Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Hitler was a Socialist

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 11:36:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hitler was a State Socialist, as well as a Nationalist. This is known as National Socialism.
I just finished up a debate about it;
http://www.debate.org...

Anyone want to discuss this further?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 11:49:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 11:36:37 AM, DanT wrote:
Hitler was a State Socialist, as well as a Nationalist. This is known as National Socialism.
I just finished up a debate about it;
http://www.debate.org...

Anyone want to discuss this further?

Nope, for once you have said something that seems correct.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 11:58:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
state socialism = capitalist socialism, if you're trying to make socialists out to be bad. it's a capitalist-communist dihotomy, an individual survival-collective survival dichotomy, simple as. every other political ideology is some mingling of those two bases. hitler was for an individual state over others, right? and then that's where all the evil came from, right? seems to me the capitalist element was the main destructive driver.
signature
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:17:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
" Fascism is far-left, not far-right. Fascism and communism are pretty much the same."

That's the best vote ever. Not only does it ignore the debate (bearing in mind round 2/3 was referring to this), but it also applies personal opinion. Just awesome.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:18:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nationalism has the same "emotional core" as socialist. It is a desire to live in the communal state that humans lived in prior to modern society (when I say modern, I mean the past few thousand years).

Humans used to live in communal hunter gatherer type societies with about 200 people in each society. This is called Dunbar's Number, people can only hold and keep stable social relationships with about 200 people.

This means that, in small communal societies, people do care enough about each other to work and live together peacefully. However, in societies that are larger than this, people will not work just for the "good of the community".

In the modern world, our economy depends on a massive division of labor. This means we need a global economy to live the way we do. So, going back to the Dunbar communities is not an option if we want to maintain our standard of living.

So, basically, Karl Marx took this "emotional core" and the socialism that worked in these Dunbar communities and turned this into the basis for a global, post racial, and post national type of socialism. According to Marx, you see, people were not divided by race or nationality, but by class.

Hitler did the same thing. Except, Hitler acknowledged that people can only live in this way if they are with people that are the same race and nationality as them. This is why Hitler preached a form of racial and national socialism.

The key difference between Nazism and Marxism is that Nazism sees humans as separated by race and nationality while Marxism sees humans as separated by class.

Marx's idea was to use the state to mold a new "Socialist Man", and then abolish the state. This "Socialist Man" would be happy to work in a global commune, regardless of whether or not he saw any direct rewards. This idea of the "Socialist Man" is why Marx believed in a Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate) nature of man, where man had no innate mental characteristics. A man's intelligence and personality would be entirely the result of the environment he grows up in, and this was why Marx thought a new kind of man who could live and work in a global communal state

This is also why the Soviet Union suppressed science that showed genetic influences on human personality traits, like intelligence and work ethic. The idea that mental traits had significant genetic component, if you will, was the enemy of the ultimate Marxist goal of creating a man beyond race, nationality, and incentives.

Hitler, on the other hand, saw man's nature as having its roots in racial differences (tribalism). Hitler did not see a tabula rasa nature of man. This actually makes Hitler's view of human nature as more correct than Marx's. Hitler, however, did not understand that humans can only live in a communal state in small societies.

Hitler's goal was not to have all the races live together, but to have German's rule the world. He wanted, Germans, however to live together in a sort of racial socialist community.

So, to answer your question, yes Hitler was a socialist, but he was a racial socialist. He was radically different from Marx, but he was a socialist nonetheless.
President of DDO