General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Walter Bailey
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "TIKhistory" channel.

@scott1324 It would make more sense for people here to simply discuss authoritarianism. It’s much easier for a majority of people to agree on the evils of authoritarianism. But libertarians are ideologues and utopians and if they acknowledge that there can be authoritarians on the conservative end of the political spectrum they’ve committed heresy. So simply opposing authoritarianism isn’t enough for them: they have to maintain the ideological purity of the right by gerrymandering Nazism out of anything that might make someone think they are associated with it. No matter, history shows that authoritarianism is abundant on both left and the right and that it’s the real evil. Perhaps at least you and I can agree on that.
13
I watched it. It’s still full of nonsense
10
Implicit in all these pages is an effort to rewrite political history so that the whole category of authoritarian capitalism never existed. It’s the kind of thing that authoritarians do when they change history to fit their ideology
9
Libertarian economists want to call any thing authoritarian leftism even though that flies in the face of literally thousands of years of history
8
Only if you ignore core tenets of socialism and assert that ALL authoritarianism is socialism. But that requires you to ignore thousands of years of history before the left as we know it even existed. And it isn’t just Marxists who say this. Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history does. Libertarian crackpots just can’t accept any suggestions that there’s any flaw with conservatism or that it’s ever possible to be conservative and authoritarian. But a binary universe in which there is only liberty or enslavement to Socialism. is just a historically illiterate fantasy.
7
National Socialism is a form of Socialism that has none of the attributes of actual Socialism.
7
It’s amazing how oblivious this “theory” is to Nazi weltanschauung, which is all about glorifying aggression and power and “great heroes” dominating “inferiors”-the very people that socialists want to own the means of production. You can only find this kind of blindness to reality in a cult.
6
Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. Adolf Hitler 1923
5
@ericharmon7163 OK so basic history of modern ideology: it begins in the French revolution as radicals identified for the first time based on where they sat in the French National Assembly(the left) Break with reformers to actually move to overthrow the French monarchy. Those who didn’t support their revolutionary program are sitting on the right. If you’re trying to relocate fascists from their actual historical position on the right And put them on the left as this presentation is doing there’s no way that it cannot be talking about conservatism and what it means. What Hitler actually did once he got in power in the deed just to be named chancellor of Germany involved supporting conservative policies. For example he agreed not to seize property of corporations or aristocrats. He ended worker rights protections and real labor unions thereby removing restrictions on capitalist in Germany in so far as what they could do with their property. And 100 down and eliminated as many actual leftists as he could. Be there by earned the support of other German conservatives who saw him as what he was a traditional German authoritarian fully behind private property ownership and German capitalism. In fact he was even more supportive of it than Otto von Bismarck, Who originally was the true source of what have sometimes been called socialist measures in order to prevent Germany from becoming socialist. Hitler did away with even Bismarck’s reforms in order to support unfettered capitalism in Germany. And the list of German corporations that grew ever wealthier during the third Reich his long. He certainly didn’t set up state planning committees or forced collectivization of property, state ownership of industry a la the Soviet union. Nothing could be further from the truth then to suggest that. Whether you know enough about what you’re talking about to know it or not anytime Hitler and the Nazis are brought up you’re raising the subject of conservatism as practiced in Germany because that’s what they represented.
5
@ericharmon7163 I taught western civilization and fascism actually begins with the French revolution through the writings of Joseph Demaistre among others. You can’t understand this just by watching YouTube videos. You need actual education reading the original sources by the people involved. It seems pretty clear you haven’t done that. So you don’t know what you’re talking about
5
@JK-rv9tp Pure nonsense to say that the Nazis abolished private property. They glorified private property
5
@wOkeKing Have you actually been a graduate student at a major university? You’re sounding like people who have not and are just basing what they say on suspicion and innuendo rather than first-hand experience.
5
@wOkeKing That’s ridiculous! If I had a nickel for every time some right wing nut equates something with critical race theory that really doesn’t have anything to do with it….Basically you’re saying that any attempt to tell the whole story of all people, provide equality before the law or be inclusive is a plot of critical race theory. But the actual source for that idea in our country is the Declaration of Independence doofus.
5
@PhatStacksPoker LOL by that definition there have been leftist authoritarians long before leftist ideology even began. By that definition Louis the 14th or even the ancient pharaohs were leftists. It’s a sign of a real dogmatic utopian ideologue when they say “my side is utterly pure of any of the corrupting effects of power on human nature“ but that’s what libertarians and other conservatives are doing when they attempt to suggest that authoritarianism can’t possibly happen in anything conservative. It’s also a ludicrous display of astonishing ignorance of the authoritarian regimes of early modern and ancient Europe. Conservatism to them meant defending the rule of the king and the noble lords under him. And you think that makes them communist LOL
5
So if you’re going to define leftism as anything involving strong or oppressive government without regard to the principles and goals of whatever it is you’re talking about, then “leftist” governments have been around since long before the left as we know it existed. But authoritarianism by itself doesn’t contain necessarily any of the principles of leftist economic theory such as class conflict, redistribution of wealth, or worker ownership of the means of production. If you’re going to look at an authoritarian capitalist state that promotes private ownership of the means of production and call that socialist just because the government is authoritarian and they use the word socialist without doing anything In any socialist program, then you’re just redefining the definition of the word socialist without acknowledging what you’re doing.
5
@donaldsheckler3636 That doesn't make him a leftist. Germany NEVER had those kind of limitations on government before Hitler. Trying to extrapolate what is conservative to a German traditionalist based on American history is a fruitless exercise, that only reveals one's ignorance of German history.
5
He’s clearly knowledgeable about military campaigns but his Enako libertarian economic views make him extremely biased it is analysis of economic history.. To the point that he can’t understand any of it outside of a very solipsistic perspective of the ideologue which is to say not at all
5
Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler 1938
5
It’s not that Hitler didn’t realize how corporations are organized. It’s that you’re attempting to conflate a publicly traded Corporation with a government owned corporation. Hitler and everyone else who is not trying to change the definition of private property understood how corporations work. His point was that you need authoritarianism to make capitalism work as intended. Otherwise no one who is not already wealthy has a chance to compete according to their ability. The fact that he’s even attempting to protect free market competition should tell you that he’s not a leftist. Again this goes back to defining leftism as nothing more than any authoritarianism without any of the other attributes historically associated with leftist ideology from its inception. But if authoritarians were always leftist then the early capitalist states were actually leftist from the Italian renaissance all the way through the French Revolution.
5
So I suppose your point is that Hitler was a secret communist: he kept his communism so secret all throughout his career that he never actually acted upon any of his communist plans. He couldn’t actually implement his communist plans because if he did so he would reveal himself to be a communist thereby giving the plans away. For Hitler keeping his communism secret was more important than actually doing anything to make it a reality in Germany Keeping his rabid communism secret all that time was impressive but nowhere near as impressive as Ronald Reagan’s ability to keep his stealth communism secret. Even fewer people know that Reagan was actually a virulent communist. Still fewer know that Karl Marx and VI Lenin were not really communists. You can tell who is a real communist because only the real communists avoid actually implementing communism. Only fake communists actually employ communist policies.
4
@TheImperatorKnight I would be more concerned if actual historians show up if I were you
4
I can’t say that I share your enjoyment of self delusion or some kind of bizarre schadenfreude over peoples justifiable consternation at your ignorant efforts to falsify history. It’s not like you can actually change history by redefining things according to your own terms this way.
4
@ericharmon7163 I won’t have to do that in this or others concerning history. I studied European intellectual history as a post graduate. I know a lot more about this than you do. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just wrong about everything. It’s amazing how uneducated people are so sure in their ignorance. Only the ignorant can be so foolish. Before you say something like that and make a fool of yourself again you should do some reading of the original sources from the history of European ideology in the 18th and early 19th centuries. I can recommend some sources if you’re willing to listen. Otherwise continue to wallow in ignorance.
4
@wOkeKing Marxism is in the university. But its influence is often overblown. It’s certainly not taught the way it was in the Soviet Union for instance, as if it’s the only possible truth.
4
@TheManofthecross Oh so you’re going to lie in order to silence someone when you don’t have an answer for them to cover up your own misinformation. This is just what we would expect from a coward and knave.
4
@scott1324 It’s important to understand the principles and origins of all dangerous ideologies so you know what to watch out for. That’s why it’s important. If you think that there can be no danger from the right as the author of this page would evidently have you believe, you create the perfect opening for the next Hitler.
4
@neilreynolds3858 OK so never mind the tenets of the Ideology, all you need to know to determine whether or not someone is a Marxist is whether or not they have friends? I’m sure you’re going to put a lot of political science professors out of work with that one. LOL
4
That depends on who you’re listening to and how carefully you’re listening. If you’re accepting uncritically what a propagandist tells you you might actually conclude that a true worldview is false.
4
As people have so often pointed out here leftist ideology focuses on the collective of humanity placing less value on the actions of the individual. It’s not about the achievement of individuals: Vanquishing others through superior ability. But Nazi ideology was.
4
@merpius Which is to say that Hitler defined people according to race in a way that is completely hostile to and contradicts historical leftist ideological principles. Advancing a particular “race” at the expense of others means you’re not a leftist according to any historical principles of leftist ideology. It’s like saying the pope is a kind of Christian who defines Jesus as Satan. It doesn’t work. You can’t say that he’s a kind of leftist who does this because it’s not something you can do and be a leftist. What you need to understand is that both fascist and leftist ideology come out of traditions of thought that go back to Europe in the 18th century. Each is developed with certain core principles which allow you to tell if what you’re looking at comes from this or that tradition. Racist and nationalist ideology is coming out of a fascist tradition that begins with counterrevolutionary thought in response to the French revolution not the leftist thought that drove the revolution.
4
If Nazis were true economic socialists, then every authoritarian government and many mixed economy liberal democratic states are also socialist and the historical principles of socialist economics such as redistribution of wealth to eliminate classes and government ownership of most or all industry don’t matter. We’re basically just using “socialism” as an endlessly elastic catch all for anything we don’t like. It’s essentially an inversion of the “no true Scotsman fallacy.”
4
Too bad Hitler himself can’t read some of this nonsense. I think he would be amazed and appalled that so many people think he wasn’t conservative, that they think he would’ve supported what he regarded as Jewish ideology designed to destroy the achievements of the “master race” and allow “Subhumans” to use the state to take the fruits of aryan labor and creative thought. I’m sure he would’ve been appalled that people who place no value on the disciplined adherence to authority would consider themselves to be conservative. I’m sure he would’ve seen anarcho capitalists as infected with “Jewish nonsense and corruption” about equality of the races and material acquisition for its own sake. And he’d probably want them arrested.
3
@Si_Mondo I think the Marxist interpretation of everything is utopian tending to beg the question. In this respect it’s very similar to the contemporary anarcho-libertarian method of interpreting everything: For instance their dogma says that capitalism means “total freedom” so anything without total freedom can’t be capitalism. This is just the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. And it results in a ludicrous attempt to deny just about all of the history of actual capitalism much of which has taken place under authoritarian governments such as that of the Nazis.
3
@TheImperatorKnight Three actions of logicians and psychologists to your explanations would probably be the most interesting.
3
@JK-rv9tp in your ignorance of the history of ideas you think we need a “Trope” to establish distance that’s always been there. What’s actually happening is we’re pointing out the vast gulf between Nazi and leftist ideology dating all the way back to their 18th century origins. I don’t think you’re gonna be able to demonstrate that the role of Napoleon and the collected writings of Joseph Demaistre are just a “leftist trope” but go ahead and try if you like. I could use a good laugh
3
@neboyshanicolich761 So now you’re defining social mobility as inherently leftist? Do you know that the Duke of Marlborough and many other European nobles were descended from common tradesmen? The French formalized the system by recognizing different types of nobility based on how they were ennobled including many whose ancestors had been peasants not that long before. If social mobility is an attribute of leftism then libertarianism is also a hard left ideology isn’t it? How much of this nonsense are you people going to trot out just to throw everything bad into the left bucket?
3
@ThunderChunky101 To suggest that this kind of evil can only exist in the hearts of your enemies is the talk of a utopian ideologue utterly blind to anything but what he subscribes to as articles of faith.
3
@bustercrabbe8447 which is what this always comes back down to: never mind the principles of Socialism from their origin point in the 18th century, Socialism is really just authoritarianism. But if that’s true old kingdom pharaohs in ancient Egypt were socialists literally thousands of years before socialist Ideology was developed..
3
@sabhishek9289 when did Darwin himself advocate such a thing? Aren’t you conflating Darwin with social Darwinism?
3
@bagasitogitto.f1826 Why don’t you just go ahead and define capitalism as only the good parts and Socialism is only the bad parts because “I say so”? If something bad happens because of capitalism that means that it’s not capitalism automatically. No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.
3
@TheManofthecross You know perfectly well that the facts are on my side and that you cannot refute a single thing I’ve said with truth.
3
@anonygent yeah that’s just an ignoramuses way of trying to frame a much more complex history of ideology into his own binary Conception of “freedom versus Socialism.” That’s not the full picture of the history of political ideology in Europe much less the world. There’s not just one coin and conservatism means different things at different times and places. In Germany in the early to mid 20th century, it meant authoritarianism and capitalism. The fact that Hitler appropriated the language of Socialism to trick people into joining his right wing authoritarian party doesn’t change that
3
@arebelscum9495 About that: “The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor, and a perfect title to public gratitude. I, therefore, entertain a hope, that the present session will not pass, without carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” George Washington in a message to Congress 1794
3
@glyndwr15 and furthermore, most of those features pre-dated the Nazis, and were even scaled back by the Nazis and he tries to make it sound like they came from the Nazis
3
@squatchfromearth4076 Nobody involved in actually writing the 2nd Amendment said that its purpose was for the people to depose their own government.
3
Except the bases where Hitler actually installs a socialist regime with socialist policies when he has the power to do so. Of course we don’t identify socialist because they implement socialists policies. What’s far more important is the labels they use and whether we can find them present in certain times and places. This is how we know that Kim Jong-un is a democratic leader because he calls his country the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and has been spotted over and over again at functions celebrating his “democracy” in the individual freedoms that it stands for. Don’t tell me that North Korea is not a democracy based on the government’s policies Or the way it’s organized because only the words that are used really matter.
3
@evertjan9479 Well a majority of people here have been fooled into thinking that Hitler was a leftist based on labels that he was associated with alone. So why should this be surprising?
3
Hint this is not a sign of “knowledge”
3
Capitalists can’t do evil things. They can’t deprive people of liberty or receive the backing of a gangster state. If you think that capitalists could do anything evil or with the support of authoritarian governments repeat that that’s impossible and that you were stupid not to think that it can only happen on the left. Human nature is different on the right you see. You can’t be corrupted or do evil things when you’re a capitalist. Capitalists are incapable of harming people because faith in capitalism removes the potential of human nature to cause harm to anyone. Only good things happen in capitalism just like a fairy tale. If something bad happens that’s how you know it’s not capitalism.
3
@WantedArgonianMale He was a fascist. He wasn’t a socialist in ANY of the ways that leftists are socialist. He explained what he meant when he used the word socialist to describe his party: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
3
Because you’re always gonna need another hit of nonsense to sustain the charade right?
3
Oh sure by that reasoning Occam’s razor tells us that East Germany really was a German democratic republic and that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea isn’t really a totalitarian state. Hitler objected to the use of the word socialist in the name of the Nazi party but went along with it then completely redefined what the word meant. Ignoring that and simply going by the use of the same word isn’t applying Occam’s razor. it’s simply idiotic.
3
@destubae3271 “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
3
If you pay careful attention to what Hitler actually says you will see that over and over again he advocates a conservatism that is most traditional, almost primal. He appeals to an ancient sense of German tribal identity and advocates the use of traditional power structures to preserve and invigorate it. While true socialists have appealed to naturalism as a foundation of their thought enlightenment rationalism and attempts to perfect all of humankind through science are undeniable in their thought. The Nazis rejected rationalism and any possibility of perfecting all of humankind. National Socialism is an inherently irrational and tribal belief system founded more on mysticism and myth than fact. If you spend any time studying the Nazis’s fascination with the occult and German folk myths it’s impossible to miss this. It should also be obvious that the last thing on earth the Nazis wanted to do is raise up ALL people. How can you possibly do that if you believe that most people are subhuman meant to be slaves of the master race?
3
Wulf I don’t know where you get the idea that all Racialists were in favor of each race trying to advance itself. You’d have to be incredibly blind not to see how many times the Nazis advocate the Aryan race dominating or destroying all the other races.
3
@goonsdoona2979 Unless TIK’s is systematically misrepresenting everything the book says and all the arguments that it makes then of course it’s propaganda. And there are too many important books to read to waste time on propaganda. Instead of doing that you should read the original sources in the history of ideas that show you how Nazism and Socialism developed as described by the people who developed those ideologies beginning in 18th century Europe. Have you done that?
3
Wulf I’m a republican small R. I don’t care for Karl Marx or Adolf Hitler. I’m interested in James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. If you think it’s necessary to be a political extremist in order to oppose the falsification of history then your version of truth is defined solely by ideology and has no objective foundation.
3
@anthony5335 I think that he’s a crank conspiracy theorist ideologue like most other libertarians. It’s not that he’s being paid to promote this nonsense; it’s that he has a cult devotion to nonsense because, if he doesn’t prove that the Nazis were on the left, his whole worldview collapses and is revealed for the absurdity that it is.
3
@samuelboucher1454 “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933 There’s no way that this is consistent with any leftist ideology
3
LOL The original sense of the word was much closer to Marxism than Hitler’s complete repurposing of it.
3
@ragebait988 Class warfare is opposed to nationalism and racism by definition. What you’re saying is like saying the only difference between vodka and other alcoholic beverages that don’t contain alcohol is alcohol.
3
@mistymoor7114 What’s not helpful is ignoring what Hitler actually said and did once he got into power, because that forces you to abandon the cherished idea that we can banish this evil monster and genocidal ideology to the left which we hate instead of having to acknowledge that evil can happen on the right. But there’s no way around this if you see the things that Hitler said and did. He simply didn’t articulate leftist ideology govern as a leftist. Instead he reduced the rights of workers, doing away with regulation on private business, privatized industry, refused to nationalize private property, and allowed private corporations to become richer and richer all throughout his rule. Far from enacting a leftist economic program he showed complete hostility to the idea and had advocates of it executed.
3
@pedrovitor5324 “China isn’t capitalist”? LOL The phone you’re using right now says otherwise. How do you think the Chinese were able to become a global economic power? By sticking with communism? They still have a lot more state ownership than say existed in Nazi Germany but their economy is prosperous because it’s mostly authoritarian capitalist. Again, It’s not the labels they use that matter: it’s what they do.
3
@nicknolte8671 I think it’s dishonest. I have a problem with any authoritarianism too. But it is important to draw distinctions between forms of authoritarianism of the left and forms of authoritarianism on the right. They’re not all the same. They are not all socialism. Otherwise we’re not looking in all directions where authoritarianism can originate from.
3
Hitler hated everything about Marxism. He didn’t practice or accept any of it. He was an implacable foe of all of it
3
Kind of like saying you’t can’t understand History without being a Marxist
2
Just without any of the leftist ideology. It was reactionary authoritarianism.
2
@colebehnke7767 except that they didn’t implement any policies that they were against. The Nazis did none of the things that the Soviets did by way of nationalizing the means of production or destroying the bourgeoisie. you’re just repeating a bunch of nonsense that flies in the face of the facts.
2
@oscartang4587u3 not as much as for instance, the United States did. Certainly nothing like what the Soviets did. you don’t understand mid 20th century history or how European ideology differs from that in North America.
2
The dichotomy between collectivist and individualist is a relatively recent idea. It wasn’t a means of differentiating conservative from leftist especially not in Europe before the rise of contemporary anarcho-libertarianism.
2
@neboyshanicolich761 Socialism also involves equality of people redistribution of wealth and the destruction of economic classes all of which are anathema to Nazism under Hitler. The only thing they have in common is a word
2
@z3r0_35 No amount of information or mental gymnastics will change the basic principles of leftist and Nazi ideology. And they’re just not compatible. They are diametrically opposed to each other.
2
@ThunderChunky101 Except Hitler followed through with what he said. He didn’t confiscate property the way Marxist did. He actually privatized more industry than western democracies. He safe guarded and preserved the wealth and power of German capitalist just like he said he would. There was nothing remotely close to the mass confiscation and redistribution of wealth in the Soviet union or even in Britain under Clement Attlee. At some point you people are gonna have to accept that depravity exists within human nature and not just on one end of the political spectrum. There’s much good thought within conservatism but it’s not immune to evil either.
2
@virgil6873 The German economy was no more state run than the American economy during the war and less so before it. Again you’re trying to conflate authoritarian government with state ownership and they’re not the same thing. Hitler actually privatized more industry during the 1930s and western democracies. It was Hitler who are you dead democratic countries would tend to turn capitalism and communism by allowing the progressive seizure of the rights of capitalist overlords who should be left alone by the state. Here we go again with the complete unawareness of Germany’s long tradition of authoritarianism before the Nazis and the utopian “I’m a libertarian so I can’t admit there’s anything bad anywhere on the right” dogma.
2
@JohnStopman It’s the work of an ideologue propagandist attempting to sanitize the right of anything unpleasant: absurd.
2
Yeah I think framing it in religious terms is a telling reveal of a total lack of objectivity and inability to see things outside of a messianic “us versus them” perspective. That will only give you a warped view of history where you seek to purge your “side” of anything unholy, such as Nazism. The problem is that authoritarian structures have been on the right for far longer than the left as we know it has even existed. So there’s no way to identify something as left just because it’s authoritarian. And that’s really all you’ve got as a means to label fascism as leftism.
2
You need to do one on Hitler’s humanitarianism, his avoidance of narcotics and his carnivorous lifestyle
2
LOL a fake Nazi National union must be considered a true union, because no union is real?
2
That’s the explanation of a conspiracy theorist with an agenda to try to mask their own propaganda and reframe mainstream and balanced analysis of historical facts as propaganda. Instead of being the ideologues we’re trying to rewrite history to purge the right of anything bad. These theorists are trying to make real Historians into the ideologues, a complete inversion of the truth.
2
@dusk6159 No that’s an example of how authoritarianism is the real evil and that it can come from any direction. Putin dropped communism in favor of Russian nationalism e.g. fascism a long time ago. He remained an authoritarian monster
2
@bagasitogitto.f1826 Authoritarianism on the left and right devalues the individual. But there’s too much more to left and right ideology that separates them other than just authoritarianism and authoritarianism being found in both you can’t simply say that subverting the individual and oppressing him is a feature only of the left. The left in fact was born in response to the tyranny of traditional e.g. conservative European monarchical regimes against the individual.
2
@bagasitogitto.f1826 Indeed an anarcho -individualism tends to leave the door open for authoritarianism, because people need good government to protect their rights. That is the original idea behind the founding of the United States. And that leads to the corollary which is that what you’re calling collectivism isn’t always bad. It’s only when it becomes arbitrary and authoritarian that it becomes harmful.
2
@colebehnke7767 I’ve watched all his videos. They all boil down to the theme that “all authoritarianism is socialism” citing as “evidence” any government action of any kind short of outright anarchy and the presence of fascist leaders like Hitler with actual socialists, without regard for the circumstances. It would make more sense for him to simply do a video reading of Ayn Rand that never ends.
2
@colebehnke7767 Yeah to fully understand it, one needs to read quite a lot from the founders of the ideology. But some of its core principles include redistribution of wealth according to need and basing access to resources on the presumed equality and equal rights of all people. Fascist ideology like Nazism is dedicated to eliminating precisely any assumption of equality or equal rights: it’s their primary goal. Instead it seeks to secure masters and slaves, killing anyone who has neither the “right” to be a master nor is useful as a slave.
2
@oscartang4587u3 LOL..try some serious scholarship..
2
@oscartang4587u3 which is laughable. The whole point of fascist ideologies is to create a master race that enslaves or destroys others. thus destroying all notions of equality between races is vital to fascist ideology. If you think that fascism is about equality, you don’t know the first thing about fascism.
2
@oscartang4587u3 socialism is based on equality. Fascism is based on inequality. There’s no way that those two can go together.
2
@oscartang4587u3 “You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” Hitler 1930 “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?” Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy?
2
@oscartang4587u3 “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how Hitler is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economicv leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932
2
@oscartang4587u3 I don’t know where you’re coming from but one thing that Americans rarely understand is that American political thought is not identical to that in Europe, and that what they think of is conservative it’s not necessarily what has been considered conservative in Europe. there is a long tradition of Statism and authoritarian rule within European conservatism. It’s much older, in fact, than the left.
2
@colebehnke7767 no I just don’t accept the idiotic theories in the video
2
@oscartang4587u3 well, that’s dumb to recognize the existence of authoritarian capitalism throughout western history since the renaissance is not to deny socialist authoritarianism beginning in the early 20th century. It seems that you have a problem not just with history, but with logic.
2
@oscartang4587u3 do you not understand that the names of things used change over time? before you ask any more questions you need to read more about the history of capitalism and authoritarian rule in Europe since the renaissance.
2
@oscartang4587u3 Look you just don’t have the knowledge of history to even be talking about this. You’re just trying to extrapolate what you think it means based on your own limited experience and that just isn’t going to work. my advice would be to start reading history, beginning with the renaissance in Italy on the origins of capitalism.
2
@oscartang4587u3 http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
2
@oscartang4587u3 well then, so does the US government today. We call it eminent domain. Again we’re back to anything short of anarchy is Socialism.
2
@oscartang4587u3 LOL when you don’t know what you’re talking about again. It wasn’t until near the end of the war that you COULDN’T go into a café and buy coffee and pastries or whatever in Germany because Nazi Germany didn’t mobilize for total war until then.
2
@oscartang4587u3 well, you had to show ration books in Britain and the United States to eat in a restaurant: that didn’t make it socialistic. Do you actually know anything about the homefront during World War II in the allied countries?
2
@oscartang4587u3 🤣😂you’re living in an alternate reality. This one clearly doesn’t matter to you🤷🏼‍♂️ as long as were making up alternate history, Japan was part of the United States in the 1940s and Winston Churchill was actually governor general of Canada
2
@anonygent right but the alternative to Lockean individualism isn’t necessarily Socialism. It could also be right wing authoritarianism.
2
@pooyahasani6772 Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler 1938
2
@pooyahasani6772 You’re obviously not a national socialist or anything that requires any thought.
2
@The Philosoraptor I can understand your confusion. I’m from a place you’ve obviously never heard of where nothing is ever purely one thing or the other called “the real world.”
