialists not pro-free market. They share this in common though their opposition to free markets manifests itself different reasons. Socialists defined themselves by their opposition to free markets. The National Socialists opposed it - see the references in Mein Kempf as being anithetical to the advancement of the interests of the master race. As to your ability to make refined judgments as to whether or not death in the Gulag is preferable and easier to bear than death in the concentration camps is a judgment I leave to you. I can assure you that those who lived under the threat of both probably lost that measured distinction that you find to so easily make.Other that to add that there were not "injustices." Rather they were monstrous crimes born of the very nature of the regimes under which they took place. I suppose some will be pleased that extermination in the name of the proletariat is to be preferred to in the name of the master race.
That oversimplifies it a bit, but yes, that is where the socialism of Hitler diverged from the socialism of Marx. As Hitler said, and as I mentioned in my original reply, "I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow." He was a socialist and it was a different kind of socialist.
Socialism is defined by workers owning production firms but it doesn't prohibit said firms from competing with each other in a free market economy (look up "market socialism"). But even if it, did being opposed to something that socialists are also opposed to doesn't make an ideology socialist itself. I don't think dying in a Gulag would be preferable to dying in a concentration camp but 10 times as many people died in the Nazi concentration and death camps as the gulags.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Market socialism ain't socialism. It is an attempt to put lipstick on a pig, frankly.As to your point about gulags and concentration camps, sorry, but Mao and Stalin, by the body count, were history's biggest killers. Hitler is runner-up at 3rd.Finally, you keep saying this - "But even if it, did being opposed to something that socialists are also opposed to doesn't make an ideology socialist itself." Well, Hitler is the one who said the he was a socialist, but a very different kind of socialist. So he seems to agree with you. However, socialism is at an irreducible level incompatible with private property as defined by Marx. That said, free markets and private property were, at a minimum, notoriously hard to come by for Jews, Slavs and millions of slave laborers in Nazi Germany. Somehow, I don't recall Adam Smith making an exception for them.
No, market socialism is where workers control the means of production of various firms and which firms are the most successful is determined by the free market so yes it does exist.Hitler said he was a socialist but he didn't do anything to transfer control of the means of production from the owners to the workers (in fact he did the complete opposite) so by his actions, he wasn't one.As for the lack of ownership of private property by the groups you mentioned, said private property was still "private" but given to a different private owner.
And the main reason that Stalin's death count is seen (falsely) as being higher than Hitlers is because people included the Soviets killed by the Nazi invasion to Stalin which grossly inflated the numbers. So it's not that Stalin killed 35 million while Hitler killed 6 million. It's more like Stalin killed 10 million while Hitler killed 21 million (the 35 million dead also included the 10 million soldiers who died while I'm tallying based on civilian deaths. Although 1/3rd of the Red Army's fatalities were POWs who died in captivity).
@Ad_Quid_Orator You write - "Hitler said he was a socialist but he didn't do anything to transfer control of the means of production from the owners to the workers (in fact he did the complete opposite) so by his actions, he wasn't one."So let's see. Hitler says you can "own" you factory but your factory had better do what Hitler wants you to do. My point being that you are confusing form for substance.In any case, if "market socialism" is socialism, then why is National Socialism not socialism. You cannot have it both ways. By your own standard "private ownwership" is irrelevant to the definition of socialism.As to the rest, I offer this review: www.hoover.org/research/butchery-hitler-and-stalinIn any case, I presume that you are not arguing that Stalin was cuddly and lovable. So at this point it becomes the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument. You do not have much to choose from if your implicit argument is that socialism is better because whereas the National Socialists killed 2 million, the Socialists only killed 1.999 million.Bottom line, even then, if you add Stalin and Mao together, socialism does not look so good.
OK, you keep repeating the point that Hitler told factory owners what they could and couldn't produce ad nauseum. He told the owners what they could and couldn't produce but he didn't give the workers any more say in the matter either and he prohibited workers from forming trade unions to fight for a larger share of the profit which benefited the owners. This is antithetical to socialism.Well, it's actually like Fascism killed 20+ million while Stalin killed 10 million but if you look at "Generalplan Ost" the death-toll of Fascism would have pushed 60 million. OK so now we're accumulating all the deaths attributed to multiple communist regimes to the only national socialist regime? Uh well if you add up all the deaths that occurred under capitalist regimes than communism wouldn't look too bad by comparison LOL.
