Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "The Rise of Right-Wing Terrorism In Weimar Germany | Impossible Peace | Timeline" video.

@m.r4841 "So. What's your definition of so ciali sm? And how does it apply to Na zis m?" So ciali sm advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole i.e. colle ctive ownership / control. In na zis m, it was the na zi gove rnment which decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. Na zis had a cent ralized gover nment with a centr alized econo my (planned) similar to US SR.
3
Reminder that both fas ci sm and naz is m were tot alita rian fa r-le ft, so cia list ideolo gies.
3
@Blue collar nobody : Na zism and fasc ism were two completely separate soci alist ideologies, how ever both of them were their own spin off from m arxism.
2
@m.r4841 "The fa r rig ht is just as tot ali taria n as the fa r le ft. The Na zis were extr eme ri ght wi ng" Incorrect. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology and had nothing to do with rig ht-wi ng pol itics of any kind wha tsoe ver. The fundamental differences between left-wing and ri ght-win g ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gover nment. L eft-w ing beliefs are libe ral in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the gove rnment. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libert ies are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the governm ent is minimized.
2
@m.r4841 They are democratic in the sense that they allow people to vote and hold elections.
1
@loona_mew "They're were rig ht win g and very anti co mmui nst" They were against m arxi sm yes, however they also were so cialis ts ... so it was a tota litaria n f ar-le ft ideol ogy.
1
@m.r4841 "And yes, the Na zis were extre me ri ght wi ng. " Incorrect. Na zis had nothing to do with ri ght-wi ng whatsoever. Na zis m was a tota litari an f ar-le ft, so cialist ideo logy.
1
@Cass: "Ca pitali sm in cri sis." No such thing.
1
@m.r4841 "They hated so cialis m." Incorrect. Na zis we re tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st a nd they det ested capit alis m.
1
@m.r4841 "The Na zis were fa r rig ht con servati ves and cap itali sts. " Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st and they det ested capit alis m, Hitl er espe cially since he sa w both cap itali sm and bo lshevi sm as a "Jewi sh pl oy".
1
@m.r4841 "Natio nal Socia lism is its own ideology and has abs olutely nothing to do with so cialis m" Incorrect. Their so cial ism was na tion al, in con trast to intern ational mar xist social ism.
1
@m.r4841 : Incorrect. Na zis m was a bran ch of so ciali sm.
1
@m.r4841 "Don't you find it interesting that every historian, every history book, every piece of evidence and even the Naz is themselves disagree with you?" Pretty much only am uric an ideo logu es are disa greeing with historical facts. Na zis themselves were proud so cial ists, especially Hit ler himself.
1
@m.r4841 "The Na zis were f ar rig ht conser vatives and capit alist s." Incorrect. Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st and they det ested capit alis m, Hitl er especially since he saw both cap itali sm and bo lshevi sm as a "Jewi sh pl oy".
1
@m.r4841 Because it is incorrect.
1
@m.r4841 "Where did you get that nonsense from?" It's called history.
1
@m.r4841 "Don't you find it interesting that every history book, every historian, every definition and even the Na zis themselves disagree with you?" They don't. Only a mu rica n le ftist s and their sym pathiz ers are disagr eeing with the se histori cal fac ts.
1
@m.r4841 : Go read so me actual W W2 hist ory for once and stop wa sting your time here.
1
@m.r4841 : Incorrect. They were fa r-le ft soc ialis ts.
1
@m.r4841 Incorrect. Na zis were soc iali st and especially H itler himself, was proud of it. "After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves Natio nal Soci alist s! We want to start by implementing soc iali sm in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are so cialis t that they can address themselves to inter national so ciali sm.“ — A dolf H itler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
1
@m.r4841 : You sti ll ne ed to co p e h ard er th an th at, hun.
1
@m.r4841 Nope.
1
@m.r4841 : You ne ed to co pe ha rder than th at, hun.
1
@apollohermano8501 : They are democratic in the sense that they allow people to vote and hold elections.
1
@m.r4841 "Natio nal So cialis m is its own ideology and has noth ing to do with soc ialis m." Incorrect. Th eir so cial ism was na tion al, in con trast to intern ational mar xist social ism.
1
@m.r4841 "In fact they hated soc ialis m. " Incorrect. They ha ted mar xis m, not soc ialis m. Hitl er was a proud so ciali st by his own adm ission.
1
@m.r4841 "So cia list s were beside Je ws the first group that the N az is targeted. " Incorrect. They targeted ma rxis ts and ca pita list since Hit ler saw both as a "Jew ish ploy" to tak e over Germ any.
1
@m.r4841 "The Na zi s were f ar rig ht cons ervative s and cap italis ts." Incorrect. Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st a nd they det ested capit alis m, Hitl er espe cially since he sa w both cap itali sm and bo lshevi sm as a "Jewi sh pl oy".
1
@loona_mew : Nope.
1
@cascadianapplications7124 "You're going to have to prove that the NS DAP was actu ally soci ali st " They had a cen tralize d gove rnm ent, centr alized eco nomy (planned) similar to US SR, the gove rnment control led the means of prod uction and busin esses in general and decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what met hods, and to whom it was to be distrib uted, as well as what pri ces would be charged and what wages would be paid. "To put it quite clearly: we have an econ omic prog ramme. Point No. 13 in that pr ogram me demands the nati onalisa tion of all public companies, in other words soc ialis ation, or what is known here as so ciali sm. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfec tly clear and that is the prin ciple of authority… the good of the community takes prio rity over that of the individ ual. But the St ate should ret ain contr ol; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the St ate; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the St ate or the interests of his fellow coun trymen. That is the overri ding point. The Th ird Re ich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourg eoisie is tea ring its hair over the question of priv ate prop erty, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeo isie is rott en to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the de vil.“ — Ad olf Hitl er, Hitl er's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931
1
@m.r4841 : He allows people to vote and they have elections in the first place ... so yes, they are democratic in that sense.
1
@Humanophage : It was economically on the le ft, since their economy was based on so ciali sm (centr alize d gove rnme nt and planne d econo my).
1
@RiteMo LawBks : Both fa sci sm and na zis m were f ar-lef t soc iali st ideologies and had nothing to do wit h righ t wi ng politi cs of any kin d.
1
@m.r4841 "That is not true. Fa scis m is exclu sively rig ht wi ng. They're on the opposite side" Incorrect. Fas cis m had nothing to do with ri ght-wi ng politics of any kind. It wa s a to talit aria n fa r-le ft, soc iali st ide ology.
1
@m.r4841 "The Naz is w ere inde ed ex trem e rig ht win g." Incorrect. Na zis m was a bran ch of far-left so ciali sm.
1
@apollohermano8501 : They are democratic. They don't have democracy.
1
@m.r4841 "The N az is were f ar ri ght cons ervati ves an d cap itali sts. They hate d soc ialis m." Incorrect. Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st a nd they det ested capit alis m. They hated ma rxis ts and ca pita list since Hit ler saw both as a "Jew ish ploy" to tak e over Germ any.
1
@m.r4841 "They're not so cialis ts. They hat ed socia lis m" Incorrect. They hat ed ma rxis m, not soc iali sm which was the economic basis of both n azis m and fa scis m.
1
@m.r4841 "Exactly. And now look up the definition of Nat ional Soc ialis m." Tota lita rian fa r-le ft, soc iali st ide ology. N ation al So ciali sm was a rac ial so cialis m.
1
@m.r4841 "But this has nothing to do with soci alism." Wrong. This has everything to do with it, since Na zis were social ists.
1