2
@oscartang4587u3 You must be enjoying a glass of dehydrated water as you write that
2
@benitopepolini1249 Dude flush out your headgear. How many times do I have to repeat this? I was satirizing the apologists for capitalism as a supposedly perfect system. I agree with you that it’s not!
2
It’s not uncritically accepting anything. it’s refusal to go along with right wing utopian ideologues who are determined to pull out all the stops to paper over Contradictions between leftism and Nazism that make it impossible for them to be ideologically together: The elimination of economic classes, the redistribution of wealth, the equality of all people-all of these things are death to fascist ideology. Uncritically accepting libertarian propaganda designed to reframe a far right ideology as something leftist without reading what the people actually said and did who subscribe to that ideology is simply allowing yourself to be brainwashed.
2
@donaldsheckler3636 Nor do we have to demonstrate that utopian ideologies like laissez-faire capitalism or socialism actually meet their goals to identify them based on their beliefs. Having miraculous and unattainable goals is what makes them utopian after all. But when you see that they really do believe such unachievable stuff you know you’ve correctly identified them.
2
@donaldsheckler3636 LOL..liberties? In the German states?!..🤣 Why do you think so many Germans fled during the revolutions of 1848 to the United States? Do you think they were fleeing the welcoming of new liberties for German people by the governments involved? You really need to know something about European history to talk about this..otherwise you just look like a fool as in this case.
2
@Herv3 Really in what way? Such social welfare programs as there were in Germany were actually installed in imperial Germany in order to prevent socialism and Hitler scaled many of those back or eliminated them. He also did away with labor unions and worker rights protections to give capitalists more control over their property. He refused calls to nationalize German industry and aristocratic estates and actually privatized more businesses. Then he hunted down and killed people who advocated leftist policies. How is this leftist in any way?
2
@Herv3 Total make-believe which relies on the vestiges of things put in place by others before Hitler’s rise to power in order to stop Socialism not what Hitler himself did. The unfortunate reality for you people is that Hitler was a right wing anti-communist who did everything he could to do away with the left. He certainly wasn’t a leftist. It’s uncomfortable for ignorant people of the American alt right to think that authoritarianism has a long conservative history because they like to think of themselves as proponents of individual liberty but that’s not really what they’re doing or what they’re really a part of. Authoritarianism especially in Europe is the true history of the right whether you like it or not.
2
@Herv3 You’re the one making it up. This is the reality of Hitler’s “socialism” “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932 “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933 Now quit lying about history!
2
Where do you get the idea that it was all state ownership. That’s hardly true. In fact the Nazis privatized more industry than the British during the 1930s
2
@Gvjrapiro He was also right wing because he was an advocate of capitalist elites owning private property Including the means of production
2
@Gvjrapiro Indeed the right is attempting to define anything authoritarian- collectivist is the word they use-as left wing by definition which flies in the face of literally thousands of years of history long before they even was a left is the term has ever been understood. Basically when you hear someone call Hitler a true socialist you’re probably confronting a lunatic who views all of history through a warped anachronistic and ahistorical binary perspective that can be summed up as either anarchy or collectivism(meaning any legal limitation on what the individual can do, any government at all). This is a radical nihilistic fantasy that leads only to chaos or the very authoritarianism it tries to avoid.
2
In other words he repurposed the term to mean something completely different from its historical use by leftists.
2
Wulf Hitler himself sought advice from occult mystics and tried to divine the future through occult practices. If you look at what the Nazis called research it’s as much mysticism as it is pseudoscience. And a lot of the Nazi regalia and heraldry, even the names of SS military units were heavily derived from Teutonic mythology. Like the mad king Ludwig of Bavaria Hitler viewed Wagner as much more than just music. It wasn’t fantasy to him. It was prophecy and divinity.
2
Wulf I’m not sure what you mean when you use the word racialism. It’s clearly not a description of any form of fascism such as that of the Nazis. You’d have to be unimaginably blind not to see that the Nazis were doing everything they could to uplift one people at the expense of others.
2
Wulf And its more narrow sense a revolution just means a change in government. It doesn’t specify whether or not that restores an earlier form of government or attempts to do something new.
2
Wulf Indeed in many cases Marxist claims to fight for the working class didn’t pan out, usually because gangsters opportunistically seized upon the revolution to grab power away from the idealistic Marxists who provided the theory. But the Nazis didn’t even start with a theory of advancing an economic class. Indeed they explicitly rejected that idea as a threat to advancing the Aryan RACE.
2
Wulf My sources include the writings of Marx, Engels, Babeauf, Rousseau, Eugene Debs,Thomas Paine, Antonio Gramsci, Totsky, Clement Attlee, Gajo Petrovic among others. They’re not hard to find
2
Wulf Nationalism as an ideology came after the revolution: that doesn’t mean that nationalist thought had no origin before the French revolution or that nationalist didn’t try to preserve what they saw as a traditional sense of tribal identity. Indeed the whole point of nationalism was to preserve tribal identity thought to have much earlier origins.
2
Wulf Oh I didn’t say the SS ruled Germany. Hitler ruled Germany. The SS was his praetorian guard and his his ideological elite. You are confusing Stalin’s paranoid purge of the red Army officer corps with the earlier Bolshevik liquidation of the Russian aristocracy. The former didn’t necessarily target ideological enemies so much as Stalin’s personal enemies: real or imagined. The latter is something that the bolsheviks did immediately upon gaining power because their ideology was about destroying the aristocracy. Stalin‘s purge of landholding peasants also followed that motivation. Neither one was taken as a measure to defend against invasion. And there was no such purge of people in Nazi Germany because they held property or represented some sort of class enemy. It wasn’t just that the aristocracy survived in Germany. It was never touched. Nazi ideology violently opposed the leftist notion of class conflict because it pitted members of the master race against each other. That’s why Hitler saw Bolshevism as a Jewish plot to destroy the master race.
2
Wulf I don’t know what you think is significant about the fact that the SS wasn’t the German state itself. It was very much the “organs” of the state, its political and cultural elite. It bore personal loyalty to the head of the state and was the embodiment of his ethos.
2
@goonsdoona2979 Why would you read something which states a ludicrously false premise upfront something you know has been promoted as a conspiracy theory by ideologues who can’t accept reality.
2
@goonsdoona2979 From everything that TIK says about it it won’t help you understand socialist or Nazi ideology. Unless he is misleading to a very large extent about the contents of the book it is a work of deception designed to rewrite history to fit the cold beliefs of Ideologue suit don’t have much connection with reality. It’s much better to read what Hitler wrote, what other Nazis wrote, and study what they did when they were in power. You should also read what authentic socialists have written about their ideology and do some comparisons. That’s how you think for yourself not by having someone present a Propaganda peace to you that distorts these original sources
2
@silent_stalker3687 The last thing on earth and Nazis wanted was equality. “You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” Hitler 1930 “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?” Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy?
2
On the contrary Hitler argued that capitalism was impossible in a democracy because it denied those who had worked their way to the top the fruits of their labor forcing them to give rights to workers and ultimately degenerated into Socialism. Hitler privatized more industry than anyone else during the 1930s. Nazi policies also protected private property and traditional power structures. Being authoritarian historically is more of a conservative attribute then something that has been practice by the left. Authoritarianism existed long before you’re even was a left. Louis the 14th of France was an authoritarian who instituted strong government controls over his country. Are you seriously going to say that he was a communist? LOL
2
Wulf Yes some people consider traditionalists and Paleo conservatives to be extremist. But I’d say they’re quite a few more and quite a lot better arguments that authoritarians left and right are extremists. As a conservative in an early American sense of that word I have the better argument to being grounded in objective reality rather than ideology. The people who call someone with my beliefs extremist are usually on the far left: People whose view of truth is almost pure ideology without any objectivity.
2
Wulf Because there are standards to measure objectively what is factual and what isn’t. They are the same standards used by the founding generation: rationalism and empiricism. Since each individual sees only a part of reality it is impossible for anyone to be perfectly objective. But that doesn’t mean that every perspective is just as ideologically driven away from facts as any other.
2
Wulf Yes but not every point of view reflects extreme ideological blinders On top of individual perspective. It takes something like Marxism, fascism, or anarchism to blind you to that degree. Then you don’t even see what your own eyes tell you, just what the ideology and or its leader dictates. This is why ideologically driven thinking is so dangerous
2
Wulf “Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
2
Wulf No ideology isn’t simply identity. It’s forming your identity around a rigid dogma that defines the world only according to its own terms a priori and disregards everything else no matter what.
2
Wulf Force isn’t necessarily evil. It depends on how and why it is used. As our American founders recognized you can’t have government or liberty without force. I know anarchist ideology says otherwise but the results of that have always been contrary to what the ideology states.
2
Wulf That’s why I included the quote from Solzhenitsyn. He answers that question directly that it is ideology which makes people capable of doing really awful things and he understood this better than most as a victim of Stalin’s brutality who became a Nobel laureate in literature. I highly recommend Solzhenitsyn if you want to learn more about how ideology poisons human actions, Maximizes human potential for corruption and depravity.
2
Wulf Well the American founders on numerous occasions warned us against overseas adventurism. I find it bizarre that you are trying to separate ideas from actions as if they have no relationship to each other despite all the evidence of people acting on their ideas throughout history.
2
Wulf no I’m saying that awful things can and often have happened BECAUSE of ideology. This happens less likely within individual households(Bad things happening because of ideology are more likely to be done by the state) but it has certainly happened. For instance in Stalinist Russia ideology compelled people to inform on their own family members and get them sent to concentration camps often for no other reason.
2
Wulf So because people are self righteous that means that good and evil don’t exist? You sound like a true moral relativist.
2
Wulf So in other words you’re acknowledging that you are a relativist. It’s not a label that you’re trying to run from. I just wanted to clarify that point. I don’t think we can destroy ideology forever just like I don’t think we can stop murder or war forever. But that doesn’t mean we should be OK with it! That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to prevent it whenever we can.
2
Wulf So since you can’t stop war or murder for all time you should never make any effort to stop any particular war or murder? Should we therefore legalize murder because laws against it do represent attempts to stop at least some murder? We should condemn opposition to any war as an exercise in futility? We shouldn’t even try to warn people about the dangers of Nazi, anarchist and communist ideology? I’m not saying we should burn books or prevent people from espousing hateful beliefs but to make no distinction at all between good and evil doesn’t seem like a good idea either.
2
Wulf I didn’t say that ideology is not part of objective reality. But Ideology is also not a universal condition of thought. Not every point of view is ideologically driven. mine for instance is not. It is possible to avoid ideology as an individual even if we can’t remove it from the entire planet forever. If you’re OK with trying to prevent at least some wars and murders then you shouldn’t have a problem with trying to persuade people not to fall into ideological thinking where they and many others can easily get hurt. The fact that you can’t stop everyone from doing that doesn’t mean that you can’t do some good by stopping many people from doing it. If we can’t even try then the frequency of regimes like the Nazis is sure to increase.
2
Wulf because ascribing to an ideology is an active choice. I think you’re trying to conflate ideology with point of view as if everyone is naturally thinking in ideological terms at birth. Ideology is not a constant within human history however. it doesn’t really begin to develop in the west until the early modern period. And if someone isn’t exposed to ideology they won’t even have an opportunity to make a choice as to whether or not to follow an ideology. I don’t think you know how to define the word ideology or much of anything else about the history of ideology so you’re simply confused.
2
Wulf Which word do you use matters if you want to describe what you’re talking about. Words like ideology are not interchangeable with other concepts concerned with political views or individual perspective. If I had said that I could escape from having an individual point of view you might have a point but I didn’t say that. I said that I don’t have to describe to the tenants of an ideology, any ideology if I don’t want to. Nor do you. You do have a choice.
2
Wulf Again not everyone is thinking an ideological terms nor does the existence of both good and evil prove that either one must triumph in every case Or that there’s nothing we can do about it. Ideological polarization if that’s what you’re talking about is indeed not good precisely because it pushes so many people away from objective consideration of facts. Your response seems to be to throw your hands up in the air and say that well that’s just the way things always are and have been, but that is not an accurate description of history and what it shows.
2
Wulf Create a society for the common good? How do you propose to do that? I don’t think that ideologies offer a likely path but you will need some sort of plan and there are a variety of different plans that all have the goals that you’re interested in. How do you know which one is best?
2
@Bronzeagecaveman I think it’s more than being contrarian. He’s trying to project his own rather fanciful cult libertarian ideology onto the entire sweep of world history and say that either your agree with him or you’re a socialist.
2
@odinisnotthesomefather4687 We’re supposed to believe that you would even understand just five words? Lol!
2
If someone uses the word capitalist to describe something that doesn’t have any of the principles of capitalism you should
2
@ThZuao And if we stuck with the most restrictive definition it would still include renaissance Italy where the government was quite authoritarian.
2
@ThZuao The author of this page and his supporters are defining capitalism as a utopian ideal of perfect freedom. Anything that doesn’t actually manifest itself as the ideal is “socialism.” So essentially what TIK is saying is that every system in history has been socialist and capitalism has never actually existed as anything more than a theory.
2
If you’re a libertarian today it’s heresy to allow there to be anything associated with the right that is unsavory. According to libertarian dogma nothing authoritarian can be conservative either. Never mind that authoritarianism has been conservative for most of its history. The Nazis are a big problem for this reason and libertarians must pull out all the stops to reframe them as leftist no matter how ridiculous it gets. Their religious precepts depend upon this.
2
@samuelboucher1454 You don’t have very good reading comprehension do you? Instead of assuming that what I’m talking about is in a video out of ignorance you need to actually read some of the history of ideas. The story I’m talking about begins long before the events in the fishing expedition in the video.
2
The right isn’t necessarily libertarian. Historically it’s been far more likely to be authoritarian. Early American thought that’s often appreciated by modern libertarians was often considered left, if not radical in its day.
2
@MadsterV No no no. Fascism was not born from socialism. fascists hijacked some socialist organizations killed the actual socialists and repurposed the organizations for fascism. Fascism was born from the nationalism unleashed by the French revolution and the 19th century social movements that followed. But it also has roots in European folk traditions and mythology, the occult, social Darwinism and traditional European authoritarian rule since the Middle Ages. It doesn’t have any of the purposes of economic left socialism. It’s actually opposed to socialist ideas such as worker ownership of the means of production, economic class solidarity and conflict, the redistribution of wealth and the equality of people each to be provided for according to their needs. It explicitly condemns those ideas and defends private property. The Nazis actually were privatizing industry during the 1930s when the French and British were nationalizing it. Apart from the name socialist, the only other thing The Nazis had in common with economic leftists was authoritarianism. And as we noted authoritarianism has much older roots on the right than it does the left. And it’s only been very recently in the west that libertarian thought has come to be associated with the right. That idea would’ve made little sense until very recently in Europe or the United States. Meanwhile the Hallmark of conservative power and authority throughout Western history has been Not the rationalism at the root of Socialism but the use of force to compel obedience: irrational authority. This is the essence of fascism as well.
2
@MadsterV Yeah I quoted Hitler. You apparently don’t have enough knowledge of European history to understand the quote Or maybe it’s just a lack of common sense. It is hard to fathom how his attack on Socialism isn’t obvious in the quote. You know the way he reveals the socialist negation of the individual and his achievement? Say whatever you want but Hitler Ended government ownership of many German industries and put them in private hands. You’re trying to get around that with your anarco libertarian ideas that crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism but that’s just an ahistorical utopian view from libertarian dogma. It doesn’t correspond to the vast majority of capitalistic organizations in early modern Europe that gave rise to fascism. The idea that conservatism furthermore derives from libertarian thought flies in the face of so much history that you have to be an ignoramus to believe that. The authoritarianism of fascism is how you know it comes from the right. Authoritarianism where it occurs on the left is much more of a corruption of leftist ideology than it is that of the right, and fascist and other conservatives have most often worshiped authority, power, and control throughout western history.
2
@MadsterV besides the quote illustrates Hitler’s hostility to true Socialism as well as his beliefs in Aryan mythology. It doesn’t reveal a knowledge of actual history because Hitler didn’t have one. The Nazis traced the origins of their ideas in mythology because they wanted to ennoble it. If they knew about the actual historical origins of fascism they weren’t going to admit it. You understand that ideological beliefs especially those from totalitarian belief systems are full of propaganda, deception and self delusion right. Or do you take everything the Nazis said at face value?: LOL
2
@MadsterV Because I do believe that it tells you what he thinks about true Socialism and where he thinks Nazism comes from. And what he says does indeed give you a true picture of where Nazis thought their belief system came from. It does tell you that the Nazis did not believe that there belief system came from the economic left. And they were right about that, as history shows. Against that all you have are the fact that the Nazis were authoritarian like other conservatives all throughout history and their use of the word socialist in an entirely different way from the way it was used by left socialists.
2
@MadsterV Knock yourself out. But I didn’t say that leftists couldn’t be authoritarians. I said that being an authoritarian doesn’t necessarily make you a leftist and a deed that most authoritarians throughout history have been conservative you know as in monarchs nobility? The point is the authoritarianism isn’t tied to any particular ideology so it doesn’t give you proof that someone is of a particular ideology just because they’re authoritarian.
2
@MadsterV Well we don’t have to get inside Hitler’s brain. He explained quite clearly his views on Socialism. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler 1938 Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. Hitler 1923
2
@Gvjrapiro I don’t get tired of it. I rather like disarming people who don’t know what they’re talking about and don’t realize who they’re talking to.
2
@TheImperatorKnight So to the extent that’s true your plan is to do the same thing only inverted so that the right is blameless? I’m sure that’ll help you get closer to the truth.
2
@MadsterV Yeah Einstein except that redistributing wealth from the oppressive capitalists to those who need it more is basic leftist economics and Hitler explicitly rejects that in what he’s saying. He explicitly says he’s not confiscating private property from rich aryans and red-distributing it to working class aryans. He’s rejecting the idea that people should receive income according to their need another core leftist idea. He’s not lying: he’s revealing to you that he’s not talking about the Socialism of Karl Marx or Frederick Engels. He’s saying that he’s talking about something completely different developed in the tribal past of Germany that has nothing to do with the principles of 19th or 20th century leftism. Resolving economic class conflict is foundational to leftist ideology. If it’s not doing that it’s simply not leftist ideology. And Hitler says explicitly I am using a word associated with one thing to refer to something completely different and yet you still think that he’s talking about leftism. “He doesn’t lie.” And you’re like “It must be hard for him to sleep.” And I’m like “what?!”
2
@Gvjrapiro Perhaps but it’s still entertaining. And even if he never gets it someone else reading might
2
@Gvjrapiro I’d be interested to know what such people think the ancient regime princes were if not conservative. Perhaps Louis XVI just unaccountably forgot to tell the Jacobins that he was one of them through a tragic lapse…LOL When you’re dealing with this kind of ignorance you can take comfort in the fact that they’ll never be right no matter what they say
2
@Gvjrapiro Why don’t you try recommending that he read “considerations on France” by Maistre?
2
@MadsterV Re-privatization is a claim you’re making to try to get around the fact that he was privatizing industry. Don’t think that you’re fooling anyone with your nonsense. Again you don’t seem to understand that it’s possible to appropriate words and use them in ways completely different from their original meaning. Life must be hard for you.
2
@MadsterV It’s a dead giveaway that you’re not interested in finding the truth the way a scholar would when you seek to frame everything in binary us versus them terms so that anyone who disagrees with you must only be doing so because they are a Partisan on the other “side.” I’m not a socialist. I just don’t like the falsification of history by ideologue propagandists. Socialism like anarcho capitalism strikes me as utopian thinking that frequently causes more problems than it solves. And it’s difficult for ideologues like anarcho capitalists and socialists to maintain enough detachment to avoid introducing all kinds of biases that leave them unable to see the truth. I’m certainly aware of the fact that authoritarian capitalists often privatized businesses that were nationalized in part as a means to reward their supporters. What I take issue with is arbitrarily saying that that’s not “real privatization” because it doesn’t fit my anarcho libertarian ideologue definitions of “private” as something pure and uncorrupted, as if such purity ever really happens in the world. It’s the no true Scotsman fallacy again to avoid admitting that there was capitalism in Nazi Germany.
2
@MadsterV I brought up anarcho capitalism because this whole debate was started by a post from anarcho capitalist, Resulting in a perspective with a very warped view of history and historical ideologies such as Socialism and Nazism.
2
@MadsterV ”did you misread…?” LOL No
2
@MadsterV Capitalism requires freedom? Well for the capitalists yes to a degree. But since its birth in the Italian renaissance capitalism has flourished mostly under authoritarian governments. That may offend your libertarian cult beliefs but you just don’t know the history if you think otherwise. True Socialism is a left-wing ideology Fascism is not. The two are not related. People who say otherwise simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
2
@MadsterV I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I don’t think you’re talking about anything
2
@MadsterV It’s only true Socialism to a fascist who hates left Socialism
2
@MadsterV No he was opposed to their ideas of re-distributing the productive labor of those who achieved to the undeserving. He was opposed to the leftist negation of the individual. He viewed these as threats to the Nordic race. He says that quite clearly. You just can’t accept it, Because you disregard history and think that anything involving government authority has to be on the left. And probably because you’re trying to sanitize Nazism as well.
2
@MadsterV Again your equating state control with the left and only the left flies in the face of literally thousands of years of history. In your addled brain ancien regime monarchs like Louis the 14th were leftists: laughable! Only modern day anarcho libertarians with no sense of history could possibly think that.
2
@KameradVonTurnip Only if you’re making it up as you go along in order to distort history. If on the other hand you’re actually using the original writings from the past that were the means by which Nazi and leftist ideology were formed starting in the 18th century there’s no way that any leftist ideology works as it was originally intended if you substitute race for class the way the Nazi’s did. Doing so directly contradicts a fundamental principle of leftist ideology in a way that’s totally hostile towards its historical goals-dating all the way back to Rousseau. You may not agree with those goals but you’d need a time machine to change them.
2
@KameradVonTurnip How could one of the most important figures in the history of ideas ever become redundant? The whole problem with this page is it’s disregard for the need to understand ideology through its historical development and there’s no way to do that for fascism or socialism without reading Rousseau.
2
@nicknolte8671 And that’s a perspective that creates an extreme distortion of historical reality. You may as well say “I am an anarcho capitalist. So I can’t see anything for what it is.”
2
@nicknolte8671 Yeah and for all his cherry picking of history he hasn’t figured out that his brand of anarcho-capitalism is an anachronism to the past that he’s trying futilely to locate it within. This whole page should be retitled “An attempt to retrofit anarcho-capitalism onto a past where it didn’t really exist”
2
By this logic, scouts sent to get information on an opposing athletic team are actually working for the opposing team.
2
It has a certain internal logical consistency but it’s also based on a lot of ridiculous and irrational premises for instance that “inferior” people aren’t capable of establishing nations.
2
@annatanneberger1 It’s not being taught that Nazis were leftist because they weren’t and presenting anyone with a distorted picture of history that leaves them blind to danger on the right is irresponsible.
2
@bruggeman672 Well if that were really the reason it wasn’t being taught you’d have a point. But the real reason it isn’t being taught is because it’s not what happened. The Nazis were indeed evil. But it does not therefore follow that they were leftist. The premise of the explanation that you can’t justify evil logically here seems to be that evil only happens in leftist governments and ideology, which is an absurd utopian cult belief that only an ideologue with no connection to reality could believe. It also flies in the face of the abundant contradictions between Nazi ideology and actions and leftist ideology throughout history.
2
@scott1324 Yes agreed. But you can’t do that by giving a free pass to one or the other end of the political spectrum as a place miraculously free from authoritarianism when history says that it never has been. That’s just like jumping through a minefield in the dark.
2
@jluvs2ride Not trying to defend any ideology. I’m trying to stop you from propagandizing by mislabeling everything that you don’t like as leftist. Authoritarianism is bad from wherever it comes from and people need to know that it comes from a lot of places, not just the left. If they don’t they won’t be on guard to stop the next Hitler.
2
@vladimpaler3498 This is more like the difference between the old testament and the Bhagavad-Gita
2
Read what the Nazis actually said. Read the primary sources such as Mein Kampf and interviews of Hitler and records of the Bamberg conference. Don’t read propaganda put together by people who are cherry picking thess sources in order to rewrite history.
1
@12q8 It’s hardly just Marxist historians who’ve pointed out the truth about Nazi ideology and what puts it on the far right.
1
@12q8 That’s just a verbose way of saying that the only thing that matters in determining the principles of an ideology are whether or not it applies economic controls. It’s begging the question: “The determination of whether or not an ideology is conservative or leftist is made only by whether or not it involves controls on the economy because controls on the economy are the only thing that matter in determining where the Ideology lies on the political spectrum.” LOL! To accept this tautology we have to agree to ignore the history of ideology without being given any reason to do so. That history tells us that Nazism and leftism emerged from different places with very different goals and ideas behind them. The result of both very often includes nasty authoritarianism. But that’s not all we need to know in order to avoid the danger of both. We’re not safe from authoritarianism simply by remembering to avoid anything from the left as you keep implying without regard for the lessons of history. And it’s really silly to continue to make that absurd utopian statement which amounts to the proposition that conservatism is pure and can never result in any bad outcomes. You’re just like a Marxist in predicting the end of history and fulfillment of communism if only people will just follow the rules, which they never do. So when they fail to behave according to your theory, you simply say well that wasn’t really conservatism. It couldn’t be because there was a bad outcome. LOL!
1
@12q8 Well I know you’re trying to avoid being identified with the right at the same time you’re desperately trying to avoid associating anything bad with the right. But the modern libertarian cult almost always betrays its real intentions this way. It’s a subtle, disingenuous defense of leaving the door open for right wing authoritarianism. If anything bad happened you’ll just blame it on the left instead of on your own anarchical principles or the right.
1
@12q8 It’s okay. I’m not part of your anarchist, fascism denial cult.
1
@12q8 I watched his video. It’s just not my sole source of information. So I’ve read the things that he intentionally leaves out minimizes or distorts.
1
@12q8 You’re in denial if you think that people attempting to purge the right of anything bad aren’t trying to idealize conservatism the same way a Marxist idealizes communism. “Authoritarians could come from the right? heresy!!! don’t make nonsense!! Arrest that man for counterrevolutionary thought!”
1
@12q8 it only implies that in certain places in the present day. In Europe from the early modern period right through the early 20th century the right implied traditional authoritarian structures such as a monarchy and an aristocracy which had control over markets( See mercantilism). The proponents of free markets and equal rights at that time were viewed as the leftists. It’s where they even get the word liberalism as in “classical liberalism.”
1
@12q8 If you haven’t figured this out already Nazism is a historical ideology. So you can’t understand it solely in a relation to current events
1
@12q8 And Nazism co-opted Socialism away from its historical meaning of eliminating disparities of wealth and providing for all according to need through collective ownership, Substituting racism and extreme nationalism which are ideas antithetical to leftist ideology.
