3 ms·

Do you really need an explanation, how Hitler had nothing to with socialism, or are you just spewing far right talking points without regard for fact or reason?

python_gt_r3 7y ago
There are some parallels between Hitler and socialism. Hatred for jews, hatred for capitalism, both end in catastrophe.
- mercurysmessage 7y ago
  Hitler was a capitalist, as was nazi germany.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    If you have researched the topic more, you would've found a that NSDAP was no stranger to nationalisations, and did that with, reportedly, huge popular support.
- jordanbeiber 7y ago
  Socialism is not the opposite of capitalism. Maybe you’re thinking of a socialist planned economy? The idea in for example a social democracy is that capitalism thoroughly embraced, but curbed through often reasonable regulation. Edit - Love the down vote when trying to infuse some nuance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism Let me add a personal thought: I believe anyone claiming to carry some form of socialist agenda would agree that accountability to the people is #1. In a totalitarian regime, as well as in a completely unregulated market economy this is no longer true for entities of power. A reasonable balance is to be strived for, IMHO.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Social democracy isn't really socialist, it's just capitalism with some social concerns. Socialism is at its core the social ownership of the means of production; that's pretty incompatible with the private ownership of the means of production, which underpins capitalism.
    - 0815test 7y ago
      This is a rewriting of history. Social democracy used to be really big on nationalizing whole industry sectors, to the point of being little different even from self-described "democratic socialists". This changed starting from the 1980s as it became clear that nationalized enterprises are almost always severely dysfunctional. Today, social democracy mostly agrees with social liberals and neoliberals that nationalization should be used very rarely and sparingly - mostly wrt. inherently-monopolistic "platform"-like businesses such as railways, power grids or telco infrastructure. And even then, these "platforms" should be open for multiple private competitors to operate on, as opposed to providing monopolistic services of their own via vertical integration.
    - jordanbeiber 7y ago
      This is really oversimplifying things, in my opinion. “Some social concerns” is really brushing over a lot of the things that make social democracy a form of socialism. You’re missing for example that in a social democracy it’s common for private companies affiliated with what you could call “public service” to be in part owned by the state. These companies most often used to be wholly state owned, but through the market liberal agenda many things have been sold out. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. A lot of what is considered welfare is also not necessarily privatized. I could go on, but instead I suggest diving down in the topic through the supplied wikipedia link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism Here you’ll find social democracy, liberal socialism and democratic socialism described in detail - all part of the value spectrum of socialism. Also, getting flagged for this opinion seems a bit over the top...
tannhaeuser 7y ago
What? My comment was meant as a warning to not fall for far-right, or any other extremist position, not as advertising for far-right positions of all things.
- genera1 7y ago
  Well, it might've been a honest mistake of someone who believes in horseshoe fallacy, but calling Nazis and Hitler socialist or left-wingers is a very common far right tactic, designed to muddy the waters and distance themselves from a very problematic person, so that's why I was confused about the point you were making.
  - turk73 7y ago
    Please explain this to me: What was the main difference between Hitler and Stalin? Far right, far left, seems to me it doesn't matter at all when you're talking about mass killings. The US went pretty far left during the 1940s. Allied with Stalin. What is unsaid in the history books is how vile that all looked, a true deal with the devil, and it's not as though Stalin was the "lesser of two evils." He was actually worse! I have read many books and watched many documentaries and I still can't get my head around how quickly and easily the US fell into "war socialism" and how repugnant that was--rationing, people getting arrested for hoarding food or gasoline. And all tied up with a nice propagandist bow called "the war effort." See, I think left/right is a false dichotomy. There are actually just those who cherish individual freedom and those who do not. Right now, everywhere, the world is run by those who do not. That means it is only a matter of time and pressure until we see more mass killing. Because, overall, statism is anti-human. It's like an artificial intelligence that relies on humans to act. Those who say that Satan rules the world aren't entirely wrong.
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    Retoric aside, Hitler qnd NAZIs in general were democratically (mostly) elected, self branded socialists. To obscure the facts from either side of the issue is contemptable.
jordanbeiber 7y ago
I believe he/she is referring to the fact that the nazi party rose to power by _claiming_ to be the new socialist worker party.