@Ad_Quid_Orator At this point, I don't even know what your definition of socialism is. I feel like I am chasing a phantasm. It seeming to be little more than cuddly with the workers - which no doubt would come as a surprise to the Solidarity union in Poland circa 1985. Not to mention members of my own family. (Also, I happened to have put on an event hosting, and met, Lech Welesa back in the day. He seemed to lack your faith in socialism's benevolence toward the worker.)As far as the body count, I sent you the link, but in any case, I actually see little point in continuing this line of argument. If your dividing line for socialism is that it killed a million fewer than the National Socialists and therefore the latter is disqualified from being called socialist, that seems an eccentric standard, but I'll roll with that.It also being unclear to me at this point whether or not you believe socialists allow for free markets and private property or not. Here my sense is that you are confusing the welfare state and socialism. (Please note that Marx opposed the welfare state, which was founded by two conservatives - Disraeli in the UK and Bismarck in Germany, the latter especially to reduce the appeal of socialism.)Bottom line, Marx postulated certain theoretical fundamentals - these related to the driving force of History, class warfare and so on. From that followed certain derivations, of which National Socialism was one. These derivations playing off Marx's essential thesis but arguing that he was mistaken in certain respects. (In the National Socialist's case that it was race, not class, that was History's driving force.)None of this changing the fact that they are all variations of socialism and that all - in practice - conduced to a pile of dead bodies and whose epitaph was written in the fall of the iron curtain. You seem, in that connection, more interested in defending socialism's theoretical - if vaguely defined - ideal than its' actual bloody reality.
-I've already made it clear that Socialism is where workers as opposed to the owners control and profit from the means of production-Socialism does allow for the ownership of private property but it doesn't allow for the means of production to be in private hands.-I'm not arguing that National Socialism isn't socialism because it killed more people than other forms of socialism; you're just making a straw-man-Again, saying that race warfare drove the course of history is viewing history from a completely different perspective than saying class warfare drove it.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Point 1 is an oversimplification of a far more complex theory. Marx central purpose being to replace by allegedly scientific means the sense of identity that Enlightenment rationalism stripped away. In any case, worker ownership of the means of production amounted in practice to state ownership of the means of production.Point 2 - Just to be clear, Functionally, socialism and free-market capitalism can be divided on property rights and control of production. In a socialist economy, the government owns and controls the means of production; personal property is sometimes allowed, but only in the form of consumer goods.Point 3 - No, I was mocking the argument you were making. Obviously Socialism differed from National Socialism. One was a variant of the other, the latter being a variant that retained central elements of the original theory but took it in a different direction. They are not the same thing but the latter is a variant of the original and both are thus, in terms of the pedigree of the ideas, are related to each other without being the same as each other. Thus, National Socialism is NOT socialism, but is a derived from and is a variant of it.Point 4 - Nope. They each shared the same central and profoundly mistaken idea that History is driven by a central moving force. Obviously class and race are NOT the same things, but the idea that History was driven by one or the other is the nexus between the two. History being a thing, and it being driven by one force being central to Marxian thinking.
1 & 2: Socialism existed before Marx and being controlled by the workers doesn't mean control by the state (look up employee owned companies). And even if it did that wouldn't mean that every country where inter-firm relations were controlled by the State is "socialist" and this would certainly not be the case if it allotted a greater share of the profits to the owners (which the Nazis did).3 & 4: Many ideaologies share ideas but that doesn't mean that one is a derivative of the other especially one as broad as there being a driving force behind human history. I mean by that logic, people who think that the struggle against the reptilian overlords has been the single driving force behind human history have their ideology derived from socialism.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Point 1, if you have private ownership, then you have free market economics. That is the antithesis of socialism. Free market economics does not preclude who owns an enterprise, merely that it be owned. By your logic, a business partnership is socialism,Indeed, the definition of socialism is, by your reasoning, ephemeral. Workers who own a business become owners and therefore, by your definition, are no longer just workers. You are in a hall of mirrors. You are left with definitions that do not define.Point 2 - Accept in this case, as any course you could take in political philosophy will amply demonstrate - I majored in it - the ideas of National Socialism traced their pedigree from socialism. The ideas were not coincidentally related by intellectually and epistemologically connected.
I shouldn't havereplied...
@TwoToTooTutu2 Not sure what you mean, but if you are being pinged every time I reply, I sincerely apologize. I did not realize it and can appreciate how annoying it gets to be getting a message ever few minutes. If my interlocutor agrees, I will try to minimize this going forward.
1. "Free market economics does not preclude who owns an enterprise," hence if a firm is owned cooperatively you have "market socialism". But a government regulating inter-firm relationships isn't by any stretch socialism in and of itself.2. There was a left leaning element of the Nazi party that had ideas rooted in socialism but they were purged on the night of the long knives after Hitler rose to power.