1
@12q8 The problem is that historically big government hasn’t been necessarily left. Throughout most of history it’s actually been on the right. So you can’t just arbitrarily rewrite history to exclude right wing authoritarianism because you don’t think it should be considered conservative or even because other people today don’t consider it conservative.
1
@12q8 For instance the authoritarian rule of Frederick the Great in Prussia. He was very much a conservative German leader and one who Adolf Hitler by the way idolized. Life in Prussia under Frederick the great was very much about the individual being subordinated to the state.
1
@12q8 Nazism is a conservative ideology. It doesn’t belong on the left not by any standards of the left. It doesn’t conform to 18th and 19th century principles of individual liberty. It doesn’t conform to mid-19 century to the present day ideas about redistribution of wealth to all people according to need. It’s about traditional authoritarianism racism extreme nationalism violence and mysticism.
1
@12q8 There’s absolutely no historical or logical basis for calling European royals left wing. The left was literally founded in opposition to them to overthrow them. That’s an ex post facto redesignation literally rewriting history and in a way that makes no sense with respect to any past definition of leftist ideology or any of its history. It’s only a means for you to invert the truth and avoid the obvious. It does have a connection to criticisms of the left call Lynne it’s an excellent example of an Orwellian inversion of the truth. And cherry picking expeditions through history can’t change the fact that Nazism is just a form of fascism. If you look at the things that the Italian fascist did they follow the same playbook and the same principles as Nazism.
1
@12q8 If you’re going to disregard the entire history of ideology in order to decide where ideology fits within that history we’ve entered total make-believe land. A non sequitur is the only possible result. You are literally making it up as you go along just to be able to avoid admitting that authoritarianism can an often has happened on the right. But your cult beliefs are not history and you can’t make up history.
1
@12q8 History is much more than just “buzzwords.” It involves principles and historical development of ideas that help you understand the nature of ideology. If you ignore all that you’re just making up things that are not accurate descriptions of historical ideology.
1
@12q8 There’s nothing to figure out about your words other than that you’re making up your own alternate reality.
1
@12q8 I wasn’t the one who brought up the mischaracterization of left vs right. What you’ve done now is simply state the proposition the way you should have in the first place. One caveat still applies: anarchy(which is what passes as the libertarian goal these days) doesn’t help you avoid authoritarianism. It hastens its arrival.
1
@12q8 Well if the left right paradigm is really outmoded why do you keep involking it? Why is it so important for you to keep casting the left as the only one that’s authoritarian and the right always purely as individual. You haven’t modernized the description of authoritarianism: you’ve propagandized it. You’re still trying to say that this only happens on the left. You just won’t admit it.
1
Evidence in the hands of another libertarian ideologue is just going to get twisted to fit a predetermined conclusion no matter how much of it you assemble because the conclusion has already been decided upon and it’s simply an effort to find the evidence needed to support it and ignore the rest. This is not how a true historian writes.
1
@TheImperatorKnight Hitler’s “revolution” was all about restoring something that he genuinely believed was an ancient German tribal identity. In order to achieve this he did a great many things to preserve traditional German authoritarian structures. It’s no accident that he got the support of the German elite both economic and hereditary. To compare that to the mass killing of Russian or French aristocracy in those true revolutions is ludicrous.
1
Whatever you do, don’t ever associate anything evil or Orwellian, with Conservatives: find some bizarre contortion of logic to suggest that right wing authoritarians are actually leftist, despite their bitter hatred of leftists and everything they stood for, and see how many people you can fool.
1
@colebehnke7767 name a policy that they implemented that they were actually against and I’ll prove you wrong
1
@colebehnke7767 and I was asking you to give an example of a policy they implemented that they were against. I call BS.
1
@colebehnke7767 I’m saying that you don’t know what you’re talking about
1
@colebehnke7767 I’m saying that you’re mouthing a silly delusion of ignoramuses on the right who just can’t handle any suggestion that there is anything but goodness associated with the right.
1
@colebehnke7767 this mythology comes from the same mindset as that of the claim that there were tens of thousands of black confederate combat troops.
1
@colebehnke7767 he didn’t end private property rights. There is more major industry in private hands in Germany than England in 1943. And the Nazi labor organization weekend worker bargaining didn’t strengthen it.
1
@colebehnke7767 there was an extensive welfare system created in the late 19th century under Bismarck and expand during the time or republic. Hitler scaled it back. Wage and price controls were implemented earlier in the United States, and most every other major belligerent.
1
communism is everything for the benefit of the dictator: so by that measure Louis the 14th was a communist. I don’t think so
1
Strasser was well to the left of Hitler but even he wasn’t a Marxist despite what Hitler said about him. That’s the explanation
1
@johns3927 The problem with the idea that Strawser made all of this up is that Hitler was also quoted by others and even made speeches such as the one in Bamberg rejecting leftist economic measures and extolling the virtues of private property. If you’re accusing Strasser of fabricating discussions he had with Hitler, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence by the way: where is yours?
1
@johns3927 Yeah it’s amazing that you can quote those sources and then come up with the final paragraph that you did. When you look at what Hitler actually did once he had power especially that’s absurd. He didn’t confiscate wealth or nationalize the property of aristocrats, industrialists and that’s in line with what he said he was going to do to the Strassers and at Bamberg. He wasn’t compromising between collectivism, which is a modern libertarian catchword, and individualism. He was reframing traditional private property holding and capitalism in order to unite the master race as one people whose interests were united. He was also cutting the blocks out from under the leftists remaining in the Nazi party encouraging those who would to abandon leftism and preparing to kill those who wouldn’t.
1
@johns3927 Nope it’s not a matter what I think. It’s a matter what actually happened. In point of fact he didn’t do anything to socialize the means of production. All you have are things he said while he was working to seize power to deceive people that he wanted to use for his own ends. All the evidence of what he actually did shows that he was on the far right. All the corporations, land holders who kept their wealth and enriched themselves throughout the years of the third Reich, All the privatization under the Nazis, All of the things that Hitler did to take away rights of workers to make capitalism less restricted under his rule than it was even in imperial Germany show that Hitler was in point of fact and in every meaningful way a right wing dictator who was implacably opposed to the agenda of the left and everything it stood for. Your desire to reconfigure him as a leftist doesn’t matter because he didn’t do actually anything consistent with core leftist ideological principles.
1
@johns3927 Well what Hitler called Socialism ideologically had nothing to do with what the left call socialism. Is that clear enough for you? We’re talking about two entirely different things using the same word and Hitler himself was explicit about this: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
1
@johns3927 yeah that’s a bunch of nonsense. What happened in the Soviet Union was completely different from what happened in Nazi Germany the videos lame attempt at comparison notwithstanding. Hitler actually privatized more industry than Western democracies at the same period of time; he certainly didn’t engage in the kind of mass confiscation of agricultural and industrial property and central planning found in the Soviet union or anything like it, not even remotely close. There were no private industrialists who got wealthy in the Soviet union because they didn’t exist under Stalin. But they most definitely did exist under Hitler. Playing word games in order to make state property sound like private property is the Soviet Union is just lying.
1
@johns3927 As the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shows, truly democratic republics are not purely places with democratic systems. In North Korea you have a democratic republic that’s completely hostile to democracy and everything it stands for. We don’t want to call it anti-democratic because then we wouldn’t be using our “critical thinking skills” to simply accept whatever they call themselves at face value without question. Plus I can come up with an endless amount of research where the North Koreans said they are democratic, so what they’re actually doing is irrelevant.
1
@johns3927 He didn’t abolish private property at all in one swoop or 10 swoops, in any “swoops.” And privatization was exactly what it says: things went out of state hands and put in private hands. It was privatization in exactly the same way is that it was privatization in other countries that did the same thing. Crony capitalism is still capitalism regardless of your libertarian dogma attempt to redefine what the word means. Rewarding your friends with property doesn’t make it into state property.
1
@johns3927 You haven’t answered anything I’ve said and you’re asking me if “I’ve” got anything else?!🤷🏼‍♂️
1
I think you enjoy deluding yourself into believing that human nature is perfect so long as it remains within what you define as conservative. LOL This is just as ludicrous as the Marxist belief in a classless society
1
@vegvisirphotography5632 Guess you’ve never seen the Nazi propaganda depicting African-Americans as apes and the like. You really have no clue what you’re talking about
1
@MrFrankfurt13 Really all they have in common is authoritarianism and not even that in every case.
1
@JK-rv9tp LOL.. You’re ignorant of core leftist ideological principles which deny that Darwinian competition is ever justifiable and in fact hold that they make Socialism impossible. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too acknowledging the total inconsistency between Nazi and leftist ideology while ludicrously asserting that they are still the same thing. Even more ridiculous is the assertion that they abolished private property rights when in fact thousands of people continued to own large amounts of private property and the Nazis actually increased the number privately held corporations during their rule. You’re trying to get around this by asserting that the German state had ultimate say over property. Guess what so does the United States. It’s called eminent domain. And neither the Nazi state nor the US have used their authority to nationalize major industries a la a socialist state. It just didn’t happen. In fact the number of private corporations that enriched themselves under Nazi rule is quite long and in fact includes corporations that still rake in private profits to this day. To accept your definition of Socialism is to throw out the entire history of socialist ideology and simply assert that all government of any kind is by definition socialist and that the only way to avoid Socialism is anarchy. Ridiculous!
1
YourRationalWorldisaCircleJerk You can’t change it retroactively without a time machine genius. Propaganda like what you’re pushing is nothing more than deception, an attempt to hide what is real behind a lie. And objective truth is not something that you can win or lose. It just is. But you’re so ignorant and so blindly partisan much like the Nazis were that you don’t even understand objective truth anymore. It’s like the only truth you know is what your “side” tells you. But this puts on the kind of ideological blinders that prevent you from even knowing yourself, making any meaningful victory impossible.
1
@ericharmon7163 Sorry but I can tell that you don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about because of what you’re saying and because I’ve read original sources in the history of ideas. You don’t want to hear it because you fancy yourself something that you’re not without having bothered to learn what you need to order to say something meaningful. That doesn’t change because you want it to be otherwise. There is no substitute for studying the history of ideas if you want understand a historical ideology like that of the Nazis. But I can see you’d rather puff yourself up with self congratulations for having watched videos on YouTube from another uneducated person who Cherry picks his way through history without knowledge of the context or genuine context for truth. Your ignorance will remain not as good as my knowledge.
1
@trystdodge6177 It wasn’t an accident doofus. They were Statists, Just like the conservative authoritarian imperial German rulers before them. Nazi Statism is in fact how they won the support of those conservatives. I know that in your very uneducated and limited view of history you have no idea that statism has a much longer conservative history than it does a leftist history but that doesn’t change the reality. Just what you know in the present day in the United States doesn’t tell you anything about the history of ideology in Europe.
1
@trystdodge6177 Of course, the American left was founded by people like Jefferson in reaction against statism-that kind of statism that existed in conservatism European monarchical states like Hohenzollern Germany at the time. But you don’t know that because you’re ignorant of history. You’re not very bright either are you?
1
@trystdodge6177 Quite well actually. It’s what separates me from you: a fool who has no idea what he’s talking about. I could recommend some sources from my European intellectual history seminar. But I doubt you have enough prerequisite reading or comprehension to understand them.
1
@wOkeKing There was only one Marxist historian in my university history department when I was in graduate school.
1
@awkwardautistic It doesn’t fit into the American right or left paradigm but it is most definitely part of the European right. Ethnocentric and solipsistic Americans can’t fit it into their paradigm so they assume that it doesn’t fit into any paradigm. It would be better if they based their judgments on knowledge instead of ignorance.
1
@awkwardautistic Oh OK I see: you’re a fascist intellectual. You’re a true believer in an ideology of genocide which seeks to destroy whole classes of human beings as supposedly sub human. Stripped to its essentials you’re advocating barbarism in order to preserve what you call civilization, a civilization built on irrationality and violence. I will always be proud of the fact that my grandfather risked his life and endured great hardship to destroy the forces of your utterly depraved ideology.
1
@awkwardautistic Yes I studied European intellectual history in graduate school. And understanding the history and development of fascist ideology since the French revolution didn’t make me any more likely to support it. Don’t waste your time trying to turn me into a fascist
1
“Collectivist ideology” is a contemporary buzz phrase of libertarians that doesn’t mean much in the 19th century or early 20th century. It’s a way to make sweeping generalizations which ignore the principles of ideology from the past in order to categorize virtually everything that involves government as socialist.
1
Libertarian’s obsession with purging the right of any connection with anything even unpleasant puts them in the same company with utopian ideologues of the far left: attempting to live outside of reality for the sake of their dogma.
1
No part of Hitler’s origins lie on the left. that’s ludicrous Hitler hijacked a leftist organization and turned it completely inside out. He himself never pursued and implacably opposed leftist goals.
1
@ThunderChunky101 Leftist economics were anathema to the Nazis. Leftist social policies were anathema to the Nazis. Hitler himself made this abundantly clear. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.
1
@virgil6873 In principle, the government protects the economic interests of the German volk not by taking a round about way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the state but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property. Adolf Hitler 1938
1
@virgil6873 No he wasn’t. And he had killed people who were.
1
@neboyshanicolich761 It's impossible to be true to core socialist ideological principles and also follow an ideology based on nationalism. It is a non-sequitur.
1
@CantusTropus One actually need not "endorse" Hitler's beliefs in order to understand them and differentiate them from those of the left. But libertarians are usually ideologues incapable of understanding the concept of critical analysis outside of the rigid blinders of ideology. So no surprise that you have to call me a communist simply because of my objective view. Objectivity is a concept alien to the libertarian mind these days.
1
@donaldsheckler3636 There have been plenty of socialists who were nationalistic in spite of their socialist principles, but never any who were nationalistic BECAUSE of them.
1
@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Hitler was very consistent in defending private property of wealthy "aryans" and avoiding the kind of seizure of the means of production found in true socialist states at the time.
1
@ThunderChunky101 You just can't point out a single one of these supposed "non sequiturs" right?
1
@ThunderChunky101 Nazis and communists were ideological enemies, because their core principles were diametrically opposed to each other.
1
@thelizardking3036 Hitler was very consistent in opposing leftist policies in both his words and deeds.
1
@fasteddy9312 Hitler opposed democracy for what he said was its propensity to destroy capitalism and produce communism.
1
@CantusTropus So "serving the common good" with a system based on private property is the same as mass confiscation of wealth in the Soviet Union? If so then all government throughout history has been communist. LOL
1
@juliantheapostate8295 To Hitler it meant taking industry out of state hands and putting into private hands. Is there another definition of privatization?
1
@scott1324 What would be gained is to remove the rigid, dogmatic ideological blinders that prevent libertarians from even looking to the right as a potential source of danger, just as the left can be. Such blinders allowed Hitler to rise to power in the first place.
1
@donaldsheckler3636 I wouldn’t argue with you about the left. I don’t support his ideology but Hitler made the same point about leftism, Because his beliefs were not of the left at all: Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler 1938
1
@scott1324 What are you talking about? Most of the people here, including the page author, are engaged in huge denial of any association between Nazism and the right. It’s clearly heresy to them to even imply that Nazism could fall on the right side of the political spectrum. And they’re prepared to go to endless lengths of circuitous logic and cherry-picking of evidence to further this denialism.
1
@TheImperatorKnight His religion was his nationalism, his faith in a German tribal identity and belief that Germans were the race of destiny. True socialism is based on the idea of advancing people without regard to nationality or tribal identity. It’s egalitarian something that the Nazis were appalled by.
1
@JohnStopman Yeah Socialism and the left more broadly don’t uplift one “tribe” over others. They are not based on religion or other irrational thought necessary to do that. The idea of referring to Socialism as religion is just projection. Socialists might be wrong but they attempt “progress” through rational means.
1
@trystdodge6177 Marx may have been wrong but he was attempting to find the truth through reason not by some mystical sense of nationhood.
1
@gsmiro Whether or not the Nazis were truly Christian is less important than whether or not they shared with Christianity a belief system based fundamentally on irrationality and the supernatural. And the answer to that question is definitely yes.
1
@trystdodge6177 A nation made up of everyone without regard to national boundaries or identity is a non sequitur. Marxists were also idealists and that tends to lead to blind faith in what the ideology says will happen even if the ideology tries to base itself on rationality The Nazis didn’t even start with an attempt to find truth through rational inquiry..
1
@trystdodge6177 So you’re claiming that in order to identify people as social beings you have to ascribe to a totalitarian ideology? Then it’s hard to explain how people were doing that for thousands of years before totalitarian ideology as we know it even existed. You’re not going to get very far by trying to make up your own make-believe standards and apply them to history, because you can’t change the history.
1
@trystdodge6177 Marxists are hardly the only people historically who viewed people as social and the creators of social organizations. Apart from some relatively recent, radical individualists, most people all across the ideological and political spectrums have throughout history. So if all you’re saying is that a given belief system views people as socially organized then you’ve told us almost nothing about the belief system. Mostly it suggests that you’re trying to force an an acronistic, radical individualist perspective onto a past place where doesn’t make any sense, where it certainly wouldn’t have been understood by anyone who you’re trying to describe with it. And it would be very hard to characterize fascist as utopians because they’re not seeking any sort of ideal world for anyone but their “tribe.” Indeed they want anything but utopia for the “Subhumans” they seek to enslave or destroy. It’s more like a dystopian world that the Nazi seek.
1
@trystdodge6177 LOL Well in order for you to make a valid point the Marxian concept of people as social organized would have to be the only one in history! And you know that’s not true. And you can’t demonstrate that the Nazi conception of people as social animals is remotely like that of the Marxist version. Indeed Hitler himself explains in detail why it isn’t with one key difference being the Marxist negation of the individual. Simply Acknowledging the social organization of people hardly defines them as Marxist or even totalitarian.
1
@trystdodge6177 And therein lies a world of difference. It’s the difference between the left and the right, between seeking equality for all and seeking to preserve a mythical tribe supposed to be from a distant past at other’s expense. There is irrationality in any authoritarianism. That’s where socialists so often fall apart. But they do differ from fascists in founding their theory upon rationality rather than irrationality.
1
@trystdodge6177 Against the “arguments” you’re making? Of course I will.
1
You’re wrong about the ideologies of the 19th century. It was much more complicated. There were different varieties of conservatives and liberalism and other ideologies that developed throughout the century. Through the mid 19th century, conservatism for instance did not mean “hands off” the economy. That would be a better description of early liberalism in fact. Conservatism throughout most of the 19th century and even into the 20th century meant traditional authoritarian structures and heavy state control over many things including the economy.
1
@heijimikata7181 “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how Hitler is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economicv leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932
1
There’s nothing logically inconsistent with being socialist and libertarian although I would consider that rather utopian and naïve, like being an anarchist. But you can’t be a fascist without being authoritarian
1
@mephistopheles6806 Well there are degrees of statism
1
@MCCrleone354 It doesn’t have to be absolutely pure to be capitalism. Even advertising diminishes the purity of the market
1
@Anthony-jo7up Communism actually doesn’t assert the permanence of state authority but fascism does
1
@MCCrleone354 Capitalism has never existed anywhere in history without some government intervention
1
@MCCrleone354 You’re speaking about capitalism the way ideologue Marxists speak about communism: something that has never actually existed.
1
@dwizzi1724 it’s crony capitalism, which usually goes hand-in-hand with authoritarian capitalism, which is what Nazi Germany used
1
@dwizzi1724 and, of course, fascism defines the community as excluding most people within it unless they’re part of the master race. So it can’t possibly be true Socialism.
1
@terrygribb9185 libertarianism is a cult, and like many cults or beliefs, require quite a few unusual twists of logic or a logic
1
No the reason is right wing Nazi ideology explained by Adolf Hitler among others as such. The Nazis explicitly rejected core leftist ideological principles like class conflict, redistribution of wealth according to need and the equality of all people. They adhered to right wing ideological tenants such as traditional authoritarian statism, Nationalism, War of conquest, and the protection of property and property holding classes. People who say that authoritarianism by itself makes something leftist simply don’t have any idea of the history of authoritarianism
1
@tipsy09 If we’re going to try to understand what Nazism is as an ideology we can’t use the standard of simply “whatever I disagree with I’m going to call Nazi because Nazi is something people don’t like.” We have to look historically at how ideologies have developed and been described.
1
@Lindedelaciencia They are not. What people don’t often report is the speech that Hitler delivered at the same conference of Bamberg, which he used to outmaneuver the remaining true leftists in the Nazi party that issued the platform transforming the party into a right wing authoritarian organization.
1
@KameradVonTurnip And the Nazis said slave laborers achieved freedom through work so it must have been true, right? According to Hitler democracy destroys capitalism by giving those without property the ability to interfere in the factory owner’s decisions. Once they came to power the Nazis scaled back worker rights protections setup under imperial Germany and the Weimar Republic
1
There’s no “subtle” distinction. The differences between Nazism and economic leftism are fundamental and total. The Nazis supported the protection of traditional property holding classes, private property, traditional authoritarian power structures, nationalism and aggressive warfare. Economic leftists support redistribution of wealth, class conflict, internationalism, and the equality of all people.
1
@FrankGrauStudio No they didn’t support Jewish property holding because Jews were deemed to be subhuman and the force behind communism which everyone knows is against private property. But it’s simply a fact that they did protect the property of Aryan aristocrats and capitalists.
1
@FrankGrauStudio The Nazis supported the exact same authoritarian power structures that had always ruled Germany: a powerful and far reaching state, an aristocracy of birth, and a capitalist overlord class that ran its industry. Authoritarianism has a much longer history on the right than it does on the left.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Leftist support redistribution of wealth so that everyone is treated according to their needs under the presumption of the equality of all people. The Nazis only re-distributed wealth by theft from racial enemies to a supposedly superior race without regard to the needs of anyone but simply because they believed “inferior” races didn’t have a right to live. They violently opposed leftist redistribution of wealth from wealthy Aryans to anyone else including other aryans.
1
@FrankGrauStudio The left has viewed nationalism as an obstacle to progress by dividing people against each other. Nationalism is the whole point of fascism. The Nazis violently opposed the internationalism of leftism.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Denial of class conflict denies a core principle of the left. Nazi ideology bitterly opposed the concept of class conflict because it divided the master race against itself along economic class lines when Hitler wanted Aryans to be one united people.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Gangsters hijacked leftist governments and turned socialist states into a personal racket. This happens over and over again because Socialism is a Utopian ideology that fails to account for human nature and its endless potential for corruption, but that doesn’t change the tenants of the ideology which are to bring about equality between all people. Even the gangsters like Stalin were careful to use the language of equality while they were exploiting their people for this reason. It’s entirely different with Nazis and other fascists. They were very explicit In opposing equality as a simply means for “Jewish bolsheviks” to destroy the achievements and power of the master race.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Yes and targeting Jews for theft of their property is not consistent with any leftist ideology. Every political system is potentially vulnerable to gangsters like Joseph Stalin. But in comparing Nazi and communist ideology only the communist valid ideological principle is to eliminate classes. The Nazis avowed principle was to prevent the elimination of classes. And the Bolshevik elite notwithstanding the Soviets did far more redistribution of wealth then did the Nazis. Every state told its industry how it should be run an organized during World War II. By your measure capitalism didn’t exist in any of the major powers of World War II. And you know that’s ridiculous. This is another example of you’re trying to force your anachronistic expectations of utopian anarco-capitalism on a past where no one even tried to make it happen. And you’re ignoring the fact that Germany had been authoritarian with extensive private industry long before the Nazis. Do you think that Krupp didn’t exist before Hitler? German capitalist supported the Nazis and were rewarded with more profits. Not fitting your cult’s utopian definition of capitalism which didn’t exist at the time doesn’t make them into socialists. You think it’s false that authoritarianism has so much longer history in conservative states simply because there have been socialist authoritarian states? LOL So leftist ideology as we know it today didn’t even exist before the French Revolution. Now you’re claiming that the appearance of left estates when it happened had some kind of power to alter the space-time continuum and make the entire history of authoritarianism for hundreds of years before disappear? Or perhaps you’re saying that when socialist states finally arrived they also acquired a time machine and sent revolutionaries back to 17th century France and convinced Louis the 14th to become a socialist. Why didn’t he ever talk about this or do anything else consistent with left ideology in that case? He was definitely authoritarian. Come on seriously you just don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s ludicrous. By the way you’re wrong about the origin of the left right political spectrum. Derives from the position of representatives on the French national assembly during the French revolution, which since the Revolution helped give rise to both fascism and leftism, is a very appropriate And meaningful spectrum to use in describing ideology appearing since the French Revolution. Your problem is you just can’t understand the history of ideology or much of anything about any ideology simply by trying to read through all of history your narrow cult anarcho-capitalist “ideas” Whether or not an ideological principle to red-distribute wealth In an effort to reduce or eliminate economic classes is correct doesn’t change the fact that IT HAS HAPPENED a lot in socialist states as state policy. The Nazis actually tried to stop it from happening. And it was never a tenant of their ideology. This is a key point that you keep trying to avoid because you know that you can’t portray the Nazis as leftist unless you can avoid this truth. The Nazis reason for stealing from Jews doesn’t mitigate the immorality of doing so but it does tell you what the ideological motivation was. And it couldn’t have been Leftist unless they were targeting economic classes instead of only racial enemies. Only targeting a group for theft because of their race is simply contrary to leftist principles and it doesn’t help further the leftist goal of eliminating economic classes at all. And the Nazis didn’t take wealth away from non-Jews any more than did Western Democracies at the time. In fact they did less of it than Franklin Roosevelt. Again the existence of a bolshevik elite made up of hypocritical gangsters who took advantage of the revolution in the Soviet union doesn’t change leftist ideology or the fact that the bolsheviks did far more actual confiscation and redistribution of wealth than the Nazis and differed radically from the Nazis in re-distributing in order to try to eliminate economic classes. What the state does with wealth and the reasons for it do matter in understanding the ideology. Internationalism has been a core principle of leftist ideology since it’s inception. It’s always been an anathema to fascist ideology. Russia is no longer socialist and the existence of nationalism has never been completely stamped out in socialist states anyway. When the Soviets needed to win the war they tapped into Russian nationalism as a means to rally their people against the Germans. That doesn’t make nationalism a component of socialist thought or change the fact that it’s contrary to socialist ideology. The Chinese have dropped most of their socialist policies and are more authoritarian capitalist in practice than they are truly socialist. But you define leftism as simply equivalent to any authoritarianism in an absurd ahistorical manner which makes everything but your own anarcho-capitalism socialist. So your “analysis” isn’t to be taken seriously. It would have us believe that there were leftist states all over the world hundreds of years before the left as we know it was even started and that European monarchs such as Frederick the Great and Louis the 14th were socialists simply because they were authoritarian. LOL “So the Nazis were fine with a globalist agenda of the right?” What are you talking about? Can you give an example of any right wing effort to unite workers across the world for Socialism? If they’re not doing that, It’s not Internationalism. It’s something that is core to Nazi ideology called “global conquest” by force, not in order to unite any economic classes across geographical boundaries, but in order to take from everyone what rightly belongs only to the master race according to the tenants of fascist ideology, which is completely in conflict with Leftist Internationalism you dufus. Yes economic class conflict exists in leftist ideology and only in leftist ideology. It’s not in Nazism or other fascism. Hitler had people killed for advocating it. “Unless one was a jew.” No that’s not an exception because Nazi persecution of Jews wasn’t about economic class warfare at all. It was about targeting “racial enemies.” Your analogy about fish is ridiculous, Because it tries to ignore the ideological motivation for attacks on the Jews while trying to identify the ideology of the attackers. In affect you’re saying that all we have to know is that they were attacked not what the ideological purpose of the attack was: when we’re trying to determine not just that they were attacked but the ideology of the attackers. Laughable! Gangsters usually start socialist regimes from the outset? So now you’re going to use the no true Scotsman fallacy yet again to make Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and even Leon Trotsky disappear from history with their places to be taken by Stalin as much more than what he actually was? LOL And Socialism isn’t the only utopian ideology without practical examples for its full realization. The same could be said for the existence of actual anarcho-capitalist societies. By your own standard therefore your ideology of anarcho-capitalism is not real because whenever people try it it doesn’t work as stated. In fact the results of attempting capitalism without any government have simply been anarchy and loss of liberty for everyone but a few. “ My point exactly” Thus again you missed the point. Stalin was an individual who Diverted socialism from its avowed purpose. That doesn’t change the ideology. On the other hand Hitler’s gangsterism was entirely consistent with Nazi ideology. With leftist and Nazi ideology we are talking about two entirely different things. That’s factually incorrect to say that the Nazis were fine with equality except where Jews were concerned. Hitler for instance explicitly stated that it would be wrong to take the wealth of Aryan business leaders and give it to anyone else, even other Aryans. He said that wealthy Aryans had earned their power and position due to superior ability and achievement and that to confiscate their wealth would unjustly deny them what was theirs by right. He attacked democracy for its tendency to try to take away the power, wealth, and position earned by capitalist elites saying that it was thereby creating a path to communism. That was the attack he used against the United States in particular to suggest it the US was led by a conspiracy of Communist Jews.
