Aren't you tired of the hearing/reading the fallacious "nazis were socialists" argument?

[Anonymous]

How stupid is someone who thinks the nazis were socialists just because the word "socialist" is in the party's name. The answer: not necessarily stupid but certainly ignorant, or gullible or inclined to judge a book by its cover... or all of the above.

When Obama was president, some republicans and others right-wingers posted memes online comparing his policies with nazism, just because he wanted to address the issue of universal health care.

First of all, of course, universal health care in a democracy is not "socialism"... but that's the main issue here. Let's take a look at the facts and see how "socialist" the nazis really were.

You know, those fascists whose slogan was at one time "tod dem marxismus" (death to marxism). The party in which the leader –some guy named Hitler– spent countless pages in his book Mein Kampf explaining how communism was for "inferior races" and how it was the absolute ideological enemy of nazism...

This article, published on Encyclopedia Britannica's website, explains the nazis' ties to so-called "socialism":

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

" Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934.

[...]

In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished. "

"Death to marxism"

An excuse to show yourself in public, next to a swastika?

[BeMuse]

What a moron. Just because someone doesn’t believe in your flavor of socialism (e. g. Marxism) doesn’t mean they are not a socialist you uneducated nincompoop.

“I have not set myself on the road of politics in order to pave the way for international socialism… I bring the German people a national socialism, the political theory of the national community, the feeling of unity of all who belong to the German nation and who are prepared and willing to feel themselves as being an inseparable but also co-responsible particle of the totality of the nation.” -Adolf Hitler

He wasn’t a Globalist dipshit. He was at war with both “Jewish Capitalism” and “Jewish Bolshevism” (Marxism). He held the view that Jewish Capitalism was a method of divide and conquer to spur class conflict which would ultimately be leveraged to drive a Marxist revolution leading to a one world government, otherwise known as Totalitarianism. Marx was also at war with “Jewish Capitalism” and called for the removal of the Jews from society.

Socialism is “group control” or common control of the means of production. It’s based around a “command economy” where a group of people, the collective of workers control the economy together via the State also known as Authoritarianism. In contrast in a Capitalist system there is “private control” or individual control of the economy, which is why you have “free markets” that allow nature to control the economy through competition otherwise known as Liberalism.

The Nazi economic system goes by the name Zwangswirtschaft. In German Zwang means “compulsion” and Wirschaft means “economy”. This literally translates into “Compulsory Economy” or a command economy where the entirety of the the economic system is subject to state control. Under the Nazi system corporations were not allowed to keep surplus profits nor where they allowed to distribute their profits to shareholders via dividends. They were compelled to deposit their money in state controlled banks and to invest in domestic bonds or in the German stock market to fund German controlled corporations. Hording money for personal gain was forbidden and punishable as high treason. Nobody was free to buy more food or clothing than their allotted ration. The Nazis enforced rent control to make housing affordable.

In Nazi Germany, their was a concept called Gleichschaltung which translates to synchronization in English. What Hitler did was to nationalize all unions into the Seutsche Arbeitsfont (DAF) which in English is the German Labor Front. The SA would then go into corporations and take them over from within by force and replace workers with party loyalists (union members). This is where your collective comes in. A group of people banding together into a society is what socialized man means. Marx wanted a group of workers to band together into a society where as Hitler wanted a group of racially pure Germans to band together into a society. It’s the same concept today with ANTIFA (the SA) going into corporations and smashing shit up by force with riots. Then the BLM banding together into a society based on the Black race and going into corporations with Critical Race Theory to remove White people, and replace them with Black people that are party loyalists under the guise of increasing “diversity”. They are all collectives. It just depends on if you look at it from the point of view of a worker collective or a race collective. Either way the socialized group of men will divide society so that the accusers can try to seize power. There is a lot more I could cover on the subject but this is plenty to show that Nazism is flavor of Socialism.

[BeMuse]

“I am a German nationalist. This means that I proclaim my nationality. My whole thought and action belongs to it. I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Voelk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate… The National Socialist Movement which I lead today views its goal as the liberation of our Voelk within and without.” - Adolf Hitler

[BeMuse]

[Asker]

They weren't socialist, stupid idiot, because of the fact that socialism wasn't at all what defined nazi ideology. All you're doing is cherry picking, ignoring the motivations at the heart of the movement; the larger, complete picture and the ideological contradictions of their economical policies.