python_gt_r3 7y ago

There are some parallels between Hitler and socialism. Hatred for jews, hatred for capitalism, both end in catastrophe.

mercurysmessage 7y ago
Hitler was a capitalist, as was nazi germany.
- baybal2 7y ago
  If you have researched the topic more, you would've found a that NSDAP was no stranger to nationalisations, and did that with, reportedly, huge popular support.
jordanbeiber 7y ago
Socialism is not the opposite of capitalism. Maybe you’re thinking of a socialist planned economy? The idea in for example a social democracy is that capitalism thoroughly embraced, but curbed through often reasonable regulation. Edit - Love the down vote when trying to infuse some nuance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism Let me add a personal thought: I believe anyone claiming to carry some form of socialist agenda would agree that accountability to the people is #1. In a totalitarian regime, as well as in a completely unregulated market economy this is no longer true for entities of power. A reasonable balance is to be strived for, IMHO.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Social democracy isn't really socialist, it's just capitalism with some social concerns. Socialism is at its core the social ownership of the means of production; that's pretty incompatible with the private ownership of the means of production, which underpins capitalism.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    This is a rewriting of history. Social democracy used to be really big on nationalizing whole industry sectors, to the point of being little different even from self-described "democratic socialists". This changed starting from the 1980s as it became clear that nationalized enterprises are almost always severely dysfunctional. Today, social democracy mostly agrees with social liberals and neoliberals that nationalization should be used very rarely and sparingly - mostly wrt. inherently-monopolistic "platform"-like businesses such as railways, power grids or telco infrastructure. And even then, these "platforms" should be open for multiple private competitors to operate on, as opposed to providing monopolistic services of their own via vertical integration.
  - jordanbeiber 7y ago
    This is really oversimplifying things, in my opinion. “Some social concerns” is really brushing over a lot of the things that make social democracy a form of socialism. You’re missing for example that in a social democracy it’s common for private companies affiliated with what you could call “public service” to be in part owned by the state. These companies most often used to be wholly state owned, but through the market liberal agenda many things have been sold out. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. A lot of what is considered welfare is also not necessarily privatized. I could go on, but instead I suggest diving down in the topic through the supplied wikipedia link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism Here you’ll find social democracy, liberal socialism and democratic socialism described in detail - all part of the value spectrum of socialism. Also, getting flagged for this opinion seems a bit over the top...

tannhaeuser 7y ago

What? My comment was meant as a warning to not fall for far-right, or any other extremist position, not as advertising for far-right positions of all things.

genera1 7y ago
Well, it might've been a honest mistake of someone who believes in horseshoe fallacy, but calling Nazis and Hitler socialist or left-wingers is a very common far right tactic, designed to muddy the waters and distance themselves from a very problematic person, so that's why I was confused about the point you were making.
- turk73 7y ago
  Please explain this to me: What was the main difference between Hitler and Stalin? Far right, far left, seems to me it doesn't matter at all when you're talking about mass killings. The US went pretty far left during the 1940s. Allied with Stalin. What is unsaid in the history books is how vile that all looked, a true deal with the devil, and it's not as though Stalin was the "lesser of two evils." He was actually worse! I have read many books and watched many documentaries and I still can't get my head around how quickly and easily the US fell into "war socialism" and how repugnant that was--rationing, people getting arrested for hoarding food or gasoline. And all tied up with a nice propagandist bow called "the war effort." See, I think left/right is a false dichotomy. There are actually just those who cherish individual freedom and those who do not. Right now, everywhere, the world is run by those who do not. That means it is only a matter of time and pressure until we see more mass killing. Because, overall, statism is anti-human. It's like an artificial intelligence that relies on humans to act. Those who say that Satan rules the world aren't entirely wrong.
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  Retoric aside, Hitler qnd NAZIs in general were democratically (mostly) elected, self branded socialists. To obscure the facts from either side of the issue is contemptable.

jordanbeiber 7y ago

I believe he/she is referring to the fact that the nazi party rose to power by _claiming_ to be the new socialist worker party.