Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

National Socialist Party

ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 8:18:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Where the National Socialists still socialists after Hitler became the leader? Some liberals were saying it wasn't.
Do you like Mudkips?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 9:00:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Describe the difference in real terms please (not rhetorical terms).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 9:04:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Keeping in mind that the man who invented fascism also described his economics as guild socialist, at the same time.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 10:27:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Its time like this I wish I knew more about Hitler's economic ideals rather than just his military history.

I do know though that the Minister of Finance under Hitler's rule, Johann Krosigk, was a fiscal conservative (in the European sense) and didn't like Hitler whatsoever. He wasn't a Nazi though, and he wasn't a fan of them either. Doesn't necessarily answer the question, but eh, I only know what I know.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 1:58:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
They consisted of making "shovel-ready projects" like big roads, nationalizing any company that displeased him, an expansion of state credit, protectionism, suspending the gold standard, brought in NHC and unemployment insurance...

Sound familiar?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 2:11:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 1:58:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They consisted of making "shovel-ready projects" like big roads, nationalizing any company that displeased him, an expansion of state credit, protectionism, suspending the gold standard, brought in NHC and unemployment insurance...

Sound familiar?

Ooh, trying to link left-leaning policies to Hitler! Very classy, R_R.

Plus, Hitler never brought in NHC, Bismark did.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 3:42:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hey, one's sources mislead one sometimes. It happens. Especially late at night.

In any case, is continuing a policy in full morally different from starting it?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 4:03:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 8:38:41 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Hitler and his party were Nazi fascists. Most everyone can agree to this.

Fascism =/= socialism.

Economic illiterate.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Would also link a video, but that guy's been flagbotted.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 4:13:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 3:42:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Hey, one's sources mislead one sometimes. It happens. Especially late at night.

In any case, is continuing a policy in full morally different from starting it?

No, but I question whether or not Hitler continued it in its previous capacity, because some things I've remembered tell me that he cut back on support for insurance by the time he amassed enough power and influence with his cabinet and industry leaders. I'll have to look it up at some point when I'm not about to fall asleep.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 8:16:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Socialism: A command economy or thereabouts.
Fascism: What you use to insult opposing ideologies.

(Yes, I stole Ge. Orwell's joke)
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 8:41:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Fascists in Germany came on both sides of the economic spectrum. Some were in favor of the worker (socialism), others were in favor of business (capitalism). This suggests that fascism was more of a social freedom ideology (authoritarian) than an economic one.

There is considerable evidence that 'socialism' in 'National Socialism' is a meaningless phrase. Hitler tried to redefine socialism to mean nationalism. He rejected class conflict (a core tenet of socialism) in favor of ethnic, or nationalist conflict. The classes should unite under nationalist interests, by this view.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 11:11:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 8:18:38 PM, ReganFan wrote:
Where the National Socialists still socialists after Hitler became the leader? Some liberals were saying it wasn't.

To an extent yes. Hitler subsequently purges what is regarded as the party's left wing, however a number of his policies were socialist.
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 11:12:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 1:58:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They consisted of making "shovel-ready projects" like big roads, nationalizing any company that displeased him, an expansion of state credit, protectionism, suspending the gold standard, brought in NHC and unemployment insurance...

Sound familiar?

Some very good policies there.
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.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 11:16:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
National Socialist

National in that they want to preserve culture, like Hitler with his Aryan race.

Socialist in that Hitler took command of the economy.

American terms: If the Reform party and the Socialist party merged.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 11:33:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh my God, this thread is full of historically illiteate people.

There is nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G 'socialist' about Hitler. Hitler hated socialists. He blamed Communists for burning down the Reichstag. Hitler executed Communists en masse, both within Germany and in Eastern Europe/Russia, explicitly because they were Communists.