That'll be all for now because I've got other shit to do, but I'll come back later to comprehensively destroy your sophomore, shoddy patchwork of half-truths and misleading facts.

[BeMuse]

Did you refute any of my arguments? No, because you actually don't know anything about history or economics. All you did is go into a state of religious zealotry. I'll drop a little history lecture that does a good job of introducing you to Nazi Socialism. There is a lot more to learn about it, but I doubt a retard like you will even make it through this much info even though it has been turned into a video so you don't actually have to read anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8

[BeMuse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpuGRO72GbA

[BeMuse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2CkQqgCA7I

[Asker]

Despite having declared, at various times, “I am a socialist,” “We are socialists,” and similar avowals, on a personal level Hitler displayed little regard for the actual tenets of socialism, or, for that matter, socialists themselves. This excerpt from a speech Hitler gave in 1922 (quoted in William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, published in 1960) is indicative:

" Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist. "

And this is what came out of Adolf Hitler’s mouth on another occasion when a comrade riled him by harping on socialism (as reported by Henry A. Turner, author of German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, published in 1985):

" Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism. "

[Asker]

In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of the term:

" [Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. "

[Asker]

For members of the Nazi Party, in fact, defending socialism on its own terms was a risky activity which could result in ejection from the party, or worse. Of party leader and dissenter Otto Strasser (whose similarly-minded brother, Gregor, would ultimately be assassinated by the Nazis), William Shirer writes:

" Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the word “workers” in the party’s official name of National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party. "

[Asker]

The plain truth, writes Historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich, was that Hitler and his party saw socialism, communism, and leftism generally as inimical to everything they hoped to achieve:

" In the climate of postwar counter-revolution, national brooding on the “stab-in-the-back,” and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on “Jewish” merchants who were supposedly pushing up the price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up. Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats. "

[Asker]

The National Socialists completely ignored socialism’s primary aim (replacing the existing class-based society with an egalitarian one in which workers owned the means of production) and substituted their own topsy-turvy agenda, Evans writes, “replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader”:

" The “National Socialists” wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. "

German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterizes this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”:

" This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy. "

[Asker]

The proof was in the pudding. Not long after acquiring the reins of power, the Nazis banned the Social Democratic Party and sent its leaders and other leftists identified as threats to the National Socialist program to concentration camps. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia:

" In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany. "

[Asker]

Despite continuing certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis proceeded to restrict their availability to “racially worthy” (non-Jewish) beneficiaries. In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed. Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting workers. In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.”

Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.

( Article from 'Were Nazis Socialists?', written by David Emery, published on Snopes. com on 2017/09/05. www.snopes.com/.../ )

[Asker]

So what actually defined the nazis, in the end? A strong belief in social darwinism; extreme nationalism; social conservatism; militarism. Above all, a strong belief that the world was –morally– in decline because of "international jewry" AND because they believed that the world was being taken over by a wide range of amoral, decadent "weirdos" such as socialists, communists, bolsheviks, left-wing intellectuals, pacifists, homosexuals, and basically everything that is not white, aryan germans.

They were hostile to equalitarian views and their criticism of capitalism was essentially centered around the jews and the role they perceived that they had in finance.

They were not socialists, stupid fucking idiot.

[BeMuse]

What a retard, you did even watch the material I supplied or address the points directly, you just posted your canned religions zealotry.

[BeMuse]

You are incapable of debate. You don't even know how to think.

[BeMuse]

*didn't.

[BeMuse]

All you did was plagiarizer snopes. com propaganda. You're a complete imbecile.

[Asker]

Oh, but I did watch your almost-pertinent "I was a socialist" video, my dear overly-confident doofus.

First of all, the question behind his whole logic is: what is socialism and do the nazis fit the mold? Assuming that if you can prove that nazism fits the basic definition of socialism, nazism, therefore, is socialism. That's a syllogistic fallacy:

Socialism is group control of the means of production
The nazis, as a group, controlled the means of production
Therefore, the nazis were socialists

It is a logically fallacy but it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole argument is automatically invalid.

However, the question here was "what is socialism and do the nazis fit the mold?". A more pertinent would have been: what is nazism and is socialism truly the essence of the movement?