@Ad_Quid_Orator 1. "Market socialism" is a contradiction in terms. There is no school of thought that goes by that name. It was a term of convenience born of a popular conflation - mostly in the post-war era - between the welfare state and free market capitalism. To repeat, to have workers owning a business makes them, by definition, OWNERS. It does not change the fact that they are trading and selling in a market where supply and demand determine the provision of goods and services. That, to repeat, is free market economics.2) No, sorry, read Mein Kempf at some point. Its theoretical foundations are the point of the discussion. That factions existed within the party does not eliminate the pedigree of the original idea.Yes, there were differences in emphasis within the broader movement, but that does not make it, in its essence, less than what it was. No more than Maoism and Stalinism and the various other factions of socialism change its essential nature.
You're good. Just funny
@TwoToTooTutu2 Many thanks.
1) Now you're just arguing semantics. OK, firms are "owned" but the point is that it's owned cooperatively by the employees versus being owned by a few shareholders. But as to the matter of whether or not Hitler was a socialist he did nothing to give more power or provide more benefits to the workers and to the contrary, wealth inequality increased during the Nazi regime.2) Again, you're looking at what Hitler said versus what he did. He intertwined aspects of the ideologies to sell his pitch to a wider audience. Pretty much all the socialist policies that the Nazis advocated (but never carried out) were a facade to get more of the working class on their side. But with everyone trying to use these points to argue that the Nazis were leftists, Goebbels' propaganda is still working to this day.'
@Ad_Quid_Orator No. I am not arguing semantics. There is a difference between being an owner and a worker. If you own it, you take the profits. If you are a worker. You take the wages. If you are a worker who owns the company, you take the profits.In any case, you have now reached absurd lengths. You effectively conflate the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss with "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." Your intellectual gymnastics would have astonished Marx.No, as to words an deed, if you apply that rule, look at what Lenin said and what he did. Invariably reality will take its toll on ideology and you will labor in vain looking for perfect consistency. National Socialism was a branch of socialism derived from the same central idea of the driving force in History. Race or class. Note that you seem to miss. National Socialism and Socialism are NOT the same things, but the former derives from the intellectual root of the latter. They are BOTH ideas of what is typically referred to as the left. They BOTH opposed democratic capitalism. In action, they BOTH would deviate from their theoretical roots. When you make the words/deeds dichotomy you must then either apply the standard to both - in which case neither makes the grade. Alternatively, you can study the roots and pedigree of the ideas and it is there you find the relationship and their kinship.Indeed, if method be you measure, then you have even less to distinguish them.
-In employee owned firms workers take the profits (even if you want to call them "wages").-I'm not conflating anything, you're straw-manning again-Again, race and class are two different driving forces so to say that an ideology that thinks one or the other share the same roots is a complete stretch.-By my measure of socialism, communism and national socialism couldn't be more different (in one the workers earned a greater share of the net revenue, in the other they received less). -You're just Gish Galloping now and going off on wild tangents to make your case instead of sticking to the point of worker/owner relations under Nazi Germany, I'm done wasting my time.
@Ad_Quid_Orator 1) Then they are owners. Possibly profit sharing. However, if the money a company makes is distributed to its owners, that is called profit. Marx though that was naughty.2) Nope. You call it straw manning when I make a distinction. When you make a distinction you call it - - - making a distinction. Sorry. No. There is a difference. That is why we have different words for profits and wages.3) Yes, but the central thesis to both was that History was driven by a guiding force. This is the root from which both Marx and Hitler drew. Please note, capitalism posits no comparable historical force.4) Yes, you keep saying that and obviously they are different. In method, they were all pretty much the same in practice. Whether the KGB or the Gestapo comes knocking, the distinction may be missed by the victim. In theory, the argument was about where they came from - the point being all were the political left and were, in effect, variants of one another.5) Could not follow your last point. That said, you would do well to actually read Marx and Hitler. You appear to have gone to great lengths to make socialism seem cuddly and lovable. It wasn't. See ya.
Benito Mussolini and hitler are a bitter comparisons to similar dictators/leaders. As they are both Fascists who appeared around the same time and helped each other out a lot.
That isn't technically true. Mussolini was a Fascist, but Hitler was not. Hitler was a National Socialist--which is slightly to the left of Fascism.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
educated man here. props for you 👏🏼👏🏼
Socialist by his own ADMISSION but not by his ACTIONS.https://youtu.be/YHAN-RPJTiE
this isn't about Nazi vs Commies its Stalin and Hitler themselves and their motives, goals and actions
Both evil, but sent their own citizens to death, Hitler based it on religious and ethic reasons and Stalin did it to anyone and everyone who disagreed with him. Basically the same brand of evil with minor differences.
hitler brought Germany out from the gutters and made it possibly the strongest country at the time, Stalin basically enslaved russia, destroyed its economy, took all forms of freedoms away from them. Killed his own son and planted the seeds of communism all over the world creating communist china, North Korea, and refusing to leave the middle east.
