4 ms·

I can’t downvote. I’m also being downvoted and definitely don’t think people’s goals are to ‘rewrite history’ here. But also the list you mentioned is just that

by scrose 6y ago

I can’t downvote. I’m also being downvoted and definitely don’t think people’s goals are to ‘rewrite history’ here. But also the list you mentioned is just that. A list. Behind every bullet point there’s a grimmer meaning, if a meaning at all outside of gaining more support from the socialist groups who had more political sway at the time. No sane person would place Nazi ‘state education’ in the same class as a modern day public school for example. I personally think it’s just a bit odd that you’re using a propagandist list by the Nazis on its own as proof that they were socialists. The Nazi playbook is so much deeper than that. The books I recommended earlier quite literally only scratch the surface around the tricks the Nazi's played to consolidate power by all means necessary.

leereeves 6y ago
I would argue that there was a grimmer meaning behind similar promises from every socialist leader, except those where there was no meaning at all other than cynical pursuit of power (like Stalin). Despite that, the Nazis did gain support from many socialists, and ultimately, like so many other governments that rose to power with socialist promises, failed to live up to those promises. But I don't think Hitler himself was a socialist, and I agree that Hitler was using the socialists just as he used everyone else who supported him. I just think people should acknowledge the role that socialists played in helping him rise to power.
- scrose 6y ago
  > I just think people should acknowledge the role that socialists played in helping him rise to power. I think practically everyone, including myself agrees with that. And I pointed that out in my original posts. Power doesn't occur in a vacuum and the Nazi's capitalized on peoples (mostly unfounded) fears and anger to grow their base. My original point was that the Nazi's themselves were not socialists. Referencing a name they came up with and their published propaganda was not a convincing argument to say otherwise.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    Hitler wasn't the only Nazi. Some socialists, like Gregor Strasser, weren't merely supporters, they were full members and even leaders of the Nazi party. Their brand of Nazism survives to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism So I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were.
    - scrose 6y ago
      > Hitler wasn't the only Nazi. I never said that. > I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were. I never claimed that none of them were. Making it sound as if I and others are talking in absolutes and manufacturing talking points around that is a waste of everyones time.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        > Making it sound as if I and others are talking in absolutes and manufacturing talking points around that is a waste of everyones time. I joined this discussion because you said "The Nazis were socialist only in name." Only. That sounds fairly absolute to me.
        scrose 6y ago
        Do you not see the irony in the fact that you had to grab a tiny snippet of a response several posts prior to 'prove' your counterpoint to a criticism made towards you in regards to practically every response you've had in this thread thus far? I'm going to give this thread a break since it seems as though you're simply looking for arguments where none exist.
        leereeves 6y ago
        That was your first statement in this discussion, and I consider it the central claim I'm arguing against. But if you don't consider it an important claim, then let's move on. I'm satisfied that I've shown a fair amount of evidence that it's untrue.

by scrose 6y ago

leereeves 6y ago

I would argue that there was a grimmer meaning behind similar promises from every socialist leader, except those where there was no meaning at all other than cynical pursuit of power (like Stalin). Despite that, the Nazis did gain support from many socialists, and ultimately, like so many other governments that rose to power with socialist promises, failed to live up to those promises. But I don't think Hitler himself was a socialist, and I agree that Hitler was using the socialists just as he used everyone else who supported him. I just think people should acknowledge the role that socialists played in helping him rise to power.

scrose 6y ago
> I just think people should acknowledge the role that socialists played in helping him rise to power. I think practically everyone, including myself agrees with that. And I pointed that out in my original posts. Power doesn't occur in a vacuum and the Nazi's capitalized on peoples (mostly unfounded) fears and anger to grow their base. My original point was that the Nazi's themselves were not socialists. Referencing a name they came up with and their published propaganda was not a convincing argument to say otherwise.
- leereeves 6y ago
  Hitler wasn't the only Nazi. Some socialists, like Gregor Strasser, weren't merely supporters, they were full members and even leaders of the Nazi party. Their brand of Nazism survives to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism So I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were.
  - scrose 6y ago
    > Hitler wasn't the only Nazi. I never said that. > I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were. I never claimed that none of them were. Making it sound as if I and others are talking in absolutes and manufacturing talking points around that is a waste of everyones time.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      > Making it sound as if I and others are talking in absolutes and manufacturing talking points around that is a waste of everyones time. I joined this discussion because you said "The Nazis were socialist only in name." Only. That sounds fairly absolute to me.
      - scrose 6y ago
        Do you not see the irony in the fact that you had to grab a tiny snippet of a response several posts prior to 'prove' your counterpoint to a criticism made towards you in regards to practically every response you've had in this thread thus far? I'm going to give this thread a break since it seems as though you're simply looking for arguments where none exist.
        leereeves 6y ago
        That was your first statement in this discussion, and I consider it the central claim I'm arguing against. But if you don't consider it an important claim, then let's move on. I'm satisfied that I've shown a fair amount of evidence that it's untrue.