[Asker]

Claiming that the nazis were actually left-wing socialists can only happen if you spend a great deal of efforts to rewrite the commonly accepted definitions of both what left-wing politics are and what socialism is, as an ideology... AND rewrite them to your own advantage, claiming at the same time, very hypocritically, that mainstream history is biased and doing the same thing anyway, convieniently discarding the long standing academic consensus.

Also, it can only happen if you try to prove that the nazis were actually socialists, thus ignoring every other fact of claim that paints a larger and more complex picture of national socialism. This should normally constitute a red-flag for the rare sort of once-in-a-generation genius that you obviously are.

Now, I would agree with his definition of socialism as the group control of the means of production and that the equalitarian-leaning definition, as proposed by marxism, isn't quite the most fitting one.

[Asker]

But the nature of nazism raises the question: were the nazis effectively a group, collectively in charge of taking economical and political decisions? Or were they more of a de facto "group" whose sole purpose was to carry out the vision of a single individual named Hitler?

After all, as Hess famously said: "The party is Hitler! Hitler is Germany, just as Germany is Hitler!". It pretty sums up the obvious control of an individual over a group dedicated to him and not so much the control of a group over the economy and the government. I mean, yes, it's obvious that the nazis as a group controlled the government and the economy, but that same group was submitted to Hitler's absolute control. What is the significance and the actual power of that group as a group, then? Is the notion of a group even relevant, here?

... and knowing the well-documented sycophancy of Hitler's inner circle; the total dedication of high-ranking nazis (Himmler, Goebbels, Hess, Goering, Bormann, etc.) to please the führer in every way possible –above everything else, for their own individual gain– and the insignificance of their individual judgment and will in the face of a man who demanded total dedication and absolute loyalty, it is more than reasonable to conclude that Hitler's control over nazi germany was the only thing that was truly consequential in the administration of the country's affairs, during the whole time the nazis were in power.

[Asker]

But the argument of "nazis as socialists" rose in recent years in the inherently biased discourse of "alternative reality" or "alternative facts", rejecting traditional academia and their premises, the complexity of their research –without proof– for being supposedly corrupted by cultural marxism, as stated by this guy in the very beginning of his video (and all along). That's bullshit for right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Potential proof of the "nazis as socialists" is the holy grail of the right's argument against the left. Imagine that: being able to prove that both the communist regime of the USSR and the Nazis stemmed from left-wing ideology. The two most famous, murderous, totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, caused by left-wing ideologies! How great would that be?

It comes mainly from republicans, conservatives, libertarian and other right-wing activists. It's an attempt to rewrite history in their favor, using mainly cherry picking and ad hominem tactics. It doesn't present a thorough analysis of what were –or were not– the driving forces behind nazism. It presents only a thorough analysis of the evidence of socialism within the movement, which is definitely far-right, conservative and totalitarian.

[Asker]

And you could argue, pretty easily, that the state-controlled economy in nazi germany (which is only part of what the whole economy was made of) is merely a symptom, or a consequence of Hitler's grasp on all of the country's policies –his will– which is in itself, is more of the dictatorship of the supreme individual than dictatorship of a group. Let's face it: libertarianism-inspired right-wing thought suggests that true liberty is having as little restrictions and as little governement as possible, preventing you from doing pretty much what you want, as an individual. Sooner or later, however, uninhibited individual liberties become rapidly restricted by another's uninhibited individual liberty. Someone who is stronger, more resourceful, more clever, more likeable, etc. Unnoposed, the absolute individualist manages to rule over all. That's pretty much what happened in nazi germany. Was nazism debated and build collectively by a group, all providing their own ideas? Or was it the will and the vision of Hitler, ruling above all?

That's why the conclusion does not change: hitler and the nazis weren't socialists or, at least, by any definition, it isn't what they were all about.

And you're still a stupid idiot who hasn't proved anything.

... and plagiarism is presenting someone else's research as your own, without citing any source, just like you did with your first comment, before finally revealing that your idiot reasoning mostly comes from TIK's vids.

Coming up with another person's article and citing the source at the end isn't plagiarism, or "plagiarizer", in your own words.

[BeMuse]

So the premise of your entire counter argument is “The party is Hitler! Hitler is Germany, just as Germany is Hitler!” I clearly quoted Hitler who claimed to be a socialist. Go watch the next video to learn his history as a communist before altering his views from being a Globalist to becoming a Nationalist. You’ve made a pretty weak argument.

