5 ms·
>And it's certainly reasonable to analogize contemporary attempts to level the 1% with the corollary attempts in Germany in the 1930s. It's not reasonable; it'
by winstonsmith 13y ago
>And it's certainly reasonable to analogize contemporary attempts to level the 1% with the corollary attempts in Germany in the 1930s.
It's not reasonable; it's quite perverse -- you seem to be confusing the Nazis with the opposing parties of the time. The opposing parties were for the elimination of class differences while the Nazis where explicitly for preserving them.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism :
This involved the idea of uniting rich and poor Germans for a common national project without eliminating class differences (a concept known as "Volksgemeinschaft", or "people's community"),
Essentially, the Nazis suppressed class based anger and encouraged homicidal racism and xenophobia. The Nazis were the defenders, not the oppressors, of the wealthy.
- hirundo 13y agoThey simply found an alternative richer class to steal from, so found it convenient to become national socialists instead of communists. It's Willie Sutton's (apocryphal?) logic that he robbed banks because that's were the money is. Though the Jews didn't have all the money, they were the ones most politically convenient to take it from. A bank with fewer guards, so to speak. The rhetoric is far more fluid than the motivation.
- walshemj 13y agoAnd they had decades of background Antisemitism in both Germany and Austria Karl Lueger in Vienna is one earlier example.