6 ms·

> will just think how intellectual you are … I'm wondering what sort of annotations to an inane, hateful, book of ramblings can spur intellectual stimulation.

• adventured 10y ago
  Hitler was one of the foremost intellectuals and proponents in the early 20th century Socialist movement that saw its deadly influence spread globally. His various writings and remarks on Socialism rank among the most widely read in history. His generation of Socialist leaders were the first to put actual Socialism into action politically, along with Lenin and Mussolini. It's not a very interesting book, unless you're interested in the history of Socialism (and as a Capitalist, I am).
  • jwdunne 10y ago
    No. This is incorrect. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists. Hitler even downplayed the leftwing aspects of fascism and promoted private enterprise as long it worked towards national interests - such as killing Jews (or "creating the master race") and waging war (or "creating living space for said master race"). Communists and socialists were heavily persecuted during the holocaust. In fact, they were the first to be pursued by the state. Another thing: those in the Nazi ranks who actually wanted socialism were purged. It's called Night of the Long Knives and it's a pivot moment in the history of Nazi Germany. It may be confusing because of the whole National Socialism thing. It could be argued that actually that was purely to strike a chord with the type of dissatisified folks who would die for the movement, such as the lower classes that made up the SA.
    • reitanqild 10y ago
      I think we should differ between using capatalists when it suited him and being a capitalist. I'd say number of things links links him to the socialist side, -only he was a national socialist.
      • jwdunne 10y ago
        That's fine because that's what he did. If, however, you want to argue in that direction, links to socialism and the party's name containing the word socialism is different from actually being a socialist and implementing socialism. Its generally accepted that Nazism is a form of fascism. It's ludicrous to say that fascism is socialism and that Hitler was a socialist. There might be arguments that stem from the the genealogy of fascism through national syndicalism. I guess that's like saying my grandfather was x, therefore I am definitely x.
        • reitanqild 10y ago
          More practically speaking though nazis had a strong focus on what was better for society (in their own misguided and awful way) rather than on individul liberty or free markets. This is why I feel it isn't too far off to say they were socialists. Of course, in historic political theory you seem to run circles around me though :-]
          • fucking_tragedy 10y ago
            That isn't socialism nor what socialism purports to be. Socialism at it's core can be distilled down to how labor relates to its means of production. That's it. If workers themselves own and manage the facilities and materials necessary for employment, that is socialism. Individual liberty and free markets are not contradicted by the tenets of socialism. It can and has been argued that individual liberties can be strengthened through such a system. Market economies are what much of socialist thought revolves around. Again, socialism is defined by how labor relates to the means of production and that is it. Neither of the two are required for a functioning capitalist economy. Freedom of speech, religion, movement and association aren't guarantees and is down right outlawed in much of the world that's implemented a capitalist system. You'd be hard pressed to find a single truly "free market" in practice at any point in time. Yours seems like a judgment stemming from an ideology rather than one coming from a historic perspective. You aren't doing yourself any favors intellectually if you want to continue claiming Nazism is a socialist ideology. It is hard to have a historic discussion with someone whose arguments are based on a feeling rather than documented history and accepted definitions.
  • fucking_tragedy 10y ago
    Reminder that they purged the Socialists, Communists and Trade Unionists outside and within the Nazi party. "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—" "Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— " Anyone holding what could be close to a socialist thought was killed. Reminder not to let your ideology cloud your judgment. It might help to read a history book in an effort to be knowledgable about the past and not just to confirm you worldview, especially if you're making mistakes like this about history.
  • capote 10y ago
    I'd also like to add that I am in fact interested in the history of Socialism, among other things taking off in this time period, and the book itself is still not in the slightest bit interesting to me. An explanation of why it's interesting to you specifically would've been nice. That's all I was asking for with my post.
• jwdunne 10y ago
  Hitler and the Nazis progressively removed an entire nation's liberties through a democratic system through propaganda and other methods. They then led their nation and the world into the most devastating war the world has ever seen. Simultaneously, they also had their nation work to exterminate entire groups of people from Europe (and ultimately the world if they had their way) - shockingly, they made significant progress. There's a number of things about that which could pique at least some curiosity. Psychology, sociology, economics, politics, etc. The curiosities are no less because Hitler was stark mad, which I agree with, and because the regime was abhorrent, which I also agree with.
  • capote 10y ago
    Not much about Hitler is news to me, from any of these responses. I'm not discussing Hitler and what we can learn from him, however. I'm talking about the book, for which my point stands. It's very poorly written, full of hatred, and appeared of little intellectual use to me from the passages I've read. It's total garbage. Maybe you and all my downvoters can actually answer my question, which still stands and is reasonable: what kind of discussion do the annotations present? I'm only curious.
    • elorant 10y ago
      The annotations could give historical context and try to debunk his arguments. A lot of Hitler's arguments are based on exuberant lies. For example, in the English translation I tried to read once upon a time the translator mentions that the first half of the book was written while Hitler was imprisoned in a fortress. To some extend I guess that would justify his anger. That, and the fact that his was a fucking psychopath.