[BeMuse]

It doesn’t take a genius to know what socialism is. You just can’t be a socialist to understand it. You’re all fucking idiots that deny every other socialist is a socialist in your little twisted civil war for control.

[BeMuse]

It’s the same today where you have ANTIFA claiming ANTIFA is an idea and no one is ANTIFA.

[BeMuse]

Marx thought that foundation of man’s social nature was the division of labor. He also believed it was the source of their separation. All you had to do was kill the rich to eliminate class differences.

Hitler thought the foundation of man’s social nature was his race. He also believed it was the source of their separation. All you had to do was kill the other races to eliminate the race differences.

[BeMuse]

You’re so deluded that you think because Hitler had a different priority in selection of social stratification that he wasn’t a socialist. Face it’s you’re a Nazi, but just like New Coke is to Coke, you’re New Nazi.

[Asker]

Yes, of course, I'm... and what a counter argument you've made, yourself.

About Hess' quote, that's oversimplifying my argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. i. e. the strawman fallacy. I don't think you understood my argument at all. Have you even read it? Are you even able to come up with your own counter arguments, citing a variety of sources, instead of putting all your faith in what TIK says in his videos? Are you impressed by his beautiful and colorful intellectual fireworks, much like an intellectual toddler would?

As for the young communist Hitler... ultimately, what a crock of shit. In his book, Becoming Hitler: The making of a Nazi, Thomas Weber Oxford argues that it is very well possible that hitler –at the time of Eisner funeral (early months of 1919) – was essentially an "opportunist with mild left-leaning sympathies".

It is not exactly surprising that Hitler, like every other politician, in his or her early stages, didn't yet have a clear worldview and that he may not have cared all that much for politics until he was forced to by outrageous events (in his view) like the signature of the treaty of Versailles

[Asker]

The Treaty of Versailles and its harsh provisions weren't made public until the summer of 1919. As Weber points out, it's really what was in that treaty that angered and radicalized Hitler and many other germans in the following years. Add on top of that the war fought at a great costs that results in a humiliating defeat for germany, the socialist revolution of 1919, the dolchstoßlegende, which uses not only the jews, but the communists and the left in general as scapegoats for the defeat of Germany in WW1 and you've pretty much eliminated all possibilities of Hitler ever having respect for the left and left-leaning sentiments thereafter.

As far as I know, that picture of has never been proven to be one that actually shows Hitler. It has been suggested so, but I can't find any sources that confirms his presence at Eisner's funeral. But even if it was Hitler in that picture, it still doesn't prove anything about his political allegiances of the day. Is he just a bystander, watching the procession for some reason, or he is actually part of what's taking place? In other words, it's not because he is there that he supports Eisner's views.

[Asker]

So the answer to both of those questions: "is this Hitler?" and "is Hitler a participant in Eisner procession or a bystander?" cannot be clarified with certainty.

But even then, provided that's actually him and the photo actually shows him mourning Eisner, that still doesn't mean anything. Like Weber points out, the war was over and germany had lost, at that point... but, what exactly all of this meant for germany's future wasn't known yet. Hitler was, in early 1919, a veteran soldier who was searching for a new vocation and a new purpose in life, after 4 years of extremely brutal warfare that led absolutely nowhere.

All politicians, and persons, evolve and react to meaningful, life-altering events. Where you always a convinced turd of a right-wing pseudo-intellectual? Even TIK claims that he initially a leftist and a socialist.

What would it mean, in the present debate, if Hitler was proven to have been a communist or a socialist in 1919? Absolutely nothing.

I've heard enough of your idiotic, clumsy and far-fetched associations between the nazis and antifa or BLM. That's conspiracy theories, not actual debate. You're living in a parallel world that has no basis in reality.

Quit wasting my time with your dumb, easily dismissable, QAnon and alt-right-grade ramblings, fucking moron. Get some actual education if you want to be taken seriously.

[BeMuse]

You tried to simple Nazi beliefs down to Hitler. Then you got made when I pointed out how Hitler was a socialist. Nice projection though commie.

[BeMuse]

*mad

[BeMuse]

Your entire point of view is based on regurgitating Marxist books on the subject. Obviously Marxists propaganda will avoid calling him a socialist because it exposes them for the monsters they are.

[Asker]

Your entire point of view is based on calling "marxist" everything that says the nazis weren't socialists. That's not actual debate: that's you proving beyond reasonable doubt that you can't be taken seriously.