The word 'socialist' in the Nazi party's name is a misnomer; Hitler was a fascist. There are certainly connections to be drawn between the two economic philosophies, but they are not synonymous. While socialism involves the government allying with workers to improve conditions, fascism involves the government working with landowners and corporations to increase production. Fascism is all about capitalizing on the ideas of socialism (such as its bastardization of 'unions' which are nothing more than government-run syndicates the workers must join) but it still places production above worker's rights.

Socialism is all about allowing people to take control of their country, and basic Marxist thinking usually implies a decentralization of government and an eventual abolition of the state, fascism is the diametric opposite. Fascism says that the government must run every aspect of the society's life. Socialism, on the other hand, does not imply any infringement on civil liberties (though Communism may.)

To call Hitler a socialist because his party used the name and because he advocated a control of the economy is wildly simplistic, disingenuous and flat out wrong.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 12:02:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 11:33:43 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Oh my God, this thread is full of historically illiteate people.

There is nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G 'socialist' about Hitler.

Yes actually there was.

Hitler hated socialists.

Yes he did.

Yes the two contradict, if this is a problem to you then you know nothing about history, politics or Hitler.

The word 'socialist' in the Nazi party's name is a misnomer; Hitler was a fascist.

Actually strictly speaking he was not a fascist, because strictly speaking the term only applies to Mussoloni and Italian fascism.

While socialism involves the government allying with workers to improve conditions,

Which Hitler did.

fascism involves the government working with landowners and corporations to increase production. Fascism is all about capitalizing on the ideas of socialism (such as its bastardization of 'unions' which are nothing more than government-run syndicates the workers must join) but it still places production above worker's rights.

So Hitler was not a Socialist, rather you argue he misapropriated some of its ideas (which makes him a bit socialist) and did exactly what Lenin, Stalin etc did.

Socialism is all about allowing people to take control of their country,

Yes but philosophy, propaganda and result are all different things.
The Roman Republic and the Empire was founded on the principle of the people taking control of their country, how did that work out.

and basic Marxist thinking usually implies a decentralization of government and an eventual abolition of the state, fascism is the diametric opposite. Fascism says that the government must run every aspect of the society's life. Socialism, on the other hand, does not imply any infringement on civil liberties (though Communism may.)


Yes but Marxism and Socialism are not the exact same thing, you can not claim someone is not a Socialist because they are not a Marxist.
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.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 12:08:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Did you know?

Stalin wanted to join the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis and even drew up a proposal which included them. Germans, such as Ribbentrov, supported such a union, but Hitler did not want. This is probably why they lost the war.

Question - Do you think Hitler should have signed this, if both parteis would keep their end of the bargain, and would it of won the war?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 12:47:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 12:08:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Did you know?

Stalin wanted to join the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis and even drew up a proposal which included them. Germans, such as Ribbentrov, supported such a union, but Hitler did not want. This is probably why they lost the war.

Question - Do you think Hitler should have signed this, if both parteis would keep their end of the bargain, and would it of won the war?

I don't think there is much controversy here. I think it is almost certain that such an alliance would have been unbeatable.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 12:48:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There is nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G 'socialist' about Hitler. Hitler hated socialists.
There is nothing, NOTHING gay about Ted Haggard. Ted Haggard hated gays.

Oh wait.

He blamed Communists for burning down the Reichstag. Hitler executed Communists en masse, both within Germany and in Eastern Europe/Russia, explicitly because they were Communists.
The socialists usually whine about interchanging those terms. Except when it's convenient I guess.

While socialism involves the government allying with workers to improve conditions, fascism involves the government working with landowners and corporations to increase production.
The distinction between "workers" and "landowners and corporations" is just a matter of type of labor. It is not a philosophically relevant distinction.

such as its bastardization of 'unions' which are nothing more than government-run syndicates the workers must join
That sounds like-- well, unions, not a bastardization of unions.

Socialism is all about allowing people to take control of their country, and basic Marxist thinking usually implies a decentralization of government and an eventual abolition of the state
Contradiction.