1
If you try to base your identification of an ideology on how consistently its principles are applied by individuals rather than on the principles themselves you’ll never be able to figure out what the ideology’s principles are.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It doesn’t beg the question because only the Nazis among movements that use the word socialist in their name have racial enemies in their principles. The others have principles opposed to such concepts and call for the equality of all people. The concept of racial enemies Fits the fascist notion of nationalism. It doesn’t fit Leftist Internationalism and unity of the working class worldwide. The concept of racial enemies defies socialist ideas of the improvement of all people and providing for each according to their needs. It flies in the face of such principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It’s not a strawman. Until the war began the Nazis did less much less to control their economy then did for instance the United States, actually privatizing more industry than western democracies at the time.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It’s not an ad hominem attack to point out that someone is attempting to make judgments about the past based on whether or not it could correspond to a perspective that didn’t exist at the time.
1
@FrankGrauStudio The existence of authoritarianism long before Nazism in Germany is relevant because it proves that authoritarianism isn’t necessarily Leftist. It proves that the Nazis were actually being conservative not radical in maintaining traditional authoritarian power in Germany. You people would have us believe that the only way you can be authoritarian is to be leftist Your authoritarianism has a very long history as a traditional way to organize German society. It is a principle of German conservatism dating back hundreds of years. And again the notion that the only way you can be authoritarian is to be leftist reflects your anachronistic anarcho libertarian ideology and ignorance of history.
1
@FrankGrauStudio well this deal they made with the devil was a capitalistic deal. They didn’t abandon capitalism in order to make that deal. They made a deal which improved their profits and secured their property. Somehow in your mind this makes them socialist even though their property wasn’t taken away or redistributed. No that makes them and their country not leftist. But you people be like “they didn’t follow leftist principles because they were corrupt so that makes them Leftist.” Call it whatever you will but if they didn’t follow leftist principles they’re not leftist. This sounds like you’re speaking from the perspective of the kind of utopianism that we see in Marxism except in this case begging the question that it can’t be capitalistic unless it’s pure idealized capitalism which never actually exist in reality.
1
@FrankGrauStudio No it’s different because what the bolsheviks did with their political and economic policy was radically different and indeed a profound shift to the left from what existed in czarist Russia for hundreds of years before Whereas Hitler’s economic and political policies were very consistent with traditional German authoritarianism that long pre-dated his regime. He didn’t shift his country to the left the way the bolsheviks did their country. Nazism was conservative in the sense of preserving German government traditions and also conservative in preserving German capitalism indeed even invigorating it. The Nazis certainly didn’t nationalize virtually all industry And redistribute wealth on a vast scale the way the bolsheviks did. They didn’t do the things that leftists do according to any leftist principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Again it’s not an ad hominem attack to point out That you’re using an Anachronistic standard by which something can be considered capitalist only if it meets a definition of capitalism that no one practiced or knew about at the time or any othier time. It’s actually pointing out that saying something isn’t capitalist unless it meets an anarcho capitalist definition of capitalism is just the no true Scotsman fallacy. Your profound ignorance of the history of widespread authoritarian capitalism all throughout Western Europe for hundreds of years prior to the development of the first leftist thought doesn’t mean that there is a lack of evidence for these authoritarian capitalist regimes. They were in just about every European country. OK there were no leftist regimes before the French revolution not unless you consider the American republic which practice something much closer to classical liberalism than anything we would call leftist today. The right can hardly claim credit for Developing natural rights into the liberalizing and socially progressive doctrine that it became during the enlightenment and French Revolution. Such ideas were alien to and repressed by traditional German conservatism long before the Nazis. So in blocking the development of such thought in Germany conservatives from the Junker class to Adolf Hitler were maintaining German conservatism. Conservatives all over Europe at the time denounced the application of such principles in the United States at the time as leftism not conservatism. Again you’re using your anachronistic present day understanding to determine what was conservative in the past. OK I’ll rephrase: perhaps you’re suggesting that leftists acquired a Time Machine and persuaded Louis the 14th to become a leftist, Because other leftist ideas didn’t exist at the time either. Well the fact that it was a division in the French national assembly doesn’t make it itrelevant. Within the French assembly it was a division not just on where people were sitting but on their political ideology. Conservatives were sitting together on the right side of the assembly and Leftists were sitting on the left side together. So yes from its origin the left right distinction was always talking about ideological differences. It shows your ignorance of history and the foundations of fascist ideology that you think that fascism suddenly appeared in Italy in the 20th century and that it couldn’t have origins dating back to the French revolution simply because the word fascist hadn’t yet been coined. But the fascist origins in the French Revolution, Include the way in which the French revolution unleashed nationalism in a way never before seen and also identity based on a mythical sense of identity located within the past. It wasn’t just the authoritarianism of the French revolution but authoritarianism in the service of the nation and its “tribe” rather than the sovereign which laid the foundation for fascism. The French revolution was a proteus that also gave rise to socialism with other ingredients that it also provided. The difference is you’re the only one trying to read history through a narrow anachronistic ideological lens. I’m not a socialist and I don’t practice any other utopian ideology. I interpret history by considering all the evidence objectively Before drawing any conclusions the way an ideologue such as yourself, a fascist, or a socialist would.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It’s not an instance of the no true Scotsman fallacy when we’ve identified the consistent application of leftist principles in all other ideologies that use the word socialist but not with an Nazism and conclude that Nazism wasn’t like the others, because the no true Scotsman fallacy holds that you create a position where it’s impossible for anything to meet the standard. And in this case I’ve shown you that most everything does EXCEPT for the one that you’re falsely claiming is leftist.
1
@FrankGrauStudio You can say that he was fine with the quality among areas but that’s not accurate. He wasn’t fine with forcing equality on Aryans the way leftists Consistently have.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Confiscating wealth isn’t leftist unless it’s done to advance leftist goals of equality for all and that wasn’t the goal, in fact that was the opposite of the goal, of Nazism.
1
@FrankGrauStudio nazi redistribution of wealth from all Jews to Aryans doesn’t refute my argument in the least: it actually strengthens my argument because it was only done to advance the Aryan race and not against economic class enemies in order to bring about social equality for all. The Nazi ideology was against that leftist principle of equality and so they didn’t use redistribution for that purpose only to enrich Aryans.
1
@FrankGrauStudio It’s not a false premise that leftist ideology is based on economic class conflict and the elimination of economic classes. That’s in all leftist thought. Can you identify any leftist theory defending racism? It’s only in fascism. The fact that some leftists have also been racist doesn’t change the theory of the ideology, the written principles that describe what leftism is. It just makes them hypocrites
1
@FrankGrauStudio Not every socialist leader has diverted the state from socialist ideological principles. But even if they had it wouldn’t change the ideology itself. It would just prove that it hasn’t been realized in the real world and the same could be said of anarcho capitalism. That is one thing that sets Nazism apart from most other ideology: It has been realized rather consistently in the real world and that’s one of the great tragedies of history
1
@FrankGrauStudio American identity politics since the 1960s has abandoned core leftist ideas Of equality for all. As such I think it does have more in common with fascism then true leftism.
1
@FrankGrauStudio No anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work. I didn’t say that statist capitalism doesn’t work
1
@FrankGrauStudio You think it’s laughable to say that anarcho-capitalism doesn’t work while citing examples of state capitalism to prove its success? Where is your example of an anarcho capitalist society that does work? Can you provide even one?
1
@FrankGrauStudio The wealth of Bernie Sanders: again hypocrisy of individuals doesn’t change the principles of the ideology. The principles don’t have to function in the real world to exist on paper. Indeed it is a hallmark of ideology that very often they don’t. Again this is something you also see you in anarcho capitalist ideology.
1
@FrankGrauStudio Hitler blamed only Jews and other supposedly inferior people for Germany’s economic problems and that’s contrary to principles basic to leftist thought. Leftist thought doesn’t target race enemies and blame them for economic problems. It attributes economic problems to the existence of economic classes regardless of race. Targeting racial enemies and blaming them for economic problems doesn’t locate the source of the problem in the existence of economic classes the way leftists would and always have. In targeting racial enemies and blaming Them Hitler wasn’t blaming Germany’s economic problems on the disproportionate holding of wealth but rather on the holding of anything by the wrong people. He didn’t have a problem with an unequal distribution of wealth between Aryans and that just doesn’t fit leftist ideology. He didn’t even want inferior people to exist much less hold any property
1
@FrankGrauStudio Both. It should be obvious that leftist failure to completely remove nationalist feelings doesn’t change their ideological principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio LOL you’re trying to identify leftist ideological principles while dismissing all of the authors of the actual principles and saying that we can only consider political leaders who may or may not have adhered to the principles.
1
@FrankGrauStudio But there is one thing about the Nazis which set them apart from most other ideologies: their political leaders were very consistent in applying the principles of their ideology. Both the theory and practice of Nazism show that it’s simply not a leftist ideology.
1
@colebehnke7767 it would look like a Satanic Jesus or John D Rockefeller, declaring his undying support for communism. It’s a non sequitur, because the basis of Marxist ideology is explicitly against racism among other things. And I’ve studied the history of ideology in the 19th century in graduate school so I think I do know what I’m talking about-actually quite a bit more than you, I’m sure given your petulant, ignorant way of speaking.
1
There are however common principles that identify leftist ideology. If something doesn’t have any of them it’s not economically left no matter what its name is.
1
@EyePatchGuy88 Nationalism has always been contrary to leftist ideology, Which is based on uniting people. Nationalism is the essence of fascism. But it’s an extreme form of nationalism that justifies crimes against other nationalities. I personally don’t believe that all nationalism is bad. But then again I’m not a leftist or Nazi.
1
Yeah that should tell you right there that the assertion that fascism is Socialism is wrong. Of course Henry Ford wasn’t an economic leftist. That would’ve been entirely contrary to his interests and against everything he did throughout his life. And he didn’t subscribe to the beliefs of other people associated with the left either.
1
@kingorange7739 They don’t. Left his policies would confiscate most of their wealth and I don’t know of any rich person who is supporting that today. Do you?
1
@phillip3495 So you just sad that free enterprise unchecked by organized labor is conservatism. Actual fascist oppose labor unions bed early. But yet you’re claiming that labor unions are fascist. Labor unions historically have been defended by the left and are usually identified with the left. I think you’re really confused
1
@kingorange7739 Leftist ideological principles are limited to the Marxists. Authoritarianism isn’t limited to the left. Hitler didn’t enact leftist economic policies
1
@kingorange7739 Well in a sense Marxism can’t pre-date Karl Marx. But the foundations of Marxism are laid down during the enlightenment in Western Europe and then in the French revolution. These are also the foundations of all other forms of Socialism. You can’t treat Marx and his ideas is if they had no foundation before Marx was alive: that’s ludicrous and easily disproved. You can’t understand what Socialism is without identifying its core ideological principles shared by all branches of socialism. You can’t determine what is and isn’t Socialism without understanding those unifying principles.
1
@phillip3495 Maybe you should’ve told that to Hitler because he destroyed worker formed labor unions and replaced them with government representatives that were just a sham. Yes you have a reasonable definition of conservativism Insofar as it goes but you don’t know what institutions were being preserved in Italy and Germany by the fascists. You’re trying to assert a mythical past where everyone was free of authoritarian rule all over the world so that anyone who didn’t try to conserve this supposed past can’t be conservative. But the reality is that Italy and Germany were authoritarian countries before fascists arrived in either one and that capitalism functioned in both under traditional authoritarian control. Hitler argued that capitalism couldn’t work unless a ruling elite was in charge. He argued that giving everyone liberty would destroy capitalism and turn the country to communism, by denying the power and control that property holders had earned through superior ability and effort.
1
So using the logic here: the North Korean State is called the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. By this fact alone we know that it’s a free and open Democratic Society in the true sense of the word Democracy. We can be sure that the use of the word Democratic here means exactly that in practice and that it’s not being appropriated by the North Koreans for propaganda purposes or to give anyone the wrong idea about what they really are. Now if you observe that the North Koreans are exercising authoritarian and totalitarian state oppression and terror and that people don’t have any rights that merely tells you that this is a special kind of free and democratic society where the freedoms don’t yet exist but it’s still democratic and free. It’s a true Democracy just where the Democratic means of forming the government are replaced by totalitarian means. I’m going to comb through all the instances where the North Korean government and its representatives have said that they are democratic and that they are Protecting individual rights even better than the United States to prove that they are indeed a democratic country. Instances where they have used oppressive and authoritarian measures against their own people are irrelevant because they’re just replacing the usual democratic forms of government with totalitarianism in this type of democracy. It’s like when Nazi socialists substitute race for the usual socialist class conflict found in other forms of socialism and tell you they will redistribute wealth “later.” Seriously, it’s still Socialism, no matter what else it might really look like. There’s a new school of thought inspired by Orwell that has produced many new books which I want to tell you about that will tell you how black is white, evil is good and so on.
1
You can’t be serious! It’s a satire of your position about Nazism. No wonder you think that Nazis were leftist🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@chachacha2023 I think you need to look up the word satire in a dictionary at this point.
1
@chachacha2023 If you really think that the kind of sham votes that take place in North Korea are comparable to voting in the United States or Britain, No wonder you think that Nazis were leftist🤷🏼‍♂️ You can’t make this stuff up folks. OK well I guess you can and that’s of course the whole problem with the ideas here.
1
Perhaps in your research you’ve discovered that Hitler didn’t think so either and indeed that he thought Authoritarianism was necessary to prevent capitalism from being destroyed by Marxism. But perhaps that gets filtered out by your own ideology. Religious faith in a free market and a distrust of democracy don’t seem to be very compatible to me. Indeed it sounds like you’ve gotten yourself twisted thoroughly into knots.
1
@TheImperatorKnight Perhaps you see the same threat to private property from democracy that Hitler saw: a mob using the authority of the state to restrict property rights. But if that were the case why would you be attacking the Nazis as ideological enemies? I don’t think they really are your ideological enemies but you obviously do.
1
@silent_stalker3687 That’s total nonsense to say that Hitler abolished private property. That didn’t happen. All those controls were nothing but war measures: the same thing happened in the United States. Actually they were more extensive in the United States. Does that make the country socialist because they control the economy during a war? What about when they were not in war and didn’t have those controls in place?
1
@silent_stalker3687 I dare you to present a primary source of any kind that proves the Nazis “abolished private property.” That’s a ridiculous lie that the people who are repeating know is not the truth. In fact Hitler privatized more property during his rule and many German corporations not only remained private but greatly enrich themselves during an even after the war. You people are constructing a ludicrous alternate reality which bears no resemblance to the actual historical one. You may as well say that the Nazis were a comedy troupe from a Mel Brooks movie.
1
@silent_stalker3687 That’s a lie..It didn’t suspend or abolish private property. Property ownership continued to all throughout Germany all throughout the 1930s. You’re trying to make it sound like nationalization of property in the Soviet Union. It was certainly arbitrary and tyrannical use of dictatorial power but people didn’t cease owning private property as a result. It simply removed civil rights protections.
1
@silent_stalker3687 If you opposed the Nazi regime you were likely to die. That makes them evil authoritarians. It doesn’t mean they had to espouse socialist ideology and they didn’t.
1
@silent_stalker3687 Leftists seize property in order to make it public and redistribute wealth eliminating differences in wealth between people to provide to everyone according to need. Authoritarians who are not doing this but simply taking people’s rights away as a punitive measure are not advancing leftist ideological goals. They might take someone’s property just to destroy enemies of the state and then give it to someone else who is not. That is in fact what the Nazis did. It’s certainly tyranny. It’s certainly not socialism Not as a true leftist uses the term.
1
@silent_stalker3687 He didn’t seize any property in order to fulfill leftist goals of providing to all according to need. You still haven’t presented any evidence of the abolition of private property in Nazi Germany and that assertion based on the source you presented is ridiculous not to mention all of the private property that continued in the hands of business owners and landowners of all types all throughout the 1930s. That couldn’t possibly be if they really eliminated private property as you’re saying. How can you possibly say that private property was eliminated when literally millions of people continued to own private property including vast amounts of it in the hands of the wealthy all throughout the 1930s and 40s in Germany? Either you’re a complete moron or you’re trying to use a brand new and completely ahistorical definition of private property. It would have to be a nonsensical definition to denies literal reality in a completely arbitrary fashion to the point that words no longer mean anything.
1
@oscartang4587u3 LOL allows one to make the ludicrous argument that an ideology like Fascism diametrically opposed to socialism is just “less than ideal” socialism rather than socialist in name only.
1
@oscartang4587u3 Both socialism and fascism have their origins in the 18th century. So does the American constitution. That does not make them the same thing or derived from each other. Fascism including Nazism are opposed to the economic class warfare, internationalism and social equality that are at the core of socialism. Even a casual reading of fascist theory makes this obvious.
1
@oscartang4587u3 that’s idiotic. Fascism is diametrically opposed to Marxism. The only thing they have in common is that each has been authoritarian.
1
@oscartang4587u3 and you’re pulling Sternhill out of context in an effort to make him say something he doesn’t actually say.
1
@oscartang4587u3 so you’re admitting that he doesn’t claim that fascism or Nazism is a form of Marxian socialism?
1
@oscartang4587u3 yes, I know he did by turning Germany into a right wing authoritarian state and declaring war on the left. Yes I’ve been walking watching the videos. But no amount of orange salad can change the founding principles of fascist and socialist ideologies. can you explain how once he came into power Hitler fulfilled a leftist economic program of any kind?
1
@colebehnke7767 only one form of capitalism and a form that Hitler believed was doomed to fail because he argued it. It put inferior people in control of resources that they didn’t know how to handle and prevented the master race from making decisions. Hitler was an authoritarian capitalist. Part of the myopia of libertarians in the present day is this historically, illiterate assumption they makes it liberal capitalism is the only form of capitalism. It’s more like a religion because it ignores most of the history of actual capitalism.
1
@oscartang4587u3 indeed, but there’s a little doubt that Florence was also what we would now call authoritarian-as you would quickly discover if you were not of a wealthy and powerful family.And it’s no accident that it’s also the birthplace of Machiavelli. as for being the popes vassal, you know that Florence sometimes controlled the papacy itself through the Medici.
1
@oscartang4587u3 Are you familiar with the conditions in renaissance Italy?
1
@oscartang4587u3 Autocratic rule by leading families-both hereditary and a rising merchant class which founded western capitalism. The circumstances for most were very different from a liberal democracy of the 20th century, much less those of an anarcho-libertarian fantasy. Most were tightly controlled by the elites. In this respect it wasn’t that different from 18th century England or Prussia or 17th century Holland-another “republic”
1
@oscartang4587u3 Early feudal governments put peasants under rule very much like authoritarian rule, just without a capitalist economic system. The latter was added beginning in the Italian renaissance, the point being that capitalism has thrived for centuries under authoritarian conditions long before socialist ideology was formed beginning in the 18th century.
1
@oscartang4587u3 splitting hairs…in practice for most people, living in renaissance Florence would be very much like living in 1930s Germany, the former long before socialism was developed, the latter extremely hostile to true socialism and all other “leveling ideologies.”
1
@oscartang4587u3 Well only true socialists claimed that the pursuit of equality defined as the uplifting of the masses at the expense of bourgeois overlords was a goal. Hitler saw that possibility as the RUIN of Nazi goals: “You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” Hitler 1930 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economicv leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932
1
@oscartang4587u3 Oh so whenever Hitler says something that doesn’t fit your narrative, he’s lying. Except that he was not lying. There was no nationalization of major German industry, and no new social welfare programs after Hitler gained power. In fact, the Nazis actually scale back pre-existing social programs and privatized major German industry more so than did the British during that period. How do you people float a conspiracy theory about well it wasn’t really privatized, because the beneficiaries of this privatization were part of the Nazi party. But that makes it a kleptocracy and a crony capitalist state not a socialist state. and then what are you going to war measures that Germany actually was late in setting up relative to the western democracies it was at war with? And even if Germany had done more of that, it would’ve simply proven what we already knew the Statism would of Germany during a war. What are you don’t see at any time in the history of Nazi Germany is anything like the central economic planning or government ownership of industry in the Soviet union at the time. if you learn nothing else from the history of the 20th century, you should learn that Fascism was at war with the left, defining it as a Jewish subhuman conspiracy to deprive the master race of what belonged to it by right. to understand this you have to accept the deep authoritarian roots of conservatism and statism and drop the ahistorical/historically illiterate notion that they belong exclusively on the left
1
@oscartang4587u3 private property was not abolished in Germany under the Nazis. That’s not what that law did at all, and they were literally millions of private property owners in Germany at the end of the third Reich, including owners of major industry, railroads banking etc. The other things you’re referring to, or either preexistent the Nazis, and then some cases were scaled back by them, or would still put Germany to the right of Franklin Roosevelt during that period still not remotely comparable to what was happening in the Soviet union at the time
1
@oscartang4587u3 heavy regulations, were imposed on German industry prior to the Nazis as were social welfare programs and workers rights. The Nazis actually scaled those back and they certainly didn’t eliminate private property rights. That’s a flat out lie. and again German government control over private industry during World War II was no greater than that of the United States. If anything it was less, which contributed to Germany’s defeat during the war. Yes, the Nazis were awarded high party officials with private property. It was a kleptocracy. What they didn’t do is redistribute the means of production to the working class.
1
@oscartang4587u3 seriously? I wasn’t talking about just at the end of the war but all throughout the history of the third Reich. are you seriously claiming that all or nearly all property was state owned in Germany prior to the end of the Third Reich?
1
@oscartang4587u3 yeah so did the United States and Britain and most other major belligerents during the war. So now we’re back to everyone in the world was socialist except those who conformed to a nonexistent anarcho Libertarian ideal.
1
I’m working on a book about Karl Marx’s laissez-faire capitalism.
1
@colebehnke7767 Less so than Britain or the US at the time
1
@colebehnke7767 if you don’t know what I mean when I use the phrase, lackey and individualism, I’m not gonna be able to explain that to you here. Why don’t you try reading some 18th century political theorists such as John Locke. And a word of advice. If you’re going to try to understand Nazi ideology. In historical context, you really do need an education. You can’t just go on what you read in places like this.
1
@jaqssmith1666 and yet mid 20th century Britain was closer to Socialism in the left true sense than Germany at the time
1
You don’t understand the long history of right wing authoritarianism and statism in Europe.
1
Well, you can take primary sources and twist them into knots, and you’re still “using” them
1
@evertjan9479 Hitler’s anti-leftist speeches and interview remarks are well documented as are his anti-labor and pro big business policies and refusal to nationalize industry. But ideologues who consider any authoritarianism to belong exclusively to the left despite all the evidence of history can’t let go of this idea. So they fixate on one word in the name of the Nazi party that Hitler didn’t even want initially and sometimes on imperial German social welfare policies that Hitler actually scaled back once he got in power as evidence of leftism from the Nazis. Ignorance and ideological extremism go a long way, even into the absurd proposition that the Nazis were leftists.
1
@evertjan9479 If that’s true what on earth are you doing here at a conspiracy website full of lunatics who have no idea what actually happened or any sense of National Socialism is a historical ideology?
1
@zbj4240 People like to believe that no evil can happen on the right so they’re willing to accept the absurdist utopian views of an ideologue to make themselves feel better and immune to someone like Hitler when they’re not.
1
@Biggiiful “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how he is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” 1932
1
Don’t “pretend” that socialism has a fixed definition so that we can include things that are not Socialism in it but do stipulate that capitalism has a fixed definition and it can only be a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist definition, Right? In this context it’s important to ignore the entire history of capitalism as it arose from within authoritarian regimes.
1
@pooyahasani6772 If you think what he's saying is correct you're a terrible National Socialist, the kind that Hitler would've defined as fatally corrupted by Bolshevism.
1
There’s nothing to decipher. It’s very confusing because it’s incoherent and full of actual non sequiturs. There’s no meaning to be found here. It’s nonsense.
1
You have to use “critical thinking skills” to see past the objections of so-called proponents of democracy who say that east Germany wasn’t really democratic when it called itself the German democratic republic and that North Korea isn’t really democratic when they say that they are the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We need someone who will stand up and say to all these so-called democrats that they are just speaking as right wing partisans when they say that east Germany and North Korea aren’t true democracies. In truth they are just a kind of democracy without any democratic principles. You can in fact he totally against all democratic principles and still be a democracy.