It's a waste of time and effort to try to prove to raëlians that Raël is full of shit; prove to a branch davidian that David Koresh was a pedophile; or to a scientologist that their detoxication program is a fraud.

It's up to you, and the idiots like you, to prove, using standard scholarly methodology, that the nazis were in fact socialists. Your TIK history videos do not provide credible evidence and are based on dubious premises, fueled by dishonest motivations, all at the while posing as legitimate research. And you, @BeMuse definitely did not prove anything except that you're an uneducated, gullible idiot who's convinced that everyone else is a gullible, uneducated idiot.

So, in the end, whatever point you've think you've made here doesn't matter. You didn't make for a convincing case at all, even though I am 100% sure that you're convinced you did.

Hundreds, thousands, ten of thousands of historians and other specialists, much more knowledgeable than I (and certainly you), could prove you and TIK wrong very easily. The reason why they do not waste their time is because the assertion that the nazis were socialists is so obviously stupid ans biased that they don't want to give the idea any credibility by debating it. However, I think it's time that they address the issue, seeing that idiots actually do believe it and treat it as fact.

[Asker]

So think whatever you want, I replied to your idiocies only to make anyone else who's reading this whole conversation, at the very least, aware of the general consensus.

[BeMuse]

Wrong. I have evaluated both Marxist positions, Nazi positions, Classical Liberal positions, Conservative positions, etc. after reading dozens of books and academic papers on the subject. I started the conversation with my own ideas and evaluation of history from my perspective. I've used Marxist ideas to set up my position from the get go. If you've ever read the writings of Marx you would recognize that I paraphrased some of his positions on socialization of man then I made a comparison to Hitlers positions. That's your problem, you've never even studied Marx, yet you religiously subscribe to his ideas because you think it will get you "free healthcare". I also directly quoted Hitler from his own writings and speeches. You started the conversation by plagiarizing a snopes. com article because you have no position of your own, only religious dogma. Rather than addressing the initial points individually with your own perspective, you defaulted to a text wall of "fact checker" Marxist propaganda narrative shifting. You didn't even think about what I said nor did you confront it and provide a challenging position, you just smeared an unrelated text wall on the page like a fucking well trained Muppet.

[BeMuse]

Rather than confront my ideas which are based on historic evidence, and counter them with conflicting evidence you claimed I was cherry picking ideas because I didn't write a novel on the subject on a character limited forum post. In response I supplied several videos from a historian that covers many points I would would personally cover in a longer conversation even though I am not 100% in agreement with him and I might interpret some ideas in a slightly different manner. I figured a former Marxist Socialist that realized the errors in his thinking as he learned more across a broader range of economic and historical education would have a good chance at broadening your perspective especially since he sourced all of his information. Obviously you do not even have a perspective to begin with, you just run to snopes for them to tell you what to think and just spam copy pasta on forums. So any fruitful conversation with someone as dumb as you is not even posible.

[BeMuse]

*possible

[EndGame55]

Hmph. Well I understand that you and so many other people actually believe that this country is a democracy. I know it sounds great. But if you really think about it. Is it? In truth a democracy is mob rule. How much power do you as a voter really have? How often do you vote on matters afflicting our nation? How often do our elected officials ask us how they should cast votes for us?
Unfortunately it sounds good because we "choose" who represents us. But what about when they aren't doing things in your best interest?
When kids say the pledge of allegiance ( if they still do) is it "and to the democracy for which it stands or and to the republic for which it stands" ?
Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and bill of rights. Were all written with the best intentions. Yet they knew the unfortunate truth. There is no form of gov. Or leadership that will not become corrupt by greed and power eventually. This is why 2a "shall not be infringed."

[purplepoppy]

The nazis weren't only opposed to communism they of course promoted the idea of a white master race. It wasn't just Jews they wanted to exterminate either, coloureds, gays, disabled were all sent to the gas chambers. That sounds far closer to modern right wing ideology than left.
But then again the right had long claimed the concentration camps were fake news.

[RiseofArtemis]

Once you look into the 25 talking points of the NSDAP you will pretty much see that that party is in fact a socialist party.

Left wing extremism is in fact extreme socialism. Stalin and Hitler did pretty much the same crimes but why is one a left wing and the other a right wing then.

People who claim Hitler is a right wing extremist just try to deflect it. What you need to look at is what did his party do for the people of Germany in terms of political promises.