Do you think Hitler should have signed this, if both parteis would keep their end of the bargain, and would it of won the war?
Why would anyone think that Hitler should have won?

If not, why would they think he should do something that helps him win? :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 1:20:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 12:47:51 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/21/2009 12:08:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Did you know?

Stalin wanted to join the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis and even drew up a proposal which included them. Germans, such as Ribbentrov, supported such a union, but Hitler did not want. This is probably why they lost the war.

Question - Do you think Hitler should have signed this, if both parteis would keep their end of the bargain, and would it of won the war?

I don't think there is much controversy here. I think it is almost certain that such an alliance would have been unbeatable.

The problem is Hitler would have fallen out with Anti-Communists eager to destroy Communism, even though he is barely any different from Stalin as per the Political Compass. He had also signed the Anti-Comintern pact, so, it's an interesting thought of the Soviets fighting China and using their Baltic fleet against America and eventually invading Alaska.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 1:50:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 12:08:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Did you know?

Stalin wanted to join the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis and even drew up a proposal which included them. Germans, such as Ribbentrov, supported such a union, but Hitler did not want. This is probably why they lost the war.

Question - Do you think Hitler should have signed this, if both parteis would keep their end of the bargain, and would it of won the war?

Not entirely true. Stalin never really -wanted- to join with Hitler, he just wanted Poland. They initially signed a non-aggression pact that relied on the division of Poland, which Stalin saw as naturally Russian and Hitler saw as strategically vital. Hitler eventually invaded Poland and Stalin joined the Allies.

There was never any real danger of Stalin joining Hitler.

At 10/21/2009 12:48:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is nothing, NOTHING gay about Ted Haggard. Ted Haggard hated gays.

Oh wait.

Sorry, how many million gays did Ted Haggard kill?

The socialists usually whine about interchanging those terms. Except when it's convenient I guess.
Well Hitler used them pretty interchangeably, because he didn't much care what type of Socialists they were.

The distinction between "workers" and "landowners and corporations" is just a matter of type of labor. It is not a philosophically relevant distinction.

Uuh...Yes it is when it defines specific classes. Fascism involves dealing with the employers, socialism involves dealing with the workers.

That sounds like-- well, unions, not a bastardization of unions.

No, because unions fight for workers rights at the expense of the corporation, these syndicates fight for the profits of companies at the expense of the workers. This is, of course, in the socialist v. fascist sense of the terms.

Contradiction.

You know, this would go a lot better if you brought your own points to the table rather than baselessly opposing anything I say.

It is not a contradiction. Marxism implies local governments run by the workers but also an abolition of a central government. Do you know what Marxism is?

At 10/21/2009 12:02:01 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Actually strictly speaking he was not a fascist, because strictly speaking the term only applies to Mussoloni and Italian fascism.

Well that's certainly pretty close to a reasonable assertion. Italy was definitely the purest form of corporate fascism. Using Italy as a benchmark gives a lot more specific guidelines as to what economic fascism is, however, there is a problem with this, and it is true of any other economic idea; if you base your definition for anything on the specific, it will never apply in full to the general. That being said, given the general actions of fascism governments, a fascist economic model can be said to be the state-run economic for the sake of increased production for the good of the government.

Which Hitler did.

Proof please. Proof other than the fact than creating a military-industrial complex makes work for people.

So Hitler was not a Socialist, rather you argue he misapropriated some of its ideas (which makes him a bit socialist) and did exactly what Lenin, Stalin etc did.

No, I didn't say that and you know I didn't say that. I was suggesting that Hitler stole the name and called himself as a pro-worker candidate for the sake of gaining power.

Yes but philosophy, propaganda and result are all different things.
The Roman Republic and the Empire was founded on the principle of the people taking control of their country, how did that work out.

...Right. Now you're just arguing that socialism doesn't work.

Yes but Marxism and Socialism are not the exact same thing, you can not claim someone is not a Socialist because they are not a Marxist.

