3 ms·

Nazis were not socialists, that was optics. The Nazi party actually got into power in a reaction to an attack that was blamed on communists (burning of the reic

by orclev 9y ago

Nazis were not socialists, that was optics. The Nazi party actually got into power in a reaction to an attack that was blamed on communists (burning of the reichstag). Whether it was actually communists, or a false flag by the Nazis to seize power is an ongoing debate without enough evidence either way. What is a matter of record is that the very first thing the Nazis did after seizing power was to round up all the communists, and communist sympathizers (or political rivals they could accuse of being communist sympathizers) and arrest them.

Consultant32452 9y ago
Communists were globalist socialists and the Nazis were nationalist socialists. Hitler went after the communists because he felt they wanted to subjugate Germans under an international Jewish global finance regime (1%ers again).
- gertef 9y ago
  And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a "Democratic" "Republic". Don't believe everything everyone says about themselves.
  - passwordreset 9y ago
    Hmmm. I wonder what that means for the "United" States.
    - orclev 9y ago
      Well, vaguely revisionist history aside, that was at least part of what the civil war was over. The southern states were upset that the constitution in the case of slavery could override their state powers and ban slavery. The confederate states wanted to rewrite the constitution to strip the federal government of essentially all powers except the power to wage war and the regulation of interstate commerce, essentially blocking it from having any impact on the activities wholly within a state. The Union states of course wanted to keep the constitution as it was (or even strengthen it), that is giving the federal government veto power over states and the ability to enforce human rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus in one sense the civil war was a fight over a weak vs. strong federal government. When making that argument though it's important not to downplay the importance of slavery as a motivating factor for the confederate states. Many revisionist white supremacists try to make that argument as a way of whitewashing the confederate states actions and trying to re-frame the confederate states motivations as being non-racist, when they were anything but.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Nazis, arguably, were nationalist socialists in something more meaningful than just the party name—before Hitler took over and redirected the party. Afterwards, they were even more clearly nationalist, but not at all socialist.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Hitler was just a hair to the right of Stalin. Sure, the nazis did some union busting but that's only because they viewed the unions as stealing loyalty from the state. However, the Nazis had the same redistributive ideology of the Communists. Only the communists focused on class while Nazis focused on race. Nazis separated church and state. Germany had universal healthcare and demanded the state be responsible for providing jobs rather than the free market. Today, we'd call this a "jobs program." Nazis were into eugenics. Guess what country just managed to rid itself of 100% of down syndrome babies via abortion? Socialist leaning Iceland. I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist? Among the more obvious things, displaced the focus on levelling social and class heirarchy with imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip, and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income, and maintaining a robust insistence on the importance of private property and private initiative in industry.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        >imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip Communists were globalist socialists, Nazis are nationalist socialist. The imposition of the Führerprinzip was pulling power away from the global political regimes supported by the communists into the German one. It's nearly irrelevant with respect to the socialist bit, it's all about the globalist vs nationalist. >and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income What do you think the killing of all those Jews was about? The Jews were stereotypically the wealthy bankers, the 1%ers in today's parlance. One of the first things Hitler did after taking power was run around killing all the communists. Why? Because he believed that the communists wanted to turn over power to international finance regimes (Jewish 1%ers). Obviously the murdering and the racism bits are the key factors for why we hate the Nazis. But murdering and racism aren't what determines whether something is socialist. This was definitely socialism implemented through the eye of a racist. I'll grant you that Hitler was a hair to the right of Stalin. There was a ghost of private property ownership but the substantive powers of property ownership were held by the government, not by private owners. The government determined what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was distributed, as well as what prices could be charged and what wages would be paid. Does that sound like private property ownership or capitalism or a free market to you? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me.

by orclev 9y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago

Communists were globalist socialists and the Nazis were nationalist socialists. Hitler went after the communists because he felt they wanted to subjugate Germans under an international Jewish global finance regime (1%ers again).

gertef 9y ago
And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a "Democratic" "Republic". Don't believe everything everyone says about themselves.
- passwordreset 9y ago
  Hmmm. I wonder what that means for the "United" States.
  - orclev 9y ago
    Well, vaguely revisionist history aside, that was at least part of what the civil war was over. The southern states were upset that the constitution in the case of slavery could override their state powers and ban slavery. The confederate states wanted to rewrite the constitution to strip the federal government of essentially all powers except the power to wage war and the regulation of interstate commerce, essentially blocking it from having any impact on the activities wholly within a state. The Union states of course wanted to keep the constitution as it was (or even strengthen it), that is giving the federal government veto power over states and the ability to enforce human rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus in one sense the civil war was a fight over a weak vs. strong federal government. When making that argument though it's important not to downplay the importance of slavery as a motivating factor for the confederate states. Many revisionist white supremacists try to make that argument as a way of whitewashing the confederate states actions and trying to re-frame the confederate states motivations as being non-racist, when they were anything but.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Nazis, arguably, were nationalist socialists in something more meaningful than just the party name—before Hitler took over and redirected the party. Afterwards, they were even more clearly nationalist, but not at all socialist.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Hitler was just a hair to the right of Stalin. Sure, the nazis did some union busting but that's only because they viewed the unions as stealing loyalty from the state. However, the Nazis had the same redistributive ideology of the Communists. Only the communists focused on class while Nazis focused on race. Nazis separated church and state. Germany had universal healthcare and demanded the state be responsible for providing jobs rather than the free market. Today, we'd call this a "jobs program." Nazis were into eugenics. Guess what country just managed to rid itself of 100% of down syndrome babies via abortion? Socialist leaning Iceland. I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist? Among the more obvious things, displaced the focus on levelling social and class heirarchy with imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip, and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income, and maintaining a robust insistence on the importance of private property and private initiative in industry.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      >imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip Communists were globalist socialists, Nazis are nationalist socialist. The imposition of the Führerprinzip was pulling power away from the global political regimes supported by the communists into the German one. It's nearly irrelevant with respect to the socialist bit, it's all about the globalist vs nationalist. >and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income What do you think the killing of all those Jews was about? The Jews were stereotypically the wealthy bankers, the 1%ers in today's parlance. One of the first things Hitler did after taking power was run around killing all the communists. Why? Because he believed that the communists wanted to turn over power to international finance regimes (Jewish 1%ers). Obviously the murdering and the racism bits are the key factors for why we hate the Nazis. But murdering and racism aren't what determines whether something is socialist. This was definitely socialism implemented through the eye of a racist. I'll grant you that Hitler was a hair to the right of Stalin. There was a ghost of private property ownership but the substantive powers of property ownership were held by the government, not by private owners. The government determined what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was distributed, as well as what prices could be charged and what wages would be paid. Does that sound like private property ownership or capitalism or a free market to you? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me.