If his party did the same as the socialists today then Hitler is pretty much as left wing socialist and the LGBTQ people are using the exact same methods of propaganda and manipulation the Nazis used once they had the power.

[jshm2]

Americans don't tend to know much about socialism or communism or irony.

Come to think of it, Americans tend to know jack shit about anything outside their small minded and insular purview. They literally are a people raised in an intellectual barn

[goaded]

Of course. There's not a single contemporaneous account that calls them left-wing. I have to ask, though, why did you go anonymous to ask this?

[Asker]

I'm @Danzigdawson. I just don't find it necessary to ask questions non-anonymously. Everyone is anonymous here anyway. Is your real name Goaded? Of course not.

If you reveal who you are, haters will go in argumentum ad hominem mode.
If you don't, they'll do just the same, arguing that your opinion is not valid because you're "chickenshit".

[OddBeMe]

It was actually a strategy to create a right wing version of socialism. But yes, Hitler lied his ass off to socialists, saying he hates capitalism, then to capitalists saying he hates socialists. Its easier to just to read the facts: he was a dictator.

Right wing socialism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus

[Asker]

It's pretty clear that Hitler never had any real intention of giving much (if any) space to any kind of socialism, with himself as leader of the party. We can also see, by reading about Oswald Spengler, that he wasn't exactly enthused with Hitler's anti-semitism and nazism as a whole... and the nazis weren't particularly comfortable with Spengler's quiet dissent either.

It just shows that the driving ideologies behind nazism were social darwinism; anti-semitism; social conservatism; militarism; anti-communism; white supremacy.

All features of the kind of far-right, fascist dictatorship nazi germany constituted.

[OddBeMe]

Absolutely agreed. But I think as an economic historian we can view Hitler’s liberal spending that quite literally turned around Germany’s economy. Whether massive govt spending is “socialism” doesn't really matter, but looking at what works during a massive depression does.

[Anonymous]

They use symbols of nazism and the name nazi because it is incitive to older generations. Unfortunately their blanket use of this symbolism for everything they do not like means it ceases to mean anything at all. It becomes simple name calling. Feelings versus fact.
Ww2 was a long time ago. People feel safe. They are already divorced from the true horror of what happened at that time.

[EnglishEuropean]

Well the Nazis were fascists so the argument is a non-starter.

[Asker]

It's just that idiots, ready to do just about anything to demonize liberalism, love to force a link between the nazis and socialism. That link is, of course, almost non-existent from the beginning of the party, and totally inexistant from 1934 onwards.

It's in the name of the party so they must be socialists, right? That's how stupid some people on the right wing of the political spectrum are, in the United States.

[EnglishEuropean]

That's just it. Facts don't matter to those people.

[Sandeeppingping]

Damn I'm starting to like hitler after hearing this

[Asker]

Of course you are.

[FunkyMonkee]

What do you think "nazi" means? It's a shortened version of "national socialist"! If it quacks and walks like a duck!!!

[blissinanarchy1]

It highly disappoints me when intelligent people post anonymously. DM me so I can follow you.

[MrTaboo]

If you'd learn German history in the 30's they started out socialist. They moved into Marxism when they started the war.

[KrakenAttackin]

Just suck it up buttercup, The National Socialist Workers Party (NAZI party) wasn't a right wing group.

You and your kind are much closer to NAZI's than conservatives, just own it sparky.

[Asker]

They weren't. Deal with it.
It's not an opinion: it's fact.

[Asker]

Weren't socialists, that is.

[Anonymous]

They were socialists.

It ain’t like socialists are somehow morally better people than capitalists and aren’t capable of committing atrocities—though I know you’d like to believe otherwise.

[Asker]

They weren't. It's an historical fact.

[DCooper]

What part of National Socialism do some of these retards think is not socialism? Lol

[Asker]

The better question is: what part of national socialism is actually socialism?
Answer: Only the word "socialist" in the name of the party.

Read the article, moron.

[DCooper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOxY_nHdew

[Asker]

If you're able to imagine that somehow, you've had some sort of 'victory' here; I have no trouble believing that you also can have vivid dreams about the nazis being socialists.

[Asker]

Also, that video is kind of overkill. It doesn't really fit well in the present context. You may want to check your feelings...

[Andres77]

Still tyranny

[landingout2]

was it even real

[Anonymous]

No, I'm not tired of it.