Ah, very good. However, Marxism is the benchmark for socialism. Any socialist system revolves around working for the workers, with the workers for the good of the workers. Fascism is all about working for more production, with the corporations for the good of the state with no regard to the worker.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 2:13:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 1:50:26 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 10/21/2009 12:08:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Did you know?

Stalin wanted to join the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis and even drew up a proposal which included them. Germans, such as Ribbentrov, supported such a union, but Hitler did not want. This is probably why they lost the war.

Question - Do you think Hitler should have signed this, if both parteis would keep their end of the bargain, and would it of won the war?

Not entirely true. Stalin never really -wanted- to join with Hitler, he just wanted Poland. They initially signed a non-aggression pact that relied on the division of Poland, which Stalin saw as naturally Russian and Hitler saw as strategically vital. Hitler eventually invaded Poland and Stalin joined the Allies.

There was never any real danger of Stalin joining Hitler.


Actually, there was. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Stalins army was largely unprepared for a war. It's officer ranks had been destroyed in the purges, it had lost men in the Winter War, and they were under-equipped and behind on technology. Coupled with the fact they could face a two-front war with Japan and the effectiveness of Germany's army and it's manpower, there was reason for Stalin to fear a German invasion until eh could update his military.

Furthermore, in 1940-1941, the war looked in favour of the Axis Powers. They had gained quick control of most of Europe and had a large army. Stalin no doubt wanted to capitalise on this, probably annexing Finland or seizing some Chinese territories.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 2:59:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 2:13:46 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/21/2009 1:50:26 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 10/21/2009 12:08:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Did you know?

Stalin wanted to join the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis and even drew up a proposal which included them. Germans, such as Ribbentrov, supported such a union, but Hitler did not want. This is probably why they lost the war.

Question - Do you think Hitler should have signed this, if both parteis would keep their end of the bargain, and would it of won the war?

Not entirely true. Stalin never really -wanted- to join with Hitler, he just wanted Poland. They initially signed a non-aggression pact that relied on the division of Poland, which Stalin saw as naturally Russian and Hitler saw as strategically vital. Hitler eventually invaded Poland and Stalin joined the Allies.

There was never any real danger of Stalin joining Hitler.


Actually, there was. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Stalins army was largely unprepared for a war. It's officer ranks had been destroyed in the purges, it had lost men in the Winter War, and they were under-equipped and behind on technology. Coupled with the fact they could face a two-front war with Japan and the effectiveness of Germany's army and it's manpower, there was reason for Stalin to fear a German invasion until eh could update his military.

Furthermore, in 1940-1941, the war looked in favour of the Axis Powers. They had gained quick control of most of Europe and had a large army. Stalin no doubt wanted to capitalise on this, probably annexing Finland or seizing some Chinese territories.

Okay, while I usually refrain from historical conjecture, I will concede the point that the Soviet Union seriously considered it. I have no doubts that Stalin wanted to do whatever deal would expand the Union the most. This is not to say, however, that the Soviets had any ideological sympathies for Nazi Germany. Stalin hated Fascism, Capitalism and Social Democracy, so he had very few allies around the world. However, the deal rested on the presupposition that the Russo-Germany non-aggession pact would stand, which it did not.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 4:05:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 12:48:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is nothing, NOTHING gay about Ted Haggard. Ted Haggard hated gays.

Oh wait.

Sorry, how many million gays did Ted Haggard kill?
That isn't relevant to the analogy.


The socialists usually whine about interchanging those terms. Except when it's convenient I guess.
Well Hitler used them pretty interchangeably, because he didn't much care what type of Socialists they were.
Unless they were national socialists or guild socialists :P.


The distinction between "workers" and "landowners and corporations" is just a matter of type of labor. It is not a philosophically relevant distinction.

Uuh...Yes it is when it defines specific classes.
It doesn't. Adrian Peterson performs physical labor. Some guy who creates a tiny corporate entity, nevertheless, is likely in a lower economic class than Adrian Peterson.