1
@benitopepolini1249 It’s a satire meant to underscore the point you just made very well. Thank you!
1
@benitopepolini1249 Exactly: Big Tech isn’t socialist is it?
1
@benitopepolini1249 Of course it can and very often does. You’re not helping yourself very much by your failure to recognize satire.
1
@WantedArgonianMale That’s your problem. I know the history, the facts and the reality. I know that people who suppose that evil can only come from the left are living in a ridiculous utopian fantasy world just as absurd as a classless society and an end of history prophesied by Marxism. There are only two possibilities when someone calls Adolf Hitler a leftist: the person is either an ignoramus or a liar. Most of the time it’s the former.
1
So if he was a communist why didn’t he nationalize all industry and turn Germany into a Marxist state when he got into power?
1
@jackcade68 No anyone who says that you can substitute race for class has no understanding of leftist ideology. As Hitler said he repurposed the term socialist to mean something completely different from what leftists mean when they use it. Hitler was a far right dictator not any kind of leftist
1
@jackcade68 Well the North Koreans have said over and over again that they are a democratic republic. But what does that mean? What did Hitler mean when he use the term socialist to describe his party? Well he told us. “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” I guess you’re unaware of the Italian racial laws under Mussolini and the white terror in Spain which were used by each regime to target racial enemies. Whether it’s Germany Italy or Spain at the time we’re still talking about fascism and everything that means including violence targeted against supposedly inferior races.
1
@perobusmaximus Depends on why they killed them. Trotsky and Stalin didn’t kill communists because they were true to communist ideology. That is the reason why Hitler killed communists.
1
@fnamelname9077 That’s not true. Hitler didn’t do any of the things that a true leftist would do. He bitterly opposed confiscation and redistribution of wealth to eliminate social classes and preserved the German economical. Nothing could be further from what an actual left socialist would do. “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Adolf Hitler 1938
1
@donaldsheckler3636 Hitler agreed with you. He opposed the state taking away the rights of property owners by empowering unions or imposing worker rights protections. He said that doing such things was the way that democracies destroy capitalism.
1
@fnamelname9077 Lol your lack of reading comprehension ability is not my grammatical deficiency. Your ignorance of the founding principles of leftist ideology doesn’t make your misidentification of what you’re seeing long after the fact accurate. You obviously don’t have a basic knowledge of the actual original principles in question.
1
@dusk6159 Well authoritarians on both the left and the right have perpetrated horrible crimes for nearly a century. The point is they’ve come from both directions not just from one. Does it really make sense to respond by saying it makes no difference If you only look in one Direction?
1
@dusk6159 Both the right and left are capable of hideous authoritarianism but they are otherwise not identical. This distinction needs to be pointed out not to defend either one of them but to help recognize them both, before it’s too late.
1
@dusk6159 Well I don’t think that the profound ideological differences between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia did anything to soften the oppression from the authoritarianism of either if that’s what you mean. Authoritarianism is horrible no matter what economic ideology is behind it. It just doesn’t necessarily reside in a particular economic ideology. Authoritarianism is always awful but does come from more than one direction.
1
@donaldsheckler3636 Whether it actually does or not it’s not the point. The point is that that is the goal of leftist ideology. It’s not the goal or the practice of Nazism
1
@fnamelname9077 That doesn’t make sense. Hitler didn’t even want the word Socialist used in the party’s name and did everything he could to purge the party of actual left us principles as soon as he got in power.
1
@maxmustermann3938 Libertarians are doing that by attempting to reframe Nazism as a left-wing ideology. No Historian before in their right mind attempted such absurdity
1
@destubae3271 Makes me think that critical race theory is a Corruption of Marxist thought from the 1960s, because it doesn’t really promote equality of all people.
1
@TheImperatorKnight They’ve been too broadly educated. So too often they know when someone has been cherry picking history, pulling things out of context and distorting the truth in the service of propaganda. This makes them too resistant to dogma and cottage theories that make sweeping generalizations about things long after the fact. It makes them too difficult to brainwash into an agenda attempting to falsify history doesn’t it? They simply won’t ignore facts for the sake of the predetermined conclusions of an ideologue. Both the Nazis and the Soviets knew how to deal with such people didn’t they?
1
Here’s a much more accurate, less distorted view of the Nazi Party and what it stood for. https://youtu.be/6_Iz5yt2YUU
1
What similarities between Hitler’s mature Nazi ideology and Soviet ideology? He tried to separate himself from association with his early efforts to hijack the left from the idea he might’ve actually ascribed to that ideology because Nazi ideology that he created was diametrically opposed to Marxist ideology and he explain how in depth. The Strassers were part of the left of the old early Nazi party and that’s why Hitler did away with them. His arguments against them have been preserved and he said explicitly that he differed with them on the seizure of property by the state. That’s a defining difference between Nazism and socialism. People who are implacably opposed to the state seizure of property just aren’t leftists. Hitler was an opportunist looking for a way to gain power he but once he got into power he revealed what he really was: a fascist determined to destroy leftist ideology and everyone who was part of it
1
Well conservatives were not classical liberals in favor of reducing the state’s role in the economy that hardly makes them the socialists they defined as enemies of the state/monarchy. Some of them such as Bismarck enacted measures to take care of factory workers in order to stop not bring about socialism.
1
@MrYukoncornileus To my knowledge it’s only ever said to be big tent in terms of including all people throughout the world but not all ideologies
1
The_Jaguar_ Knight It’s a very simplistic reading of history which looks at the beginning for something and says that its beginning forever determines that it will stay headed in the same direction. You can argue that nationalism starts out as a radical movement because it’s unleashed by the French revolution. But counter revolution is also released by the French revolution and does the initial appearance of nationalism dictate the motivation of all future nationalists? Why would we think that it would? Why couldn’t nationalism be inspired by the desire to restore something thought to have been lost from the past such as a pre-monarchical identity for the people? Listening to you people, we can’t help but form in the opinion that you already have your conclusion and you’re going on a fishing expedition through history desperately trying to justify it.
1
The_Jaguar_ Knight History is complicated. And events like the French Revolution don’t generally have only a small number of very consistent results.
1
The_Jaguar_ Knight And even if nationalism was forever determined by its beginning to be radical in every case that wouldn’t dictate that every ideology that incorporated it had to follow a radical policy program. It wouldn’t make a conservative policy program leftist just because it’s proponents espoused a radical belief, If in fact that’s what it actually was at the time and place.
1
We expect ideological illiteracy from ignorant, exceptionalist Americans. But any history buff from the UK of all places worth his salt should know enough about the history of right wing authoritarianism in Europe to avoid this silliness. But I clearly don’t appreciate the power of the libertarian cult delusion in Britain. Do you have an alter to Ayn Rand in Piccadilly or something? Must be hideous…
1
@radioactiverat8751 Or actual Nazis dodging what they really are by splitting hairs?
1
@farmerchick3040 No Hitler was an applicable opponent of the left because it denied individual achievement and superiority of the master race in his mind
1
@farmerchick3040 Reality Hitler was a right wing Statist romantic nationalist dictator. The right has a much longer history of authoritarianism than the left and you’re just trying to dodge that
1
@mikhailv67tv Well researched propaganda
1
@AppliedMathematician Hitler didn’t have economic left socialist ideas. He reviled socialist concepts such as class conflict and redistribution of wealth. He opposed nationalization of industry. How could he be a socialist in the sense used by the left?
1
@AppliedMathematician Who said that capitalists are consistently rational or that an irrational ideology like fascism can’t endorse capitalism for its own purposes?
1
@AppliedMathematician Doesn’t matter what you’re trying to say or obfuscate in order to get away with calling Nazism something other than what it is. What matters is the historical reality. And in history true socialism is a left-wing ideology with a multi point set of principles that are all based on the economic theory of the left starting with the enlightenment and the French revolution in Europe. If Hitler’s party was “socialist,” he was adapting the word to mean something entirely different and unrelated to its use by that aforesaid historical left-wing ideology. To say otherwise is to promote a dangerous myth that discourages people from being on the lookout for threats on the right. It’s propaganda designed to absolve the right of responsibility for its worst crimes and blame everything on the left as if the potential of human nature for depravity can only exist on the left. I’m not a Christian, but I don’t think that’s at all consistent with Christian teaching regarding fallen human nature.
1
@AppliedMathematician Before we even get to how the Nazis themselves defined their ideology, I dare you to cite a respected scholarly historian, even one, who defines Nazism or other fascism as a leftist ideology. I’ll wait.
1
@AppliedMathematician You seem to be under the impression that there are a number of scholarly historians who aver that Nazism was a leftist ideology, As if this idea has some sort of respectability within the academic community and is based on sound research as opposed to being just a conspiracy theory by crackpot Nazi apologists on the alt right who are trying to avoid associating their extremist views with anything negative. Let’s hear it. Put up or shut up. Who are these respected scholarly historians and where can I read their research into the supposed leftism of fascist ideology? I’d really be fascinated to see how they can make 150 years of history not to mention the plain words of the fascists themselves simply disappear.
1
@karmanic7492 Could be or it could be a sign of ignorance; not knowing enough to recognize something is incorrect on its face.
1
@AppliedMathematician Well in that case you should be able to further your research by spending a lot of time looking in a mirror.
1
@calebnemrow2677 Yes that’s why it’s so important not to delude yourself in the belief that nasty authoritarianism can only come from the left by adopting the ridiculous utopian dogma of those who insist that conservatives can’t be authoritarians by definition.
1
@peaknonsense2041 Except that he’s not close to being correct nor is he being honest
1
@user-wi3yx3gy2o Those who accept propaganda because it tells them what they want to hear are not learning to understand. They’re helping to distort history
1
@AppliedMathematician Except that Hitler isn’t a socialist and never did anything consistent with socialist ideology. No one should accept a falsehood promoted by people who refuse to face the truth themselves. No one should come to terms with accepting propaganda that distorts history.
1
@AppliedMathematician The word was Hitler’s Trojan horse vs. the left.
1
@AppliedMathematician Or instead of explaining evil rather than agreeing with it they could be distorting the truth in order to promote the puritanical worldview that can only come from an ideologue. “Evil only happens on the other side. Our views are perfect and even defy human nature. If you think that anything evil could come from our side you’re mistaken.” TIK’s isn’t “shining a light” on anything. He’s trying to cleanse his “side” of all blame.
1
@AppliedMathematician The Nazis before Hitler included some people who tried to use some socialist ideas but even then they did a number of things are inconsistent with Socialism. Hitler purged these people literally from the party. And once he got power Hitler implemented authoritarian capitalism, not Socialism or anything like it. People who say otherwise are disregarding what he actually did when he had power
1
@AppliedMathematician LOL if you weren’t obsessed with labels, you wouldn’t be insisting against all reason that Nazis were leftists.
1
@AppliedMathematician If you don’t like absurd mental gymnastics, you should look into a mirror.
1
@AppliedMathematician You’re engaged is a desperate process of self delusion, the kind of ideological blinders which fascists exploit to bring tyranny.
1
@AppliedMathematician I seriously doubt that
1
@AppliedMathematician The Chinese abandoned Socialism in favor of authoritarian and state capitalism.
1
@AppliedMathematician The Chinese can’t get anything to work? I guess you’ve never been to an American big box store
1
In other words “Hitler must be a socialist, because it’s impossible for capitalism to be evil or to work under authoritarian rule. Evil only happens on the left.”
1
It’s certainly an easy definition: Fascism, and communism of the same thing, and anything that involves any government regulation is fascism and communism. Essentially anarcho libertarians are the only people who are not fascist and communist. LOL
1
Trevor Brannon well but hopefully not through authoritarian rule, followed by a war of genocide
1
Wulf There were some traditionalists who called out the Nazis especially before Hitler converted the movement into fascism. Hitler’s traditionalism appealed to something that he believed was older than what 19th and early 20th century German traditionalists appealed to. We don’t have to determine if one or the other was correct about what is true traditionalism to know that the Nazis were striving for the preservation of the past as they saw it rather than attempting to perfect all of human kind as a true socialist would. True socialists on the other hand are people who believe in using rationality for social progress by eliminating economic classes, redistributing wealth and providing to each individual according to their need without regard to racial or ethnic identity or even national boundaries. True socialists don’t care for nationalism and see tradition as a means of oppression.
1
Wulf Nationalists came after the French revolution but again they appealed to what they believed was a much older past.
1
Wulf The Nazis wanted to preserve the “original Aryan race” which they viewed as ancient, pure and noble.
1
Wulf The only Nazis who advocated redistributing wealth to non-Aryans quickly became targets for Hitler’s violence.
1
Wulf You don’t have to have dialectical materialism in order to have redistribution of wealth based on economic status. Proto Socialists even during the 18th century were advocating such measures. Read Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine if you want to know more about that.
1
Wulf I’m not a socialist. I don’t like socialism much better than I do fascism because both tend towards the unattainable and have produced authoritarianism. I believe in a republic of laws and liberty a la James Madison.
1
Wulf National Socialism itself doesn’t have to be very old for it to defend what it saw as tradition. It’s the intent that tells you the contents of the ideology. And unlike leftist ideologies Nazism did not seek progress for all humankind through science and the redistribution of wealth according to each individual‘s need. Instead it tried to preserve a mystical ancient sense of German identity that harkened back thousands of years. And the Nazis didn’t just endorse Ancient Greece. Among other things Nazi myths speak of the ancient Teutonic land that may correspond to the Orkney islands today called Thule. They even named an SS Panzer unit after it. And SS ritual incorporates runic symbols that the Nazis believe are derived from ancient German tribes. This was an attempt to restore ancient Germanic tribes through mysticism. It’s a far cry from left ideology.of progress, science and modernization. Whether the leftists or Nazis were right about where their beliefs were headed isn’t the point.
1
Wulf Yes I know the Nazis modernized their technology and prized engineering but they didn’t seek to modernize social relations people or politics. For instance women were prohibited from playing important roles in politics or industry. And were expected to stay at home and raise the master race.
1
Wulf You don’t have any idea because you don’t know anything about the history of ideology. The essence of conservatism historically has been traditionalism. It’s funny that you’re introducing an ahistorical and very recent definition of conservativism that doesn’t include tradition and then you’re unable to even imagine most of the history of conservatism. But maybe that isn’t all that surprising.
1
Wulf yes after all of the terrible defeats early in the war the Stalin regime fell back on Russian nationalism and restored a bunch of practices that had been banned by the bolsheviks in order to fortify national pride against the invasion. That just proves that they were doing whatever they could to win the war
1
Wulf Again I know that you’re in capable of thinking outside of a binary us versus them paradigm. But I’m not a socialist. I’m closer to a Paleo or Burkian conservative. But I doubt you know what either of those things are, given what you just revealed about your ignorance of the history of conservatism and tradition. It wasn’t just a few individuals that appealed to mysticism and supposedly Ancient German culture. It was the entire Nazi party apparatus. It became a state religion complete with rites, sacraments, and ceremony. Hitler’s government even sponsored archaeological expeditions to study the evidence of this “ancient” Aryan race. The more you talk the more you reveal how little you know of what you’re talking about. And with a handle like Wulf Shouldn’t you be ashamed that you don’t know more about Nazi beliefs? At this rate you’ll never be accepted into the SS, even if you can prove a lineage free of Jewish blood back to your great grandparents as required.
1
Wulf I didn’t say that the Nazis were against women. But they weren’t encouraged to fulfill roles that men were supposed to occupy in society and in the workforce the way they were in a leftist country like the Soviet Union at the time. What the Nazis did to improve working conditions they consistently justified as a restoration of an ancient German social order not the creation of something new.
1
Wulf Yes traditionalism and conservatism are not the same thing. But until relatively recently a conservative was almost always a traditionalist. You do have conservative theories such as those of Edmund Burke or Joseph Demaistre who by the way is one of the forerunners of fascism.
1
Wulf The Nazis treasured ancient and medieval German culture before the rise of the later aristocracy. But they certainly didn’t “hate” the German aristocracy of their time. Under than the Nazis, there was no purge of the German aristocracy or confiscation of its wealth, no cancellation of its titles, nothing like what the bolsheviks did. It’s laughable that you’re attempting to minimize the significance of the SS within Nazi Germany. The SS was the pinnacle and backbone of Nazi Germany. It was the purest expression of Nazi ideology.
1
Wulf Mysticism was the means by which the Nazis adhered to tradition. It’s not a conventional form of traditionalism but one that mixes in the Nazis mythological religion folklore and the occult.
1
Wulf If we were to use an analogy to watch you’re saying it would be that the Catholic Church is only a small part of medieval Europe and doesn’t really tell us very much about medieval European society, Because relatively few people in Europe were Catholic clergy. Ridiculous! The fact that you can’t see how absurd your position about the SS is reveals a profound ignorance of history if not a lack of common sense.
1
Wulf I would view myself as a traditionalist conservative in many ways. But I’m not a fascist. And although fascists can be considered a type of traditionalist conservative, they are not the only type. And the tradition that I want to preserve is of republican federalism, Which wasn’t very conservative at the time it was founded in this country. In 1789 a conservative would be someone who defended monarchy, a unitary state, and aristocratic rule. It also depends on the location. Historically German states have been much more frequently authoritarian. So a conservative especially in Germany is someone who preserves authoritarian structures. And the Nazis certainly did that You see how complicated this can get.? No probably not because you just don’t know enough to understand the different varieties of conservatism and traditionalism. So if you can’t recognize the one in question, you make an assumption that it’s not conservative. This is just your ignorance talking.
1
Wulf It’s laughable and absurd that you’re trying to make the SS seem like something peripheral to Nazi Germany as if it doesn’t tell you very much about Nazi ideology. I’ve never heard anything more absurd and that in my life. The SS was Hitler’s model for everything Nazi ideology stood for.
1
Wulf Now you’re actually going to dispute the role of the Catholic Church in medieval Europe? No wonder you’re so confused. The point is not that everyone was high clergy in medieval Europe but that they didn’t have to be for the Catholic Church to dominate the whole society. And if you don’t know how it did that, your education is just too woefully inadequate for you to understand much of anything and this is really a waste of time.
1
Wulf You obviously have no idea of the dominant role of the Catholic Church within medieval Christendom. And with that kind of ignorance you just don’t know enough about history to even be discussing the subject. You wouldn’t be able to pass one of the western civilization classes that I used to teach as a grad assistant.
1
Wulf Traditionalism isn’t merely distinguished by geographic area. The varieties of traditionalism are also distinguished by time period, Culture ideology and other factors. The point is there’s no one single belief system called traditionalism but many different varieties of it of which Nazism was one. You had German traditionalist who wanted to support the Junker class and the German Hohenzollern house but you also had Nazi mystics who wanted to revive a much older form of German nationhood and identity. You can consider both of them to be varieties of traditionalism. There is also considerable overlap between the two because it’s not like the Nazis wanted to destroy the Junkers. And the same families that hailed Bismarck and the kaiser supported Hitler for the same reason: because he had done a lot to contribute to the development of the state just like German hereditary autocrats that preceded him. You may be ignorant of the fact that Germany has been traditionally authoritarian and that it’s conservative in Germany to adhere to authoritarianism but that doesn’t change the reality. Your ignorance proves nothing but that you’re ignorant.
1
Wulf It seems like you’re denying that it’s conservative or traditionalist for a German to be a authoritarian, by asserting that anyone who believes in a strong government/statism must also be a leftist. Seems like you get to a point where you always ask the question “do they support a strong government?” and if the answer is yes then to you they must be on the left, even though that’s a completely ahistorical viewpoint, especially in German history. I think that your ideology simply doesn’t allow for the possibility of right wing authoritarian statism. It can’t exist in your worldview, even though it has for centuries.
1
Wulf What kind of traditionalism are you talking about? You need to specify before that question can be answered.
1
Wulf Well if you’re not saying that big government is only a phenomenon of the left then there isn’t really anything about Nazism that you can point to that it has in common with any left ideology except for the word socialist which as we’ve already noted is used in an entirely different way by the Nazis.
1
Wulf Yes I’ve read Oswald Spengler. I don’t know how you think his writing demonstrates that Nazism is a leftist political ideology.
1
@goonsdoona2979 TIK’s is definitely a propagandist. He’s distorting history in order to make it fit contemporary libertarian dogma that didn’t exist at the time and ignoring the fundamental conflict between the socialist goal of providing according to need for everyone and the Nazi social Darwinist goal of the so-called master race triumphing over everyone else.
1
@silent_stalker3687 The Weimar government was well to the left of the Nazis. But I wouldn’t call it socialist. I don’t know who or what you’re assuming I associate with. I’m a historian. My interest is in the facts, not propaganda from any “side.” Go ahead and try to explain how Hitler is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” Hitler 1932
1
@silent_stalker3687 Hitler argued that Capitalism had been corrupted by Jews and democracy to focus on profit for its own sake rather than power and achievement. The Nazis viewed individual rights as harmful to capitalism, because they allowed workers to unionize and get too many restrictions placed on businesses. Hitler scaled back worker rights and benefits created in Germany before the Nazis, believing that healthy capitalism depended on hierarchy and authoritarianism.
1
@silent_stalker3687 You don’t understand German authoritarian capitalism in the 20th century at all. So how can you expect to understand or even identify German socialism of the same period. Neither is what you’re familiar with in the US. The closest we came to Hitler’s capitalism was probably that of his favorite American: Henry Ford. Read up about Ford’s business practices, moralizing, and anti-semitism and you might get a clue.
1
@silent_stalker3687 Worker rights protections and social welfare measures were first installed by imperial Germany as a means to save capitalism. Yes they were still in place in Weimar Germany. Believe it or not there are different kinds of capitalism historically in different places. German authoritarian capitalism is not what you’re familiar with it sounds like. You don’t know enough about what you’re talking about to be lecturing anyone about capitalism or socialism.
1
@silent_stalker3687 What are you talking about? I didn’t say the Hitler never aimed to harm anyone Or that he never lied. Hitler was a monster. Henry Ford wasn’t exactly a moral man either. I wasn’t endorsing either one of them. I was just telling you that Henry Ford’s capitalism was the most like that of Germany of any American. I think reading comprehension is a real problem for you. He didn’t suspend private property. Millions of people continued to own private property, including major industry, all throughout the Third Reich. He just enhanced the states power to confiscate it as a punitive measure against enemies of the state. But less authoritarian governments also reserve the right to seize private property. In the US it’s called eminent domain. Every major belligerent in World War II had price controls, including the United States. That doesn’t make them socialist.
1
@silent_stalker3687 there are different forms of socialism but none that contradict the basic principles of socialism. Socialism is based on belief in the equality of all people. So it can’t be race based. By the way the Nazis weren’t in favor of any other form of equality. They were all about master slave relationships
1
@silent_stalker3687 No you’re not making any sense you’re just babbling incoherent words that don’t connect to anything.
1
Wulf you just won’t acknowledge what you don’t know, a mark of a fool. What you’re suggesting however would be like suggesting that we all are born with a knowledge of architecture or 19th century impressionist painting. Ideology is not an a priori human attribute. Just accept that you don’t know what you’re talking about and learn something. Or not and continue to be a petulant fool.
1
Wulf OK you are still saying though that people automatically start acquiring not just knowledge and beliefs but ideology. This is like saying that everyone automatically acquires the qualifications to be a pilot as they age or that everyone naturally becomes a ballet dancer as they grow and mature through their experiences. beliefs may be inevitable but again an ideology is a particular and developed system of thought and way of thinking. You have to be exposed to it and not everyone is certainly not automatically because it’s not present everywhere you can’t form an ideology unless you’ve been exposed ideological thinking of some sort.
1
Wulf rather than admit that you don’t know what ideology is you’re trying to say that it is whatever we want it to be which is the same thing. I mean I can tell you that a physician is a person who repairs cars because I don’t like the universal definition of a physician as someone who tries to heal people but that doesn’t change the fact.
1
Wulf I didn’t say I was unique in whether or not I can choose to follow an Ideology. I think it’s a free willing choice for anyone assuming they even know about the option which is a big assumption.
1
Wulf I don’t understand your second question. As to the third meant to point out that you don’t automatically adopt ideological thinking anymore than you automatically become a pilot or a ballet dancer. All of those involve choices and study at least to some degree. Perhaps a better analogy might be you don’t automatically become Catholic or a Satanist or practice any religion. You have to decide to do so and be taught. If you raise someone without religion it’s unlikely that they will practice any religion at least until they are exposed to it. I was raised under one religion and then decided to abandon it and practice a different one but for a while I chose not to practice any.
1
Wulf Again I’m not doing anything with the concept of ideology other than telling you what it means in the history of ideas. I didn’t make it up. I learned this in college classes for the first time if you want to know. That you don’t know doesn’t make it something that I made up just to control an argument or whatever it is you think I’m doing. I think your big problem is that you don’t think that you need to know anything in order to have a meaningful opinion about ideas that have a history and a conceptual framework. You’re trying to understand a historical phenomenon that is rather complicated without any education or knowledge of it. So it’s no wonder that you’re totally lost and come up with all sorts of false and absurd notions. If you don’t want to learn anything you’re wasting my time and yours
1
Wulf You don’t necessarily have to go to college to understand the history of ideology but it helps. And you can’t understand it without reading anything
1
Perhaps you could also release a video which uses the fact that both classical liberals and great society liberals in the US during the 1960s used the same word to label themselves to “prove” that their economic policies were also the same. If you choose your sources carefully the way you’ve done here it should be possible to create that (false)impression.
1
I believe in objective truths plural. But I also believe that every person sees from a different vantage point and that no one sees everything. So identifying truths is not easy. It requires a lot of examination both of your own perspective and that of many others
1
More self delusion by ignorant right wingers who hold the laughable position that nothing bad can ever come from the right, can’t accept that the right is inherently authoritarian and anti-liberty.
1
There’s more than one kind of socialism but ideology which directly contradicts founding principles of Socialism can’t be Socialist. You simply don’t have in Nazism an ideology that tries to provide for everyone according to need by redistribution of wealth. You may have something more akin to crony capitalism or mercantilism than what modern libertarians define as capitalism but modern ideologue libertarian definitions of capitalism don’t dictate history. And the reality is that historical capitalism has never included a perfectly free market where the state does absolutely nothing. Throughout most of its history in the west capitalism has prevailed under conservative authoritarian states. Authoritarianism has not necessarily been a radical force. It’s usually been one used to maintain the power of established elites. Likewise controls over the economy have usually been used historically to keep wealth in the hands of established elites. Ruling elites have had a disincentive to keep their hands off the economy because that can allow more social mobility and a loss of power by those elites.
1
Wulf So where did you “prove” that he “faked” any quotes? That’s a serious allegation that requires proof.