If your about to start some "hilter did nothing wrong" bullshit you can shove that up your ass. Hitler improved the German economy on the backs of "undesirables" by moving a significant portion of citizens into ghettos and labor camps he moved all funds toward the white Germans he wanted to fund. He improved Germany at the cost of human lives.Stalin quartered off the entirety of the Ukraine and starved them for an entire year, hauled the bodies off to mass Graves and the world pretended it didn't happen and continued to buy soviet grain. Why? Because he didn't have enough to feed everyone so he decided to single out his political enemies and thin their numbers.Both scenarios are examples of a government fucking over one demographic in order to take saved resources to give another demographic a reward. Its the same thing with different steps. They are the same brand of evil.
yeah and the USA was built on the backs of slaves, became its own country by betraying france when they were in a time of bankrupting after helping you guys. The Spanish eradicated an entire civilization and stole their land The US also did that Africa is a never ending shit show The middle east still has slaves The US is paying for the mass butchering in Isreal England caused the opium addictions in all of Asia Fuck you the entire world is like this grow up im 14 and i know this and your 25 and ignorant to the world estúpido analfabeto e ignorante, tu vida es tan inútil como una cucaracha espero que sepas ese estúpido estadounidense
I never claimed America to have a spotless history, I never claimed any country had a spotless record. All nations have terrible atrocities in their past. They don't define the people who live there today though. I called out your hitler comment because it started to sound like some nazi apologist language. I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement.Also my Spanish is rusty I took four years in highschool and its been years since I've used it, but did you call me an illiterate useless cockroah?I can obviously read and write and I'm clearly a human and not an insect. I'm sorry if I offended you that wasn't my intention I was simply trying to clarify why I feel that hitler and stalin are the same type of evil in my opinion. And I potentially misinterpreted one of your statements as nazi apologist speech and possibly over reacted. You sound really interested in history as a whole, it fascinates me as well if you ever want to talk more about history message me. Its my favorite subject.
It was "Socialist" in name only.
you can be completely different kinds of people and still belong to a group
Benito Mussolini is closer to Hitler because both him and hitler ruled in similar fashions
@Emily-Bunny agreed. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all totalitarian dictators. Hitler and Mussolini were right-wing, Stalin was leftist.Stalin was a terrible person, even most Marxists today think so, but I like his one quote: “There are two kinds of untruths: lies and statistics.”@Orangeandturquoise what do you think? I know you took social psych.
Well the thing I think is needed to take into consideration is that the political spectrum can't be divided in only left and right. I mean, it can, but it comes out to be very inaccurate. Instead, I suggest that we take two axis:Left- right (progressive-conservative)Up-down (authoritarian-libertarian)In this case, we agree that Mussolini and Hitler were both right up, no? An example of right down would probably be Reagan or Thatcher (if I'm not mistaken) Stallin was left up. An example of left down would be Ghandi or Mandela, and perhaps Che.And yeah Stallin was an asshole. But still, as John Lennon portrays in "Revolution" by the Beatles: it's true, Stallinism and the communism in the USSR was ruthless and barbaric. However, don't pat too much on the US' back, either.
@Orangeandturquoise ah yes a man of culture
@Orangeandturquoise thank you 😊😊😊
but again it all goes back to my original statements being that Stalin never really cared about his people while both Mussolini fettuccine and Hitler were all about their people and making their countries better
@Emily-Bunny haha thanks but I just think I'm someone who has thought about a lot of stuff 😂@Gwenhwyfar you're welcome
@Orangeandturquoise Reagan and Thatcher were not libertarian right. They were also authoritarian right, but much less authoritarian than Hitler and Mussolini. Reagan and Thatcher were also farther right than Hitler, and about equal to Mussolini in that regard. Examples of libertarian right figures would be Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Hanz Herman Hoppe, and so on.
@ShortCircuit yesss I agree. I appologize for my misunderstanding. I thought that because of the neoliberalist idea of free trade, etc would make Reagan and Thatcher libertarian but I see your point now. :) thanks!
@Orangeandturquoise, @Emily-Bunny, @ShortCircuit thanks guys 😊
@Orangeandturquoise If supporting free trade automatically made someone right-of-center, and by extension, supporting protectionism made someone left-of-center, then Obama is right-of-center, and Trump is left-of-center lol. But yeah, you were right about everything else. no problem 👍