Fascism involves dealing with the employers, socialism involves dealing with the workers.
Both involved dealing with both. It's not as though a politician can just ignore the employers to subsidize the workers or vice versa. They can attack one. But dealings with them they must have.



That sounds like-- well, unions, not a bastardization of unions.

No, because unions fight for workers rights at the expense of the corporation, these syndicates fight for the profits of companies at the expense of the workers.
They do nothing of the sort, they fight for the needs of the government at the expense of both.

It is not a contradiction. Marxism implies local governments run by the workers but also an abolition of a central government.
A government is a government. It is central to something however much territory it has. And a sovereign local government is still a state.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 4:07:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Furthermore, it's not every day a socialist admit their philosophy to be based on hatred of success for being success :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 4:35:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 4:05:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That isn't relevant to the analogy.

Oh yes it is. By your analogy, Hitler only disliked socialists in rhetoric alone, but in reality they were slaughtered en masse.


It doesn't. Adrian Peterson performs physical labor. Some guy who creates a tiny corporate entity, nevertheless, is likely in a lower economic class than Adrian Peterson.

You're being disingenuous. In economic terms, there is a proletariat and a bourgeoisie class (I'm using Marxist terms to illustrate a point.) Under socialism/Marxism/Communism (to varying degrees), the worker should own the means of production. Under fascism, it is the bourgeoisie who does.

Both involved dealing with both. It's not as though a politician can just ignore the employers to subsidize the workers or vice versa. They can attack one. But dealings with them they must have.

Okay, fine. If you feel like going into semantics; socialism attacks the owners, fascism attacks the workers.

They do nothing of the sort, they fight for the needs of the government at the expense of both.

No, you're neglecting their purpose and substituting your own personal experience and bias. What makes me able to understand history and what makes you seemingly unable is the fact that I can remove bias from historical investigation and you cannot.

It is not a contradiction. Marxism implies local governments run by the workers but also an abolition of a central government.
A government is a government. It is central to something however much territory it has. And a sovereign local government is still a state.

And if you knew what Marxism is, you would know that the composition of the federal level of government (i.e. the central) would have a radically different make-up than the worker-run collective (i.e. the local)

I don't mean to sound rude or condescending, but you really don't know what you're talking about. I am not debating person opinion here, I am debating historical fact versus inaccurate revisionist history.

For example;

"The term "National Socialism" derives from this citizen-nation relationship, whereby the term socialism is invoked and is meant to be realized through the common duty of the individuals to the German people; all actions are to be in service of the Reich. The Nazis stated that their goal was to bring forth a nation-state as the locus and embodiment of the people's collective will, bound by the Volksgemeinschaft, as both an ideal and an operating instrument. In comparison, traditional socialist ideologies oppose the idea of nations."
Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org...

"According to Henry A. Turner, Hitler expressed regret for having integrated the word socialism into his party's name.[74] Hitler wrote in 1930, 'Our adopted term "Socialist" has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.'"
-ibid

"Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated...merit over equality, competition over cooperation, ... dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism...exclusiveness over inclusiveness...

...there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer."
http://www.huppi.com...

"Nazi regimentation extended to the economic sphere, although the property and profits of the capitalists were protected. In practical terms, the word "socialist" in the name of the Nazi Party did not refer to the nationalization of the means of production but rather to requiring the economy to serve the interests of the state. "
http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu...

Please know what you're talking about before you reply. I know you're clever, but you can only do so much when you haven't researched what you're talking about.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 4:36:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think a broader point that's being missed here is that socialists do not wish to commit massive genocide on unprecedented levels. Indeed, socialists tend to be against grossly inhumane human testing that includes bleeding people to death, severing off limbs, and rearranging organs. I'm not sure, but I even think that most socialists detest inequality, anti-semitism, homophobia, and racism.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...