1
Wulf Ad homonym abusive doesn’t prove that you read anything or that he didn’t. It’s just a way to avoid the issue and argue fallaciously.
1
Wulf Well you’re just making it another assertion that he has falsified evidence without any proof. Without even a single example there’s no reason for me to believe you, especially when he has posted several specific quotes that we can all independently source. Then you add some other ad hominem attacks. It’s not a very credible response
1
Wulf So you’re telling me that you haven’t actually checked the source itself that he’s quoting from to determine whether or not he really did Dr the words in it? You’re saying that you don’t even know what’s in the source he’s quoting from yet you’re accusing him of falsifying it?
1
Wulf I haven’t seen the original source-At least not recently enough to remember-and you’re repeating his quote with an equivocal statement about whether it’s part of the source. “ Or more likely added.” Is it “likely” or do you “know”? You can prove your point with a side-by-side citation of his text versus text from the actual source that differs from it. But so far I don’t see where you did that. And if you’re trying to prove a factual point (That a quote was doctored) especially leave out the ad homonym which is by definition irrelevant to the argument.
1
Wulf And you also can’t do this by asking a question. You have the burden of proof. We don’t presume that what you’re saying is true until proven otherwise in other words.
1
Wulf And you also can’t do this by asking a question. You have the burden of proof. We don’t presume that what you’re saying is true until proven otherwise in other words.
1
Wulf No I’m just asking you to quote the passage where the supposedly fake words were added so that we can see that they’re not in the original. Why would you think that you have to quote the entire book to do that? Sounds pretty evasive to me as if you know that you can’t prove that it was doctored or at least that you’re not sure if you can.
1
Wulf So at what point have you provided any proof of how the original text differs from what he quoted? What are you claiming are the actual words versus what you say he added? What’s the page number of the actual wording that you claim has been doctored? Which words that he used in quotes are you claiming are not really in the original text?
1
@TheImperatorKnight No that’s called capitalism in the real world. There’s never been an instance in history where the state has intervened in the economy unless there’s been no state at all.
1
@92ladderley Except that Hitler actually scaled back worker rights protections that were put in place in imperial Germany in order to kowtow to the German industrialists.
1
@freedomordeath89 No they did not. Hitler actively opposed seizure of private property by the government
1
@freedomordeath89 LOL “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler This is called a “direct contradiction” of what you said. Care to try again?
1
@Karpaneen Every kind of state has intervened to some extent in the economy since the late 19th century including imperial Germany in order to save capitalism. A state intervening in the economy is called “government.”
1
@Karpaneen No Hitler moved Germany further away from the left by privatizing more industry, glorifying private property and eliminating workers rights protections and labor unions. Of course he added controls over the economy during World War II just like the United States and every other major belligerent in the war. But the Nazis were actually late in mobilizing their economy for war production compared to the United States.
1
@Karpaneen Hundreds some of them are identified by name here http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
1
@TheImperatorKnight That would also describe virtually all historical capitalism. It would describe just about anything but outright anarchy. Governments have always intervened in the economy long before any of the ideas of Socialism existed
1
@nationalsocialist6590 The Chinese are indeed authoritarian capitalists like the Nazis in practice. But unlike the Nazis they pay lip service to an ideology that is completely at odds with what they do. Hitler didn’t try to hide his support for private property or opposition to Bolshevism. And even today a lot higher percentage of industry is still owned by the state in China than in Nazi Germany.
1
@dgray3771 It’s not any kind of leftist economic ideology. It’s not anarcho capitalism. It is authoritarian capitalism
1
@dgray3771 Yes those are authoritarian not necessarily leftist policies. You just don’t get the idea that in world history such authoritarian structures have usually not been leftist.
1
@dualdiamonds811 LOL Western capitalism was born in and flourished under authoritarian regimes for hundreds of years. Among them was the mother country of the United States. Attempting to separate capitalism from its authoritarian roots is ludicrous an ahistorical libertarian fantasy. You’re wasting your time. I know a lot more about this than you do. You’d be better off putting down the conspiracy theories and the crockpot anarcho libertarian fantasies and read
1
The Leaving Goose Well whatever word YOU choose to use to describe Nazi Germany in employed no more control over the economy than did the United States or Britain at the time. Hitler actually privatize more industry during the 1930s than several supposedly more democratic countries. And he argued that capitalism was harder to preserve in a more democratic country because democratic countries in Hitler’s view inevitably used socialistic measures to take over the market whereas fascist like him refused to do so. The Nazis did not exercise total control over their economy not even close. But It isn’t just a matter of the extent of control whether you call it authoritarian or totalitarian that makes someone a leftist. And you have to be completely ignorant of leftist ideology to think that it’s only about control. Leftist ideology has particular goals including the elimination of inequality of wealth and social classes and the internationalization of working people. It’s six to put all working people in control of the means of production not just any government elite and certainly not a racist nationalist elite which flies in the face of leftist principles. No matter how much control the Nazis exerted over German society and the economy they never supported these goals and in fact violently opposed him as mortal threats to their own ideology. And there’s just no way you can finesse that or parse it any other way then a complete conflict between Nazism and leftism. It ain’t just about a degree of control by Government. If that were true then a king Ramses the second would’ve been a leftist Oh and by the way you do know that there have been genuinely leftist governments that were not at all authoritarian right? You’re probably going try to deny this but it’s happening right now in Scandinavia
1
The Leaving Goose I don’t think that it’s funny when someone refuses to consider anything other than what confirms what they already believe. But it is ludicrous when it involves ignoring hundreds of years of history that even a high school student should know more about than to think so.
1
The Leaving Goose It’s ridiculous to say that the Nazis were socialist based on wartime economic controls which were even more pervasive in western countries including the United States and Britain and then ignore all the privatization and unimpeded profit taking by property holders, corporations that went on throughout the entire history of the third Reich. Hitler promised these capitalists that there would be no socialist take over of their property if they backed him as chancellor Germany, they backed him, and he kept his promise. Many of these German corporations continued to profit handsomely even after World War II and you’re talking about this as if there was some kind of nationalization of industry? Ludicrous!
1
The Leaving Goose Far from the state limiting private property rights, the Nazis actually helped capitalists by reducing workers rights and doing away with unions. And you’re talking about it as if they did the opposite?! This is nuts!
1
@tipsy09 No it’s what anyone who understands the basic principles of conservative versus leftist ideologies can instantly see
1
@StickNik That’s ridiculous! There were not enough “officials” in the Nazi party or even close to that to account for the number of private business owners in Germany throughout Hitler’s rule. This is just a lame attempt to get around the fact that the government didn’t actually own businesses in Nazi Germany and therefore its system cannot be said to be socialist.
1
@theprinceofcrows8691 What they’ve been saying when you point out the historical location of ideology is that you’re using out of date definitions when you define something as it was defined at the time by the people who created it. The people who support TIK are claiming the ability to change History by updating concepts from the past retroactively. Of course it would be better for them just to admit that Nazism wasn’t actually socialism but it can be if we change what THEY considered to be social to be. We just need a time machine in order to give them an up-to-date understanding of how they should’ve been looking at it. But again if we do get the Time Machine it would be better to use it to simply take out Hitler and worry about the butterfly effect later🤣
1
To suggest that any ideology can be truly socialist while opposing the elimination of all inequalities of wealth is like saying that vodka can be truly alcohol with the removal of alcohol.
1
@TheImperatorKnight An economic class cannot be equated with a racial one in the same ideology. Leftism is based on eliminating all economic classes on principle. Nazism is based on defending them on principle. Leftism is based on defeating unequal treatment of people based on race, because all people are supposed to be united as one kind deserving resources according to need. Nazism violently opposes this idea on the opposite principle: certain peoples are to be above others and must not be prevented from prevailing over “inferiors” in a Darwinian master slave conflict. The master race is supposed to include and defend the owners of wealth who are the prime targets of leftism. A more complete ideological conflict does not exist in history.
1
@TheImperatorKnight An economic class cannot be equated with a racial one in the same ideology. Leftism is based on eliminating all economic classes on principle. Nazism is based on defending them on principle. Leftism is based on defeating unequal treatment of people based on race, because all people are supposed to be united as one kind deserving resources according to need. Nazism violently opposes this idea on the opposite principle: certain peoples are to be above others and must not be prevented from prevailing over “inferiors” in a Darwinian master slave conflict. The master race is supposed to include and defend the owners of wealth who are the prime targets of leftism. A more complete ideological conflict does not exist in history.
1
@AFGuidesHD The Bamberg conference 1926 where Hitler repeatedly rejected the idea of confiscating the estates of the aristocracy. Four years later in a debate with Otto Strasser these were the exchanges: Strasser: “I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers. Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.” Strasser: “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?” Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy?
1
@johns3927 He didn’t claim that all people were equal in capability. But he did call to redistribute wealth according to need without allowing the accumulation of wealth or property.
1
@AFGuidesHD Well no true socialist defends private property the way Hitler did preserving the estates of hereditary aristocracy as well as capitalist overlords and rejecting any scheme for redistribution of wealth or confiscation. Hitler called all such notions communism.
1
@TheImperatorKnight There was nothing remotely comparable throughout Hitler’s entire regime to the confiscation of property in the Soviet union and you know it. It’s ludicrous for you to compare a few limited actions by the state Which did less to nationalize industry than so-called western democracies with the nationalization of industry in left socialist states at their time or since. Then there’s the privatization of industry in Germany, Which has no analog in and follows the opposite goal of socialist states. And Hitler was true to his word when he said that he would not seize property in order to transfer wealth from the elite to the masses in order to eliminate economic classes. He left most wealth in the hands of the elite that it started with just as he said he would in order to avoid Marxism. Since none of this fits the script for leftist ideology you’re left with predicting that they would have done so in Germany were it not for the war. I suppose that were it not for the war Hitler also would’ve reformed his treatment of so-called Subhumans and eliminated discrimination against Jews too. LOL
1
@TheImperatorKnight He certainly opposed it because it was in his view Jewish inspired. But there are plenty of instances where Hitler didn’t refer to it as just Jewish but rather attacked the economic principles of Marxism. He talked about how it destroyed the creative effort and personality of the individual. He even dismissed the concerns of the masses to participate in elite German society and culture. He believed that Marxism was bad economic policy and not just tainted by Judaism. When Otto Strasser advocated confiscation of wealth, Hitler didn’t say that’s a Jewish idea. He said it was a bad idea that would destroy the German economy. Well if a progressive tax system by itself makes one an economic socialist then so are western democratic states at the time. even the United States today has a somewhat progressive tax system. Now you’re moving the goal posts as to what is left socialism
1
@TheImperatorKnight Hitler did say that the state would act in its best interest when necessary concerning property ownership but this was rare and didn’t amount to the kind of seizure for the state so much as it did gangster/crony capitalism where are you reward your friends by giving them someone else’s property. I know that in Libertarian ideology capitalism is held to be pure of corruption. But this is just the dogma of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Again you’re saying it’s not capitalism unless it functions exactly according to the theory. Any deviation from the perfection of the theory and practice means that it’s bad. And bad things happen only on the left because everything on the right is perfect, right? This is why no matter how many anecdotes you’re able to pull from history your ideology will warp your perspective and keep you away from the truth.
1
@johns3927 There was a Soviet elite but not a Marxist philosophy that endorsed it and defended it. Hitler actually did defend and promote an aristocratic elite in Germany as part of his view of the right direction of Nazi ideology. What Hitler wrote and said publicly was also consistent with what Strasser reported about their debate. It’s absurd to compare Hitler’s occasional rewarding of his gangster pals with property to the mass confiscation of wealth in the Soviet Union and the killing of its former elite, Especially when no such privatization campaign as the one under took by Hitler during the 1930s or anything like it happened in the Soviet Union. And these profound differences are also consistent with the ideological differences between Nazism and socialism. Hitler said that he was not eliminating the German capitalist and hereditary aristocratic elite and he didn’t because that was contrary to Nazi ideology. Such class warfare was foundational to Marxist ideology so it did happen in the Soviet Union. No matter how many times you try to deny this, it doesn’t change the facts.
1
@johns3927 The difference is in an ideological principle dedicated to the elimination of whole economic classes because they have more than others. Marxists base their whole philosophy on eliminating economic classes and the Nazis rejected that idea on principle as destructive to the individual and to achievement by him. They are diametrically opposed in this respect. What matters most to a Marxist is what Hitler most wanted to destroy.
1
@yangwenli1272 All leftism has always asserted the equal rights of all people. All leftism has always opposed unequal distribution of wealth between classes. These have been core principles of leftist ideology long before Marx and Engels. Hitler consistently opposed confiscation of wealth from Aryan aristocrats and wealthy property holders. He targeted particular groups as ideological enemies in a way that no leftist principles can allow.
1
@yangwenli1272 Thomas Paine was talking about confiscating wealth from estates to give people a guaranteed basic income during the French Revolution. Whether it was a fully developed doctrine of class warfare or not doesn’t matter
1
Nazism is hardly a form of utopianism not by advocating the murder or enslavement of most people in the world
1
@keenkingjames Traditional authoritarianism isn’t collectivist in that sense. It’s not taking away freedom in order to provide security necessarily. It’s taking away freedom in order to enhance the power of the state and its ruling elite. This can often result in aggressive warfare which has frequently made the lives of every day citizens a lot less secure. The concept of collectivism you are using is a relatively recent idea which didn’t exist even during the 1940s. It certainly doesn’t describe all forms of group identity or authoritarian government. Traditional authoritarian structures Subordinated the individual to rulers making them part of something greater than themselves but not equal participants in it. Indeed they made them entirely subject to the ruler. Leftists only do this when gangsters like Stalin hijack their revolution, because unlike conservative authoritarianism, leftist ideology espouses the equality of all people. Leftist ideology is collectivist but not in the same sense of espousing hierarchy of people from least to best/most noble. Leftist ideology denies distinctions between people and indeed individual personality which Nazism and other right wing authoritarianism does not.
1
@samuelboucher1454 If TIK really thinks that those speeches prove his point he has a very poor understanding, a complete misunderstanding of Hitler’s ideas. I’m not sure if that’s true though. I think it’s possible the TIK is a calculating liar like other propagandists And that he knows what he’s saying is a distortion of Hitler’s ideas.
1
@samuelboucher1454 Right well I know that right wing lunatics who want to pretend that their dogmatic beliefs prove that people are incorruptible on the right consider the telling of the truth in the face of distortions of history to be trolling. But that’s not actually what’s happening of course.
1
@samuelboucher1454 I’m not the one claiming that either end of the political spectrum is pristine and immune to the corruption of human nature. You’re the utopian Ideologue.
1
@TheImperatorKnight It’s an absurd stretch to take the results of Hitler’s policy what he actually did and say that those are remotely equivalent to what happened in the Soviet union or other socialist countries. The fact remains that he did protect private property not just of workers but of aristocrats and wealthy industrialists who continued to operate their businesses and even enrich themselves through our Nazi rule. Drawing an analogy between a leftist policy of redistributing wealth to provide for all according to need and reduce or eliminate economic classes and Nazi targeting of a particular race ethnicity or religious group is absurd because those two goals are diametrically opposed to each other in their respective ideological frameworks. Hitler re-purposed the language of the left for a very different set of principles Which were in fact designed to destroy the left and you keep trying to ignore that but you can’t change history.
1
@bobhabib7662 You might want to go to a dressing room and check your own person. Your ignorance of ideological history, Hitler's words, and the realities of Nazi Germany-authoritarian capitalism, widespread private property ownership-is masking your own stench.
1
@bobhabib7662 Authoritarian capitalism is actually a real thing with a history longer than what you recognize as capitalism. Your ignorance of history doesn’t actually change history🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@bobhabib7662 Seriously what kind of socialist or communist allows thousands of people to own businesses, large estates, investments? What kind of socialist or communist country privatizes major banks, railroads, and heavy industry? I’ll wait for your answer
1
@bobhabib7662 It wasn’t just that there was very little confiscation of property relative to what you saw in a true socialist country such as the Soviet Union. It was the total absence of property confiscation in Nazi Germany in order to make industry communally owned which set it apart from leftist states. TIK’s attempt to dodge privatization in Nazi Germany is just the redefinition fallacy applied to crony capitalism: He makes up a new definition of capitalism that excludes by definition instances where friends receive property from an authoritarian ruler and run it as a capitalist enterprise. Essentially he’s defining everything as leftist that which doesn’t conform to an ideologue’s definition of what capitalism was always supposed to be but never really has been in practice. This is a Ludicrous attempt to evade the reality of Nazi Germany which is necessary to attempt to justify the assertion that a country could possibly be socialist with so many private property owners including major industry, banks and railroads as in Nazi Germany and indeed where private property ownership was expanded rather than decreased under their rule. But it doesn’t turn crony capitalism into socialism no matter how deep the subterfuge.
1
@bobhabib7662 Rather than watching more propaganda videos from TIK which attempt to play word games and cherry-pick history in order to deceive and evade the truth, you should look up crony capitalism, illiberal capitalism, authoritarian capitalism, and state capitalism in an economics dictionary. Then I suggest you study the history of fascism and socialism from their beginnings in the late 18th century and work your way forward in order to understand how their core principles differ from each other.
1
@bobhabib7662 Allowing people to own property if they support Nazi ideology doesn’t make Nazi ideology socialist. It just makes it authoritarian. If it was socialist they wouldn’t own the property at all and the system wouldn’t function for private profit. But we can’t determine whether or not something is socialist by whether or not it conforms to Libertarian dogma which idealizes capitalism.
1
@TheImperatorKnight In actual practice property was not communally owned on behalf of the workers by the state in Nazi Germany. It was owned by individuals for profit and personal use. This is not socialism
1
This is analogous to insisting that all people need to do to understand that Jesus was a Satanist is just to watch a video with evidence that Jesus spent time in proximity to the devil. Scripture does point out that Jesus spent some time in the presence of the devil. LOL
1
So Nazi ideology is heavily based on social Darwinism-the idea that certain individuals and peoples are supposed to outcompete and therefore eliminate others through superior ability, a sort of divine right. And there’s just no way to reconcile that with leftist ideology, which is based on the idea of that property belongs to all and should be distributed according to need not simply taken by the “winners” or “master race.” On the contrary Nazi ideology justifies theft and murder to put property in the hands of only those who “have a right to it”-the “superior race.” In the Nazi Weltanschauung, It is a waste of resources to allow the “undeserving”-those who don’t have a right to live-to consume them. So they cannot in Nazi ethos be the beneficiaries of redistribution of property or collective ownership. Again this flies in the face of every historical leftist ideological framework.
1
@samuelboucher1454 I’m certainly not trying to protect Hitler or any other Nazis. Clearly they were evil authoritarian sociopaths. I’m really pointing out that you’re not safe from such people just by avoiding one or the other end of the ideological spectrum as you very naïvely seem to be assuming. The potential of human nature for corruption and authoritarianism exists wherever can people get power in their hands in any ideology. People don’t magically lose their susceptibility to the corrupting effects of power just by adopting left or right wing views as you seem to think. Wherever people gain power there’s always potential for authoritarianism.
1
@TheImperatorKnight He didn’t describe all capitalism as Jewish or corrupted. He spoke only about that which was not concerned with what the Nazis considered achievement. “Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race.” If he had been an actual socialist he would’ve had the property of these heads of industry confiscated and collectively owned. You know that didn’t happen.
1
@samuelboucher1454 People who say that are trying to rewrite history. The majority of the history of capitalism has been under authoritarian rule. You’re not in a position to change history so you can’t mandate that capitalism be considered only that which conforms to your definition. You need to look up authoritarian capitalism in a good dictionary of political theory and also look at the conditions of individual liberty in renaissance Italy where capitalism was born. If you open your eyes and put down the libertarian dogma, you might learn something.
1
@samuelboucher1454 None have allowed the scope and scale of private ownership of major industry, banks, railroads not just allowed in Nazi Germany but celebrated and increased. The Nazis had none of the communally owned enterprises called for by socialism. They didn’t tolerate anyone who advocated such things. Again collective ownership was bitterly opposed by Hitler as a means of putting property in the hands of “inferior” people thereby upsetting the natural order. In Nazi ideology “better” people had to be free to outcompete their inferiors in the acquisition of resources, So that the inferior would die and only the “worthy” would own anything. Obviously this wouldn’t have been possible if they followed a socialist program and they did not. Indeed they glorified private property ownership by the “master race” as the fulfillment of its destiny.’
1
@samuelboucher1454 They didn’t nationalize Jewish businesses. That would imply that they were taken for communal ownership has a Socialist State would. It would be more accurate to say they stole Jewish businesses and gave them to members of the master race.
1
@samuelboucher1454 Yes I know the state acted as representative of the people in creating communal ownership In Socialist states. What you apparently don’t know is that the Nazis did not do that. Instead of setting up state ownership of industry, they privatized industry and that meant exactly what it sounds like: taking property that wasn’t in state hands and putting it in private hands. This included banks railroads and a long list of other major industries that generated huge profits for their ownership throughout Nazi rule and even long after that right up to the present day for some of the companies involved. It was not Socialism in any sense of the word.
1
@samuelboucher1454 Party control is just a lame attempt to make it sound as if the state owned property that was actually in private hands. Yes a lot of private property owners in Germany were part of the Nazi party but it wasn’t a requirement for property ownership and that didn’t make private property into state property.
1
@samuelboucher1454 No it’s not. State ownership is when the state is the owner, not merely when private owners are members of the dominant political party. And there wasn’t even a party affiliation requirement to own property in Germany.
1
@samuelboucher1454 LOL by that measure the law of eminent domain makes the United States a socialist country and all property owned by people who are members of the political party in power “state owned.” You’re making up your own definitions. You can’t change reality that way. No rational person is going to accept the idea of nothing but a dichotomy between anarchy or Socialism which is evidently all you believe in. All your proving is that you would adhere to the non-sequitur of utopian libertarian dogma. The real world however does not exist in your alternate conspiracy reality.
1
@samuelboucher1454 OK so you recognize that no economy is purely one thing but you still have totally incorrect ideas about Nazi ideology. It was no more socialist than the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is Democratic. This is what Hitler really thought about leftist ideology and programs: “You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” 1930 “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?” Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy?
1
@samuelboucher1454 He doesn’t prove anything but just makes a series of disingenuous and misleading non sequiturs that attempt to show a relationship that doesn’t exist between two diametrically opposed ideological frameworks. He also ignores what the Nazis actually did once they got into power relying on cherry-picked statements and leaving out at reams of context.
1
@samuelboucher1454 You need to spend some time studying the history of ideas to understand there’s more to ideology than the extent of government control. If it was just about government control then the ancient Egyptian pharaohs would’ve been socialists thousands of years before the development of Socialism. LOL
1
@bobhabib7662 LOL if authoritarian rule was all it took to produce socialism, then Frederick the Great (among others) was a socialist before the ideology even existed. There’s a bit more to it than authoritarianism however. I can recommend some readings in the history of the development of Socialism if you want to understand more about the principles of the ideology. You’re in an echo chamber of full of crank conspiracy theorists so maybe that’s why you think that major German industry was owned by the state and run like it was in the Soviet Union. But the reality is that virtually all major industry was private in Germany during the 1930s and indeed that the German government privatized more of it including banks railroads and heavy industry during that period. Attempts to liken this situation that which existed in the Soviet Union are ludicrous. Germany was actually slower to transition to the kind of government controls needed for war production than were the United States and Britain and continued to produce consumer goods at the expense of its war industry well end of the Second World War.
1
@bobhabib7662 Just because it doesn’t conform to your idea or the libertarian cult definition of what private property owners should be able to do doesn’t make it state owned. Insisting on Libertarian dogma is the only “correct” understanding of private property doesn’t change how it was viewed at a particular time and place. And again whether you think that authoritarians rewarding their friends with property is the same as a state owned and planned economy doesn’t change historical understandings or definitions of capitalism or socialism. It doesn’t make crony capitalism into socialism just because you don’t like either one and want to insist that anything that doesn’t conform to the libertarian ideal of capitalism is socialism. Libertarian cult beliefs aside there are many historical differences between crony capitalism and socialism which you simply can’t ignore if you’re telling the truth.
1
@bobhabib7662 There’s no need to deprogram ME. What you’re calling programming is actually education in the original sources from the history of ideas. You lack that so you think the propaganda programming you’ve received its real knowledge rather than the blinders of ignorance that it really is.
1
@bobhabib7662 LOL I actually don’t care for either socialism or Nazism. I’m concerned about the truth and the danger of authoritarianism from whatever direction it comes. Extremist thinking like yours leads to dogma and polarization of thought which makes you vulnerable to the propaganda which casts everyone who doesn’t accept your dogma as the enemy, hence your need to say that if I don’t go along with the Propaganda I must be the enemy. This is the kind of thinking that put the Nazis in power in the first place: the way you think.
1
@bobhabib7662 And if his views on economics didn’t change then these remarks express his true views: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how he is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” 1932
1
@bobhabib7662 No matter how many times you repeat ignorant nonsense it’s still ignorant nonsense. Cherry picking things Hitler said and places where he was seen and ignoring the context as well as what the Nazis actually did once they were in power only proves that you’re distorting the truth. Many thousands of private businesses and a lot of other private property continued in operation and even expanded throughout Nazi rule. The Nazis did not undertake any program of state nationalization but in fact the opposite. They didn’t centrally plan their economy even as much as the United States did and only then for war production which every major belligerent did. All you’ve proven is what we already knew: that the Nazis were authoritarian. But there’s a much longer history of statism and authoritarianism on the right than there is on the left. Anyone who says otherwise he’s just completely ignorant of history.
1
The fundamental problem with this hypothesis can’t be resolved by cherry picking history for statements that “sound like something a socialist would say.” Aside from the fact that Hitler’s statements in context make it clear he wasn’t talking about any leftist ideology, There’s the basic conflict between the social Darwinism of Nazism and the leftist principle of providing for everyone according to need. It should be obvious that if you’re trying to preserve a competition whereby supposedly better people take from and destroy supposedly lesser people you can’t possibly provide for everyone according to need and indeed nothing could be further from the Nazi objective what the ideology holds most dear. In the Nazi Weltanschauung, Providing for everyone according to need actually destroys the whole point of Nazi ideology which is for the master race to triumph and kill or enslave everyone else. It should be obvious to reasonably intelligent person why there’s no way to reconcile these extreme contradictions, Why a social Darwin ideology can’t be leftist.
1
@samuelboucher1454 Well the thing is the Nazis didn’t “centralize the economy” the way socialist countries do. There was no central state planning of the economy and hardly any state owned property. Indeed the Germans continued to produce consumer goods at the expense of their war effort well into the second world war leaving them behind the United States in industrial mobilization for the war because they didn’t plan as much as WE did. An authoritarian government isn’t the same thing necessarily as a government that directly controls the economy. By fudging that distinction you would have us believe that European monarchs such as Louis the 14th were socialists. It’s laughable
1
@bobhabib7662 All socialist thought shares common ideas. Whether you actually believe in an end of history and dialectical materialism or not if you’re a real leftist you can’t support social Darwinism. You just don’t know enough to understand what I’m talking about.
1
@bobhabib7662 “Real private property rights” Making up your own definitions again. Private ownership in Germany was Not state owned industry. The profits went into the pockets of individuals. Business decisions were made by individuals. I don’t know what else you need to know to understand what this was. Probably you just need to let go of your fantasy
1
@bobhabib7662 There is “ample citation” by many people in North Korea that they are part of democratic republic.
1
@bobhabib7662 LOL..you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? The point was that North Korea calls itself democratic the same way that the Nazis called themselves socialist: it’s a false front.
1
@alixritter9851 semantics is not what separates the Nazis from true leftists. It’s more like diametrically opposed world views. The only people who lost companies in Nazi Germany were enemies of the master race. There was not state ownership as you would see you in a socialistic system. The Nazis actually privatized industry more than the other western countries supposedly capitalistic they certainly didn’t support worker ownership of the means of production, or providing for each according to need. Would Hitler allow major industries to continue in private hands? “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.” Hitler “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” Hitler 1933
1
@amir071 that’s not what my Cornell PhD professor said about my grad seminar paper on the roots of fascism.. but by all means continue to indulge your Dunning Kruger delusion
1
@amir071 yeah and the Nazis privatized major industries, including banks, while western European countries were nationalizing them…
1
@amir071 you’re making up your own alternate history based on a laughable ignorance of ideology in history
1
Don’t tell me let me guess: the Germans determination to defend their cities against the allied bombing proves that they were socialists.
1
@larryselkirk426 It was neither one of those things and also wasn’t socialist
1
@MadsterV You’re ignorant of history. In the 18th century the authoritarian right was made up of monarchists. One of the forerunners of fascist thought was a counterrevolutionary monarchist named Joseph Demaistre who argued in favor of putting the French king back on the throne during the French Revolution.
1
@MadsterV Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
1
You have to be a special kind of stupid not to read anything other than a name and make sweeping assumptions about what it means when you could be very wrong as you are in this case.
1
@nicknolte8671 I’m glad you’re here to correct all of this insidious nonsense from the right and crazy anarcho libertarians with their utopian pretensions that their beliefs can’t be associated with anything bad leading them to deny reality. You should start your own channel to debunk this nonsense about Nazism.
1
@nicknolte8671 Brilliant rebuttal! Bravo!
1
Yes they’re enemies: ideological enemies. Their beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other. So how on earth can you think that they have the same ideology?
1
@TheDoats Socialism based Not based on class is like gin not based on alcohol. The whole point of the ideology is to level economic classes and redistribute wealth without regard for things like race or social status. “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Adolf Hitler 1938
1
@TheDoats That’s not accurate at all. The Germans actually privatized more industry than the British during the 1930s. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that there was some kind of seizure of the means of production by the state that is anything remotely comparable to what the bolsheviks did. In fact the German war economy lag behind those of the allies because it wasn’t centrally planned even to the extent that the US economy was much less under the total control of the state as in the Soviet union. Hitler left German industry in the hands of the German capitalist elite. You’re just doing the same silly thing that modern-day libertarians always do in equating authoritarian rule with the left. But Hitler actually argued did democracy was more destructive to capitalism than authoritarianism. And authoritarianism has a much longer history on the right than it does on the left. Are you going to tell me that Henry the eighth was a communist? LOL The problem with that idea is that eliminating economic classes is fundamental to leftist ideology and was bitterly opposed by the Nazis. Internationalism strongly supported by leftist and bitterly opposed by the Nazis because it was anathema to their core ideological principles. The whole point of Nazism was nationalism an opposing Internationalism. Two diametrically opposed ideologies are not different varieties of the same thing. If that’s what you think you don’t know the first thing about the principles of either one.
1
@TheDoats Hitler abhorred democracy and said that it was a sure path to socialism. He was as bitter an opponent of western democratic values of tolerance and equality before the law as anyone could be. You’re talking to pure nonsense.
1
“He doesn’t lie.” “He must not get much sleep then.” “What?!”
1
@pedrovitor5324 Leftist principles are based on presumed equal rights of all people throughout the world. Since the 18th century they have assumed a brotherhood/sisterhood of all people, defining progress as the provision of what all people need according to individual need. Nazism is completely hostile to this goal and diametrically opposed to it. Nazism and leftism are completely incompatible as a result.
1
@KameradVonTurnip That’s true but aspirations of treating all men equally began with the birth of leftist ideology in the 18th century. They were further developed throughout the 19th century along with the ideology. By contrast privileging one group over another has always been part of fascist ideology. Even in the beginning this was part of the rationale behind nationalism. And extreme nationalism is of course both Antithetical to leftism and at the core of fascism.
1
@KameradVonTurnip This isn’t about personal beliefs of individuals. This is about the principles of the ideology and those are formed by the people who developed it.
1
@pedrovitor5324 LOL They “opened” their economy by turning it into a capitalist economy. That was the kind of “opening” the only kind involved: that’s the only reason that they’ve been successful since and you know it. If private property doesn’t exist in China tell that to the many many billionaires who are Chinese nationals and the owners of all the private businesses that drive this capitalist economy. The fact that they were once really communist doesn’t change what they have since decided to do.
1
@pedrovitor5324 Well leftism is utopian in supposing that equality can actually be reached similar to the way libertarianism is utopian in thinking that the market solves all problems and that people won’t hurt each other if there’s no government to stop them. Fascism isn’t utopian but it is evil in justifying genocide as a desirable goal. To identify it you don’t have to believe that the ideology is correct in what it says is possible or right. We’re simply determining what it is based on what it establishes as its goals. And we’re not making those goals up but simply comparing those with historical foundations of ideologies to see what we’re looking at. Part of the error in libertarian and right wing ideologues is the assumption that there’s no objective truth, no way to accurately describe something that you don’t believe in other than to say that it’s wrong. I’m not a leftist or fascist. I’m a historian showing you how to correctly identify what these ideologies are.
1
@pedrovitor5324 There you go in fantasy land again. Many billionaires are very much in possession of their wealth in China as we speak.
1
@KameradVonTurnip No the people that you’re talking about are not the ones who formed the ideology. You said you were talking about individuals who were just following not the people who actually developed the ideas🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@KameradVonTurnip You’re defining Napoleon as a rank and file follower in the history of ideology?!🤣😆🤣
1
@KameradVonTurnip Who said that the leaders of the development of an ideology are limited to what you consider to be “intellectuals”? No less a person then GWF Hegel called Napoleon a “world historical figure”: a person who embodied the spirit of history in progress. Napoleon pioneered fascist ideas as a romantic nationalist representing “the great nation” of France evoking forms of classical antiquity and validating his rule and his people through aggressive warfare and conquest. He wasn’t emperor of France. He was “emperor of the French” people.
1
@KameradVonTurnip Rousseau indeed provided part of the foundation for both Socialism and fascism. What people did with his ideas wasn’t under his control after his death Or even while he was still alive.
1
@KameradVonTurnip But I’m not saying that Rousseau’s ideas that led to fascism went through Napoleon. Napoleon developed fascism through his politics.
1
@KameradVonTurnip It’s not just Rousseau who created socialism and fascism. He simply provided some of the ingredients that lead to the development separately of each. But each ideology was informed by many other currents in the history of ideas and politics.
1
@KameradVonTurnip No and it’s not something that can be explained in soundbites. That’s the whole problem with this page: it’s a lot more complicated than the author would have you believe.
1
@chuckysmaria6466 You’re right: he didn’t change very much. He went from not revealing his true intentions in order to manipulate people and gain power into revealing them once he had power. And if his views on economics didn’t change then these remarks express his true views: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938 Go ahead and try to explain how he is describing ANY leftist ideology. “In principle, the Government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property.” 1933 “The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” 1932
1
@tdvwest9514 Again with the making up of new definitions of capitalism to gerrymander the Nazis out of it. Lol If high debt to GDP rather than reliance on private property and a market economy were what defined a country as socialist or not than the US and Japan along with most of Europe would also be socialist. Get real! Everyone knows that every freaking big box store in the United States is filled with goods produced in Chinese factories and that’s the reason for China’s rise to global economic power over the past 30 years. Who do you think you’re fooling with this nonsense?🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@tdvwest9514 LOL when you’re ignorant enough to believe that “all large corporations are owned by the Chinese government” What you think I understand is in no interest to me.
1
@tdvwest9514 Look you just don’t know enough about history, ideology or economics to have the faintest idea what you’re talking about. Capitalism is BORN in authoritarian states in Renaissance Italy. It has a relatively short history in the United States and a few other places where has been more individual freedom. Your ahistorical definitions of capitalism don’t change that.
1
@tdvwest9514 Well you’ve made it more than obvious that you don’t know what socialism, capitalism are-apart from your own made up definitions, much less the different varieties of capitalism such as state capitalism, Illiberal or authoritarian capitalism, or liberal capitalism. I expect you think capitalism is only something that has never actually existed: utopian capitalism where the market is perfectly free. That would put you in the same general domain with Marxists: utopian thinkers who don’t live in the real world as it unfolds historically
1
@tdvwest9514 Here’s your most learned definition of capitalism(sarc): No government
1
@tdvwest9514 Well even with the dictionary that you’re using China and Nazi Germany are authoritarian capitalist countries. You try to avoid this by writing “alternative facts” about what actually happened/happens in those countries. But again your confusion is rooted in ignorance as well: A simple definition of capitalism won’t include the different varieties of it.
1
@tdvwest9514 Oh yeah it’s an “oxymoron” because uneducated people like you don’t know the history or anything about political theory. No your ignorance is not as good as knowledge of political theory and the history of ideology. You’re like a blind man stumbling around in the dark blaming the objects you run into for “striking” you. But you can’t learn the stuff on YouTube discussions. You have to actually read something more substantial.
1
@tdvwest9514 Better check what you wrote again. You said all of the large corporations in China are owned by the state. And that’s easily proven false.
1
@tdvwest9514 The North Korean government says that it’s a democratic republic where the people have individual liberty. Is that all you need to know to believe that?
1
@tdvwest9514 “All of the large Chinese corporations are owned by the Chinese government” Are you suffering from short-term memory loss from smoking too much dope or something?
1
@tdvwest9514 What’s wrong with that statement is it’s factually inaccurate. In fact the Chinese government does not own most much less ALL of the large corporations in China.
1
@tdvwest9514 Republic is a system of government not a type of government. It’s not an antonym for democracy. E.g. representative democracy is also a good description of a republic
1
@tdvwest9514 It’s not a fallacy: it’s a perfect analogy of how authoritarian regimes will use propaganda to make them seem like something that they are not for political expediency. The Nazis couldn’t be socialist not with literally thousands of private property holders including many large privately owned corporations banks railroads etc. Not only allowed to keep their property but in in cases privatized by the Nazis.. Socialist just don’t do that no matter how much you try to spin it.
1
@patcoghlan3852 🤣😂🤣🤡🤣 A more complete demonstration of ignorance of Adolf Hitler’s actual history and views would be difficult to imagine. Anti-Sematism and anticommunism were always at the heart of Hitler’s views. Basically you’ve got everything backwards about Hitler. There’s no way to do that while being informed about what he actually did. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
1
He didn’t change his actual views all that much. He just became more honest about them as he gained power.
1
@buzter8135 yep the petulantly ignorant American alt right in it’s silly misunderstanding of history simply refuses to accept it. Anything bad could have anything to do with the right, and so keeps floating, laughable conspiracy theories like this one. if you don’t know that conservatism has been authoritarian for nearly all of history how can you possibly understand the Nazis?
1
@buzter8135 it’s the stupidity and self delusion of people who just can’t accept reality that they’ve attached themselves to ideology that makes them fellow travelers with Nazis that’s on display here. What does the alt right have in common with the Nazis? extreme nationalism based on a mythical sense of racial identity, racism, far right ideology, populism, glorification of violence and even Statism, though the alt right somehow, adheres to right wing strong men, while deluding itself into thinking that it still has individual liberty. And it’s the hallmark of a fool to suppose that any belief system is free of all flaws.
1
@cookingtravelingmusicandmo2999 indeed he never really changed his opinion. He changed the Nazi party to conform to his opinion. He was an extreme right wing nationalist authoritarian all along. he hijacked the Nazi party and purged it of leftism: producing something that present-day Americans and some others can’t wrap their heads around, but which has a long history in Germany and many other right wing Statism. What did Louis the 14th say? “L’etat C’est Moi” it should be obvious that he was no socialist😊
1
@asm7406 he didn’t hate the Ukrainians as a people. He saw Ukrainian nationalism as a counter revolutionary ideology that threatened his power and that of the Soviet Union.
1
Stopping individual workers from taking private initiative is capitalism. This is the same thing that we always see from this guy: authoritarianism equals the left and only the left-never mind literally thousands of years of history when it didn’t.
1
@oscartang4587u3 no I’m suggesting that conservative authoritarianism has existed for thousands of years. Historically it’s by far the most common and the original form of authoritarianism. Therefore, the Nazis are following an ancient tradition of right wing authoritarianism and no they’re not leftist in any sense of the word. Hitler simply hijacked a leftist organization tricking those who he could into supporting it, and eliminating the diehard true leftists.
1
@choosecarefully408 Propaganda is using deception to distort or obscure the facts. The facts are that the Nazis neither pursued a leftist economic program nor adhered to leftist principles. About all you can say is that they used some of the rhetoric of leftist especially early in their history before Hitler hijacked the party.
1
@choosecarefully408 People who get tricked by a demagogue in an Orwellian scheme designed to benefit him never like to admit it. They much prefer to think that they’re not being swayed by “the enemy” that he picks for them and to admit that they’re just blindly following him. But he’s just designating an enemy to distract from his own evil acts.
1
@choosecarefully408 Sounds like you could just as easily have been doing the opposite.
1
@choosecarefully408 It worked very well when Donald Trump used it to program his mindless followers with lying counter narrative after lying counter narrative, even though most of the lies should’ve been obvious as such to a five-year-old.
1
@choosecarefully408 Demagogues and knaves hide their crimes and corruption of the truth by Reframing any attempt to expose them as political partisanship rather than simply as ethics. Everything being partisan allows them to avoid responsibility for their amoral behavior. That’s how they destroy the very concept of objective truth.
1
@bogdanpopescu1401 the free market or classical liberal capitalism is a relatively new idea. Authoritarian capitalism like that of Nazi Germany is much older dating all the way back to the origins of capitalism in renaissance Italy. Your problem is that you’re only seeing this from the perspective of contemporary anarcho libertarian ideology. Hitler actually claimed that individual liberty and democracy weakened capitalism by subjecting property owners to too much control by workers who had too many rights and privileges they could assert to limit private property rights with
1
@bogdanpopescu1401 the word capitalism actually dates from the late 17th century(long before Marx) and the system is much older than that. Throughout its history capitalism has been used far more often under authoritarian governments than within free societies as the term is understood today. Hitler had solid historical justification for his opinion that capitalism depends on strong government limits on individual freedom.
1
@bogdanpopescu1401 no
1
@pierrelabounty9917 it’s much more consistent with human nature to become irrationally devoted to an ideology to the point that you will try to force everything into it, leading to absurd rationalizations like “fascists are actually on the far left because my ideology doesn’t allow for any flaws to exist on the right, any great evil to be possible, because my ideology says that the right can only equal freedom therefore, anything that’s evil and oppressive can’t be on the right.” This is when you refuse to accept any evidence in the world to the contrary. This is the mindset of the anarcho libertarian ideologue.
1
@jameshannagan4256 leftist ideas? What leftist ideas you may not know this, but in Germany, authoritarianism and statism have a very long history as conservative values
1
@danielbrown6112 well, it obviously doesn’t fit the pro fascist, ethnic genocide narrative not to teach it… how else can people be expected to murder millions of people because of conspiracy theories based on their religion?
1
@jakublulek3261 It’s not like that we’re talking about polar opposites that have only authoritarianism in common
1
@jluvs2ride The danger is coming from different directions: you can’t just look in the direction of the left. To a libertarian every other ideology is collectivist. Today libertarians are nothing but anarchist ideologues
1
@jluvs2ride Not really. And at the same conference from which the plan emerged Hitler repeatedly refused to agree with the confiscation of aristocratic estates in Germany.
1
@jluvs2ride No not really. In fact not at all, as Hitler made clear in a 1930 debate with Otto Strasser: Strasser: “I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers. Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.” Strasser: “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?” Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy?
1
@jluvs2ride Modern libertarianism is anarchism. Pretty much all government is deemed to be collectivist and it’s true you can’t have law if you’re concerned exclusively with individuals
1
@jluvs2ride Then why are you people so desperate to avoid associating anything close to what you believe with the right?
1
@jluvs2ride Its economy was less centrally planned than those of Britain, France, or the US at the time and far less so than that of the Soviet Union. If central planning and authoritarianism is really all you need to be leftist, then France under Louis the 14th and even ancient Egypt were leftist states.
1
@jluvs2ride Never mind the fact that authoritarian governments have been around for literally millennia before leftism as an ideology even existed. Never mind that that’s the only thing other than a word that Nazism has in common with the Soviet State. Let’s just keep on pretending that nothing bad ever happens anywhere on the right like the good utopian ideologues that we are.
1
@jluvs2ride You can make a much better argument that Stalin was a socialist: he certainly supported real socialist policies unlike Hitler. But the worst thing about Stalin was that like Hitler he was an authoritarian gangster Who had no problem enslaving and killing people. Your obsession with denial of the reality that such actions happen all across the political spectrum leaves us more vulnerable to them.
1
@jluvs2ride I’m not the one who keeps insisting that the Nazis had to be leftists. And I won’t stop calling out such falsification of history because it’s dangerous, because it leaves us vulnerable to the next Hitler because we’re not looking in all directions that he can come from.
1
It comes from reality a refusal to falsify history because you can’t let go of libertarian dogma.
1
@TheImperatorKnight What about your religion as to what’s “real capitalism” or “real conservatism”? Do you think you’re immune to the distorting effects of ideology on your perspective-that this is just a problem for people who disagree with you? LOL
1
@philodonoghue3062 Sure because we can’t accept the idea that anything really awful could come from the right. That would be heresy.
1
@donaldsheckler3636 The definition of collectivism given by libertarians increasingly seems to encompass anything other than anarchy. And since anarchy leads to tyranny by whoever has the most power then that means everything is authoritarian and there’s no escaping from authoritarianism. This is reductio absurdum at its best
1
@jluvs2ride Again I’m not the one desperately trying to reframe Nazis as leftists. I’m the one in the real world viewing things objectively as they really are without your ideological blinders.
1
@jluvs2ride calling the German economy centrally planned is a gross distortion if by central planning you mean anything more than what existed in the United States during World War II. In fact the Germans were late in focusing their economy on war production relative to the United States. Central planning a la the Soviet union was very far from the way the German economy was organized at any point much less before the war. People who say the German economy was centrally planned like that of the Soviet Union are either ignorant or lying. Which are you?
1
@jluvs2ride No that’s not it I studied enough political philosophy in college and grad school to have a good understanding of 20th century ideologies and their history. I think there is a real possibility that you don’t know enough about either fascism or real Socialism to understand the differences however.
1
@jluvs2ride Again he wasn’t extolling the virtues of true socialism. He said explicitly that he was taking the word and redefining it. “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” If you had actually studied leftist thought you would better understand perhaps how this runs counter to its foundational principles in every way. But that might not be possible because you’ve decided to ignore everything but your predetermined conclusion. So this really isn’t a rational argument for you. It’s an article of faith and nothing can shake you from it. That’s a shame. It’s not as if the worlds going to end if you admit that not everything conservative has been good and that it is within human nature with any system thought that the real potential for evil lies
1
@vladimpaler3498 He ruined the economy by getting into a war with two superpowers. That didn’t just ruin the economy. It destroyed the entire country. You don’t have to be a genius or come up with any more elaborate explanation than that for what happened to Germany. But whatever you can find to sustain this narrative right? You people are just as much ideologues as Hitler was. “Heretic!!! conservatism is pure and untainted, the holiest of blood!! Nothing bad ever happens because of conservatism or anything to do with it! Don’t say that it can have anything to do with the Nazis’-Silence heretic!!l
1
@jluvs2ride In fact I do. It’s you who is mistaken. For instance Germany continued to produce a large volume of consumer goods well into the war when central planning would’ve called for the production of more munitions. This handicapped the German war effort and represented a weakness in Nazi Germany caused by a LACK of central planning. You would think that someone who is pontificating with such assurance about how everything in Germany was centrally planned would know that. You continue to float this totally make-believe fantasy of a Soviet style central planning committee for supposedly state owned industry without any evidence in Nazi Germany. But the Dunning Kruger effect Combined with extreme ideological blinders from the nutcase libertarian theory that you espouse has prepared you to believe anything, Reality notwithstanding.
1
@jluvs2ride Well by that definition Britain is more socialist at the time than Germany and the Soviet Union far more so. But it’s not that simple. Socialism is also founded upon an ideology that advocates redistribution of wealth to provide for every person according to their need without regard to considerations such as race or nationality. It espouses not just state ownership but worker ownership of the means of production so that economic elites are completely eliminated and it does this with a goal of eliminating classes altogether. All of this was anathema to the Nazis under Hitler. The Nazi State actually owned few of the means of production and preserved both hereditary and economic classes while allowing them to retain virtually all their wealth We won’t agree on any definition other than the actual one formulated by the founders of Socialism in the 19th century. I’m not going to let you move the goalposts so that you can fit Socialism around something that isn’t.
1
@jluvs2ride It is a fallacy but if you’re complaining about it now you’re a hypocrite. If you don’t want to draw my scorn which is earned by your petulant ignorance don’t talk to me like I don’t understand what I’m talking about. You should know by now that is far from the truth.
1
@jluvs2ride No it’s not the accepted definition. If it were then socialism would extend back hundreds of years before any socialist thought. And Socialism would include systems of most western countries today including much of the American economy. All leftist economic ideology of the present a share common origins in 18th century Europe. It’s about more than just central planning. It calls for property to be held in common, the redistribution of wealth and the elimination of disparities in wealth. It’s a reaction against not a continuation of feudalism in it’s inception. Marxism is socialism. But socialism denies the right of aristocratic elites to inherited property, whether it comes specifically from Marx-Engels or not. It’s an ideology supposedly about perfecting all, not just a chosen few, In the name of progress and the securing of rights supposed to belong to all equally. Trying to expand the definition to anything simply involving central planning leaves behind the core principles of the ideology and allows inclusion of things that are hostile to socialist ideology such as fascism and other forms of authoritarianism. But that’s the point for a libertarian ideologue. You’re not just trying to portray Nazism as a leftist ideology but all authoritarianism as such despite the absurdity that this creates in having us believe that leftist ideology has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years before any leftist thought actually emerged.
1
@jluvs2ride Here we get the utopianism of libertarian dogma which like Marxist dogma insists that only the perfect realization of the theory is capitalism or communism as the case may be. So by your measure capitalism has never actually existed in all of history because what has been called capitalism has always had such imperfections such as those in gangster or crony capitalism or even just a market imperfection of advertising which prevents rational utility maximization. And it certainly includes markets where monopolies exist. These allow capitalists to control markets and therefore plan them. So I guess that makes John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie socialists by your reckoning. Another example of what must be a socialist to you is JP Morgan who helped prop up the US financial system for the US government. LOL
1
@jluvs2ride What would you know about the facts of history? You haven’t given any evidence of having any idea of the philosophical origins of socialism in 18th and early 19th century Europe. You’re just parroting an absurdist libertarian article of faith that literally anything authoritarian or centrally planned is leftist. You wouldn’t pass a First year college western civilization class with that definition much less be able to talk to an economic Historian. That’s the kind of explanation that used to make me want to tear my hair out when I graded Western civ., the kind that revealed the student hadn’t been listening to the professor at all or else missed the import of everything he said.
1
@jluvs2ride It’s funny that you would direct people to the 25 point plan that emerged from Bamberg, the same conference where Hitler repeatedly refused to consider confiscating the estates of German aristocrats the way a real socialist would and blasted leftism. You just can’t stop yourself from Cherry picking history to support your twisted view of Nazism. For you it would be heresy to admit the truth!
1
@jluvs2ride I can tell that you have an ideologues obsession with keeping your ideology absolutely pure in a way that’s totally unrealistic and ahistorical. Whether you realize it or not the view in this page of a national socialism is a fringe view that’s not supported by scholarship or the facts. It relies on ignoring the basic principles of leftism and cherry-picking quotes to paint a false picture with an absurd conclusion.
1
@jluvs2ride You just reveal your ignorance when you talk about a “paradigm” used in the history of ideas since the French revolution as if it was just made up by some modern cult theorist such as a libertarian..LOL You can ignore history but you can’t make it go away or understand ideology without it.
1
@jluvs2ride If you really want to get up to speed on this history I can recommend some books. But there’s no “Cliff Notes version” to learning the stuff.
1
@jluvs2ride Well because you’re stuck in the Cliff Notes version you missed what went down in the Bamberg conference where those points were laid down. Hitler called the conference in order outmaneuver the remaining leftists in the Nazi party(This was in 1926 before Hitler had completed his takeover of the party). He let them include points in a platform and then shot down everything to do with economic leftism in a speech he delivered in front of them, Repeatedly blocking their calls to seize the property of the aristocrats and redistribute wealth as a communist plot that he would not allow to destroy Germany. The points didn’t change but Hitler made it clear that henceforth a party would be about following his rule and no other plan or program. Then he hunted down the actual leftists remaining in the party. The only ones he ended up actually enacting or the ones concerned with privileging the so-called master race above non-Aryans. He didn’t carry out any of the leftist ideas in the points. It’s funny though that not all of the points are really even what most people would consider leftist, even today. Equal rights? Wow that’s really leftist, a real communist plot. Jefferson must’ve been a communist eh? Self determination? Collectivism at its worst right? Ensuring that everyone has a job and a strong middle class? Franklin Roosevelt said the same thing at the time. Again your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge and you’re still talking nonsense. Nazism is still a far right ideology of hate and authoritarianism.
1
@jluvs2ride Because doofus then as now people who identified as left were ideologically opposed to people on the right and for many of the same reasons even today. It was then and remains a useful way to categorize real and meaningful ideological differences. People who want to fudge profound differences in ideological principles may wish to avoid categorization but that’s just a propagandists trick wielded by an ideologue who is attempting to cover up the obvious.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah excuse me but I think it’s not very likely that I’ll get good recommendations for secondary sources from a person who is totally ignorant of the primary sources on the history of the ideology. I think that I’ll probably get material from other ideologues who are either ignorant of the original sources themselves or a cherry picking them to support a predetermined and absurd conclusion: That Nazis were leftist for example. There are too many good things to read to waste time on libertarian propaganda.
1
@dusk6159 Well you know that Hitler actually argued that it was democracy that took away the freedom of capitalists to run their businesses as they saw fit ultimately completely taking away their property rights and establishing communism. I don’t necessarily agree that he was right but he wasn’t a leftist property confiscator himself.
1
@jluvs2ride I’ll tell him that you said he was a communist. After all you’re the one who is insisting on calling all authoritarians are leftists. It’s hilarious to see you say “well the far right were leftists but don’t talk about left and right distinctions except when were calling Nazis leftists. Then we have to make sure that everyone knows that no other label is acceptable under any circumstances. It’s absolute heresy not to call them leftist… but again don’t get too hung up on calling people left or right..” I don’t think you’ll ever make up your mind about anything except your own hypocrisy😂😆😂😂
1
@jluvs2ride You presented the points that Hitler used to outmaneuver the few remaining leftists in the party, essentially the means he used to hijack it and turn it into a right wing authoritarian organization, without any awareness of the speech that he also gave announcing to them that they’d been had and that he was now in control. So if you really don’t know about the Bamberg speech and what was in it maybe you weren’t cherry picking. Maybe you’re just ignorant. But you should know that he didn’t actually do the things in the program that the leftists wanted after he got in power. There was nothing like the forced collectivization of the Kulaks in the Soviet Union for example, no mass seizure of industry either.
1
@jluvs2ride NoI’ve been right about all of it. You just don’t know it because you’re blinded by libertarian propaganda nonsense-a perfect example of the dunning-Kruger effect combined with a cult ideology founded upon a petulant denial of the very need to have any actual knowledge about the history of ideology in order to pontificate about rather complex ideological history. Libertarianism is even more simplistic in it’s utopian predictions than Marxism.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah because if you just say the individual is more important than the state and define anything where the state is more important than the individual as leftist you’re saying that the vast majority of governments for thousands of years have been leftist before leftist ideology even existed. It isn’t complicated to understand that leftism hasn’t been around since the pyramids. But once it does begin to appear during the French revolution there’s a bit more to it than simply authoritarianism. Since you haven’t even bothered to discover when it appears it’s kind of pointless to talk about all the things that you don’t know about the history of leftist ideology.
1
@jluvs2ride Does science really have to be that complicated? Well you’re not gonna understand what it is by ignoring what it is.
1
@jluvs2ride LOL I minored in philosophy at a state College in Virginia. Then I studied European intellectual history and wrote a thesis in US church history at a graduate university elsewhere in the South. But I didn’t have to do those things to know that libertarian dogma is ahistorical and that leftism is more than just authoritarianism. Those things I learned in high school. I’m sorry if it was too complicated for you.
1
@jluvs2ride Person who thinks that leftist ideology is anything throughout history that is authoritarian says someone else lacks critical thinking skills? LOL You really, really have no idea. You’re like that football coach in the US Senate who barely knows which way is up and is talking about imaginary enemies and friends all the time.
1
@jluvs2ride I doubt that you know what anyone’s nationality is, even your own.
1
@jluvs2ride Sure you do...My views are those of James Madison. If you know what you claim to know, you'll understand what that means in terms of the relationship of the individual to the state. But based on the way you're trying to frame it, I doubt that you can understand Madison.
1
@jluvs2ride Of course he was trying to persuade leftist Aryans to abandon "jewish" bolshevism. He saw doing so as vital to the salvation of Europe. "Communism is not a higher evolutionary stage, but the most primitive basic form of shaping peoples and nations. In devoting ourselves in this way to caring for our own blood, a blood which Fate has entrusted to us, we are best helping to protect other peoples from diseases which spread from race to race and from Volk to Volk. If a single volk were to fall to Bolshevism in Western or central Europe, this poison would continue its corrosive work and devastate today's oldest and most beautiful cultural possession on earth." Hitler 1938 You can continue to ignore his statements about what he was offering and how it differed from leftism. But that doesn't change the fact. "In principle, the government protects the economic interests of the German Volk not by taking the roundabout way through an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the state, but by the utmost promotion of private initiative and a recognition of the rights of property." Hitler 1938 "A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not." Hitler 1938
1
@jluvs2ride What a waste of time it is to talk to you. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence you ignoramus.
1
@novusmundi Nice try but he frequently called then Marxists without referencing jews. For instance: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not.” He wasn’t just against Marxism because he considered it Jewish.
1
@novusmundi That was hardly the only reason that he opposed Marxism. “Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain.” Hitler 1938 Earlier at the Bamberg conference in 1926 Hitler opposed confiscation of aristocratic estates as Marxism that would destroy Germany.
1
@novusmundi Hitler was certainly certainly aware of the fact that there were plenty of non-Jewish communists. He didn’t like the ideology any better when it was practiced by non-Jews
1
@jluvs2ride Dumkopf thinks that one has to advocate socialism in order to be against the falsification of history. But that’s how ideologues think. It’s how Marxist as well as libertarian ideologues think. Socialism like anarcho-libertarianism is a utopian ideology and therefore doesn’t work in reality. Nazism is works for the intended beneficiaries but only until the persecuted majority unites to stop them.
1
@jluvs2ride We’ve already noted that you’re incapable of objective thought and therefore can’t imagine anyone insisting on an accurate description of anything without defending it as their own view. For you there’s only propaganda. This is how ideologues and cultists think. It’s not how Historians or anyone else connected with reality thinks.
1
@jluvs2ride The majority persecuted by the Nazis consisted of the rest of Europe.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah by that time Stalin had already confiscated vast amounts of land and other wealth functionally destroying social classes. He wasn’t talking about doing it in the future after a war was over. He had already done it, taking the lives of millions of people in the process. During this period Hitler was actually privatizing more industry. And he didn’t say he was going to eliminate classes even after the war but rather class differences among members of the master race. That’s nothing more than unifying the master races one people which you always said it’s not the overthrow of the bourgeoisie or the forced collectivization of property.
1
@guyvert49 That’s analogous to saying that it’s like Christianity including the Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu varieties of Christianity.
1
@guyvert49 When I say that I’m smoking the same thing that people are smoking who say that Nazism is a left-wing ideology. The substance is called: “falsifying history and ideas because I can’t accept reality. I live in a fantasy world where people are only capable of evil on the left.” And it’s NOT a good drug. It dulls the senses to the point that you can’t see any danger coming from the right, no matter how deadly it is.
1
@overdose8329 He wasn’t exactly a great humanitarian
1
@jluvs2ride The distinction is very significant. They come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. That doesn’t mean that any of them are good. But it does mean that no place is safe from dangerous ideologies. You can’t say well I’m a conservative therefore so long as I stay conservative I won’t be in any danger of associating with any murderous ideology like say fascism. As for this cult doctrine of collectivism that’s arisen recently in Libertarian circles, from what libertarians say it’s basically a reference to any government, anything that doesn’t posit an inherent conflict between the individual and all government. The American founder saw it differently in. They believe that individual rights were very important but that republican government was there to secure not threaten the rights of the people.
1
@jluvs2ride Many of the points were not Hitler’s true goals. Many of the points were a subterfuge that Hitler used at the Bamberg conference to outmaneuver the remaining leftists in the Nazi party. He used them to hijack the party and turn it into a far right authoritarian organization.
1
@choosecarefully408 Think of understanding ideology as like airport security face recognition technology. You do want to be able to recognize the dangerous ideologies and not just say all the people coming through the airport are the same, right?
1
@guyvert49 Fascism including Nazism is a great example of a right wing ideology that kills people. You’re just proving my point but attempting to say that nothing bad ever happens on the right. Only an ideologue could believe something so absurd. Leftist ideology is based on the idea of including all people in the redistribution of wealth. It’s heresy to leftist ideology to exclude and target people based on race the way the Nazis did. Hitler also bitterly opposed the confiscation of aristocratic estates all the way through his leader ship of the Nazi party. This is what Socialism meant to Hitler “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Hitler 1938 And if you think that mere adherence to the community makes someone a socialist then the American founding fathers were also socialists. (Well one of them Thomas Paine actually was but not the rest of them). “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” John Adams
1
@overdose8329 Based on the idea that only a leftist can be an authoritarian right. Let’s just forget about thousands of years of history before leftism even existed when conservatism meant protecting the authoritarian rule of the king, emperor, pharaoh,noble lord etc How do you propose we do that?.
1
@guyvert49 Medieval and early modern Europe: subordination of the individual to the state or its intermediary-yes Control of the means of production by the elite-yes Price controls-yes Arbitrary legal system with few or no rights for most people-yes No freedom of speech or the press- yes All of it was also very traditional and for hundreds of years if you were conservative it’s what you supported.
1
@guyvert49 Again you’re attacking authoritarianism and trying to make it seem that hundreds of years of history should be just magically ignored and conservatism should be defined as incapable of authoritarianism by definition. This is just the no true Scotsman fallacy.
1
@guyvert49 The whole point of Socialism is redistributing wealth and eliminating economic classes. It also promotes equality. This is impossible with racism.
1
@guyvert49 Hello the whole idea of conservatism is maintaining something older. So something that’s right of center which throws out the past he’s like dehydrated water-A non sequitur. And the old regime of Europe and their descendant structures very much have represent conservatism today.
1
@guyvert49 Right up to the present day conservatives try to preserve the legacy of feudalism and those feudal and early modern structures are still profoundly influential and conservative and radical thought in the west today. They are the original things that were “conserved” in the West. Now you’re just making up your own definitions of both leftism and conservatism.
1
@guyvert49 So what if the dialectic is real and really does describe what happened during the French revolution? Would that redefine conservatism, no. It was also during that period that Edmund Burke founded modern conservatism In maintaining continuity with the past: the same feudal past that the French revolution was reacting against.
1
@guyvert49 Traditional authoritarian structures never cease to be part of the past. Trying to preserve them the way the Nazis did never becomes left of center. Authoritarianism in Germany in particular has an unbroken history from the middle ages all the way through the 19th and early twentieth centuries. It was very much the “traditional establishment” of Germany throughout that entire time. So the Nazis preservation of it doesn’t become leftist just because you don’t think that authoritarianism ought to be considered anything conservative. The simple fact is that it was conservative not just of the distant past but of the recent past in Germany. And you don’t get to make up your own definitions in order to rewrite the history of ideas. You may want to rewrite history but that’s simply not within your power. This is the problem with cult theorizing like anarcho-libertarianism: its willful ignorance of and attempt to disregard history. History is reality. It doesn’t necessarily conform to your theories about the way things should be. And in fact it very often doesn’t, especially when you’re a utopian ideologue like an anarcho-libertarian. Utopian theorists like Marxists and libertarians are continually getting contradicted by the unfolding events of history because they try to force fit pure abstractions onto much messier and more complex human nature. But espousing conservatism doesn’t insulate you from human nature and its potential to be corrupted by power. It never has and it never will no matter how “modern” conservative ideology becomes. Power will always corrupt people no matter where they are on the political spectrum or what ideology their espouse. So there will always be potential for evil and authoritarianism on both left and the right.
1
@TheManofthecross The reason why it’s impossible for you to win is because the facts are not on your side. Because you’re promoting libertarian dogma that would have us believe that human nature can’t be corrupted unless it’s on the left. That should be laughable on its face but not to a libertarian ideologue who is determined to ignore history. The fact remains that Germany was authoritarian for centuries before the Nazis and that’s what the Nazis were conserving.
1
@malcolmdewey2165 German conservatives for centuries before Hitler wanted big government too. Does that make them liberals? You’re gonna tell me that Otto von Bismarck was a “liberal”? You’re stuck in the libertarian paradigm which is a historical period your real problem is with authoritarianism not with the left or the right because they can both be authoritarian. Few of the people posting here have the faintest idea of traditional German authoritarianism before Hitler. They’re wearing blinders of ignorance
1
@malcolmdewey2165 Little do you realize that what you call liberalism today has its origins in a reaction against the kind of authoritarianism that Hitler was preserving
1
@malcolmdewey2165 The first emperor of China wanted big government 2000 years ago. Does that make him the same as Karl Marx? 😂🤣🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah socialism is frequently authoritarian. So are monarchism, capitalism, and fascism. Yet you think that human nature is incorruptible everywhere except for on the left. So did lord Acton get it wrong? Should we add a caveat to what he said? E.g. Power corrupts…but only on the left? We can trust anyone with power so long as they don’t espouse leftist ideology, because there’s no other way to become a tyrant? I bet Samuel Adams and George Washington never knew that they were fighting a communist😆😂🤣😂
1
@jluvs2ride You should’ve told that to John Adams, James Madison et al. They had this crazy idea that the people actually secure their liberty through their representatives in government not by individuals being in a perpetual state of war with all government. You people are sustained by 20th Century myths that have no other connection to historical reality. It’s your religion.
1
@AidenRKrone Leftist may Harbor prejudices but they’re not tenants of the ideology as in Nazism
1
@jasontrauger8515 He hijacked a leftist political party gutted it and filled it full of anti-leftist ideas
1
@donaldsheckler3636 You might be right that the left inherently authoritarian. Utopian ideologies tend to be like that. But that doesn’t mean that it’s the only inherently authoritarian ideology out there and holds some kind of exclusionary principle that keeps anything else from being authoritarian
1
@jluvs2ride Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. It doesn’t really differ depending upon what ideology it’s supporting. How does that lead to the conclusion that it can only support one ideology? That a tyrant can’t arise from anywhere along the political spectrum and wield authoritarianism to advance any ideology? Some probably are more given to authoritarianism than others especially those on the furthest ends of both sides of the political spectrum.
1
@jluvs2ride No I’m saying their authoritarianism is more or less the same and that that’s the main issue. Authoritarianism was more of an avowed purpose of Nazi ideology and it did target Particular groups as victims more. But it led to hideous oppression in both Germany and the Soviet Union. Apart from their authoritarianism However Nazi and Soviet ideology were very different.
1
@jluvs2ride The factual evidence actually shows that more people died because of Hitler than Stalin. But once you get into millions of deaths it’s not much of a difference anyway.
1
@guyvert49 I suggest you read more of what Hitler said throughout his career… And study Mein Kampf more carefully if in fact you really have read it. I also suggest you look at what Hitler actually did while in power and compare that to what he said. It’s hard to convey how ridiculous you sound contending that human nature is incorruptible so long as people don’t ascribe to leftist ideology. You would have us believe that conservatives never become tyrants once they get power in their hands. And you have to have an amazing ignorance of history and a lack of common sense to believe that.
1
@jluvs2ride No I’m saying their ideology was entirely different and had opposite goals. Their authoritarianism wasn’t all that different. It wasn’t all that different from authoritarianism in late 19th century Germany or Czarist Russia either. You obviously don’t understand anything about their ideology and are only aware of authoritarianism. But you need to understand their ideology if you want to know where they came from and where someone like them might come from in the future. So understanding ideology is hardly insignificant.
1
@guyvert49 Thatcher’s devotion to libertarian cult theory doesn’t change the history of conservative thought. It doesn’t enable you or anyone else to redefine what has been and what hasn’t been conservative, because conservatism like all ideology is a historical phenomena. Anarcho-libertarians such as yourself are attempting to redefine authoritarianism as leftist by definition In an attempt to dodge thousands of years of history. (Utopian thinkers always have a problem with history. It becomes an inconvenience for you every time.) In each instance when you’re called on this you simply assert that you’re not doing so. But anytime someone brings up an example of conservative authoritarianism you rehash your ahistorical definition “it’s authoritarian therefore can’t be conservative.” At this point we’re supposed to just go along with your ignoring historical fact. Other people in your cult will be happy to do this. But I refuse to put down either rational thought or empirical evidence in favor of your blind utopian faith. Your veneration of anarchy simply creates a perfect opportunity for the next Hitler. And we cannot afford that.
1
@jluvs2ride yeah you assert that again because you always make assertions without evidence. But 1/4 of the entire population of Belorussia alone was murdered by the Nazis. When Soviet archives opened finally in the 1990s it didn’t make Stalin look like a great humanitarian but the number of people who actually died in the Soviet union under Stalin had to be revised downward by an order of magnitude. Stalin was still revealed to be responsible for the unjust deaths of millions. so it shouldn’t really matter. With either Hitler or Stalin you’re dealing with horrible oppression on a vast scale. But your defense of Hitler implied by your attempt to play up one over the other shows I suspect a lack of confidence that you can really prove that Hitler belongs on the left.
1
@jluvs2ride We’ve been over this several times already. You don’t seem capable of understanding. But here it is once again for the sake of argument: Communist ideological principles: Redistribution of wealth, elimination of classes, state confiscation of property, provision for each according to need Without regard for ethnicity, nationality or anything else, class warfare, Revolutionary overthrow of the Russian monarchy and aristocracy and replacement with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Nazi ideological principles: The advancement of one particular chosen race at the expense of others deemed unworthy, Protection of economic classes and private property as the just earnings of superior effort and ability by the “Master race,” romantic Nationalism, the unity of different economic classes within the “master race” as one people, Bitter opposition to Internationalism and the confiscation of wealth from the Aryan elite, preservation of traditional German authoritarianism.
1
@jluvs2ride Saying that you can substitute race for class and remain a leftist is like saying that you can substitute worshiping Satan for worshiping Christ and remain a Catholic. The point of which you do that is the point at which you’re no longer on the left, If you ever were. You just don’t have a clue about the history of leftist ideology if you really think otherwise.
1
@jluvs2ride The Russian people were nationalistic and the Stalin regime cultivated that in order to win the war but it’s not part of Marxist ideology like it is Nazi ideology.
1
@jluvs2ride The Marxist view of private property is that the individual doesn’t have a role at all. It’s commonly owned. People are simply not allowed to accumulate great personal wealth and hold onto it the way they were in Nazi Germany. I guess to an anarcho -libertarian anything other than the individual on his own is Socialism but that leaves us in a binary world where the only possibilities are Socialism and anarchy: absurd.
1
@jluvs2ride You just did defend Hitler with false information. The number of people murdered by Hitler was a good bit higher than those who died at Stalin’s hands but once you get into the millions why are you splitting hairs? Both Hitler and Stalin were murderous tyrants. What kind of person defends either one of them?
1
@jluvs2ride As you know he also said this four years later: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism.” And claimed to have taken Socialism away from the socialists. Sometimes he paid homage to the leftist origins of the Nazi party in order to deceive people. Often the distinctions he made appeared subtle at first until you thought about the underlying ideas and saw what he was actually doing: None of the things required by core leftist principles.
1
@jluvs2ride He implemented far more of Marx including the forced collectivization of farmsand nationalization of industry as a percentage of the economy than the Nazis did of the German economy. The relative percentages are not even close.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah that formulation is not leftist. When Hitler said that he appealed to an ancient German concept of the commonweal. And it allowed for the ownership of private property, Including the accumulation of vast sums of wealth something that Hitler never seriously challenged. It wasn’t just about the individual but it most definitely did extol and protect the individual, something that is conspicuously absent in left socialist thought.
1
@AverageAlien Of course not… If you look at several hundred years of European history and see leaders such as the Hohenzollerns, Romanovs, Bourbons, Hanoverians etc., It’s just your imagination. There were never any traditional authoritarian structures in Europe. The French revolution was just a reaction against nothing. They were hallucinating.
1
@AverageAlien The American revolution was also completely unnecessary. The leaders of England at the time were actually communists who thought we weren’t radical enough
1
@jluvs2ride I’m saying he was a Nazi who hijacked a leftist organization and turned it into a right wing authoritarian organization as before.
1
@jluvs2ride The British and the French enacted more nationalization than Hitler. Does that make them communist? Hitler articulated his theory of seizing property, in the few instances when he did do it, as a means of advancing the state usually turning it over to another private landowner. He didn’t do it to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat or worker ownership of the means of production. And advancing the goals of the state through government ownership is something that European monarchs long before Hitler had been doing. Just because it doesn’t meet your definition of conservatism doesn’t mean that it wasn’t in a real European historical sense.
1
@jluvs2ride In the United States, Britain and France industries produced what the state wanted during the war. If that’s the criteria then every state was communist during World War II. But again the Germans were actually late and mobilizing their economy for war and the government took less of a role until much later in deciding what industries produced. This isn’t even close to the kind of central planning in the Soviet union during the 1930s
1
@jluvs2ride He almost never talks about the state without also talking about the individual if you actually pay attention to what he says. And he does this in order to draw a clear line of distinction between Nazi ideology and that of Marxism which he says denigrates the individual. He didn’t view individualism and statism as in conflict because that’s not how authoritarian nationalists think. This doesn’t fit the libertarian world view at all but it does have a history dating back at least to the French Revolution. Napoleon did the same thing. In contrast to the Bourbon monarchs who called themselves kings of France he made an important distinction and naming himself emperor of the “French.” And like Hitler he claimed to be a defender of individual rights even as an authoritarian dictator.
1
@jluvs2ride No I’m not. Unlike you I understand the history of both and that they have a common origin in the European enlightenment. Hence they have common principles which you keep either ignoring or don’t have the ability to understand. But Marx and Engels don’t just appear out of the blue unrelated to leftist thought before contemporaneous or after them.
1
@jluvs2ride There’s no way for you to say that it’s irrelevant when you’ve been saying that only people on the left employ government authoritarianism and kings for thousands of years did so representing the established order.
1
@jluvs2ride What is describing it’s no different from policy in western Europe and the United States at the time. By such measures John F. Kennedy was also a socialist. But I doubt you’re willing to admit that.
1
@jluvs2ride Lol you don’t believe in left and right except to say that bad things only happen on the left.
1
@AverageAlien You seriously think that ancient regime monarchs were socialists?😂🤣😆🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@jluvs2ride As you just tacitly acknowledged socialism and Marxism have common origins in common principles none of which either one shares with Nazism
1
@AverageAlien 😂🤣😂😂😆🤣😂🤣😫😫🤯 OK the word socialist clearly has no historical meaning to you at all. We could pick any other word and it would be just as relevant to what you’re talking about.
1
@jluvs2ride It’s funny how you keep saying that you don’t believe in the left right paradigm but insist that Nazis belong in the same group with Eugene Debs and Clement Adlai if not Joseph Stalin. You’re pretty incoherent
1
@jluvs2ride Well a lot of people on the road today like to arbitrarily exclude JFK for God knows what reason even though he was very much a Statist an old fashioned national liberal. But apart from anarcho-libertarians and other crackpots most people don’t consider JFK or people like him to be socialists simply for being Statist proponents of a mixed economy. I understand now that to you everyone who’s not an anarchist is a socialist. I don’t like JFK statism but I still think it’s important to correctly identify what he was.
1
@jluvs2ride No I don’t really think that everyone who is not an anarchist is a socialist. But that does appear to be what you think. I was just making the observation. It seems to me that you think that government, any government is socialism. Maybe you’re like that loon here who just told me that European monarchs before the French revolution were socialists… Thanks for the laugh
1
@jluvs2ride People have taken the argument that feudalism led to socialism and rendered it absurd by saying they’re “the same thing” when they’re not remotely close to the same thing. Feudalism didn’t entail confiscating the property of the noble Lord and giving it to the peasants you he charge rent for its use. It didn’t entail any state care of everyone and it certainly didn’t entail the elimination the reduction social classes.
1
@jluvs2ride About all you can say honestly is that the Nazis used some of the rhetoric of socialism re-purposed for their own ideology because you don’t have evidence of actual socialist policies in Nazi Germany. Government involvement in Nazi Germany and simply authoritarianism with a mixed economy like that out of the United States at the time. And then we get this canard that “all authoritarianism is socialism” even though authoritarianism couldn’t include socialist ideology any time before the end of the 18th century it has been around for a longer than that. At this point you’re just saying that virtually all government is socialism
1
@jluvs2ride Hitler was a socialist in the Nazi usage of that word because he said so. He explained how that word usage is not remotely close to the way leftists use it. William Gladstone was a “liberal” by one definition of the word. So does that mean that he’s like Franklin Roosevelt? You need to answer this before you can say that all we need to know is that they used the same word as a label.
1
@jluvs2ride The Nazis added the word “national” Specifically to disassociate themselves from leftism.
1
@jluvs2ride Oh but Gladstone said he was a liberal. So you’re just refusing to accept reality if you say he wasn’t like FDR. As you have vindicated it doesn’t matter that they followed completely different policies. All that really matters is that they used the same word to label themselves, right? Gladstone said he was a liberal so that means that he was in favor Keynesian economics and big social welfare programs national health insurance pensions child care free public education all of it right? It has to because he said he was a liberal, right?
1
@jluvs2ride Roosevelt like Bismark before him claimed he was acting to prevent Socialism from happening. And since neither one of them called themselves socialist they couldn’t have been by your standard right?
1
@jluvs2ride Do you really need it spelled out for you? The same word can be used to refer to very different and even conflicting things. It could be used just to get attention from certain people in order to deceive them. Or it could mean very different things to the user depending upon who used it.
1
@jluvs2ride Labor unions historically played a role in bringing about socialism and you think that Hitler was doing so by getting rid of them? 🤣😂
1
@jluvs2ride Everyone including the United States Britain and many other major belligerents imposed strict price controls and war planning of the economy. That hardly makes the German state into the Soviet Union. Again you’re back to saying that everything is socialism
1
@jluvs2ride Sure public schools and public roads are socialist too. It’s socialist to give out parking tickets isn’t it?
1
@jluvs2ride He essentially destroyed trade unions using the Nazi party as the ultimate strike breakers. And the list of large scale German corporations left untouched and allowed to enrich themselves before during and even after world war two is long. Do you want me to list them?
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah you think it’s everything except anarchy. You’re a lunatic with absurd ideas
1
About all you can actually say about the Nazis is that they pilfered some of the language of Socialism, maintained an authoritarian state like any traditionally conservative German regime before them and made a series of vague statements about enacting real socialist policies after the war. Meanwhile they preserved many vast private companies and estates that enriched themselves before during and after the war and even privatized more companies before the war than some supposed democracies. This is not leftist economic policy not even close. If people don’t like authoritarianism I don’t blame them. But it does no good to pretend that it only occurs on the left because your libertarian dogma says so.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah you said that it’s just about everything that you don’t like. But that kind of consistency doesn’t make for any historical accuracy. I can be very consistent in saying that Marxist philosophy is about Sports betting and make just as much sense.
1
@jluvs2ride Again if there no significant differences why do you keep insisting on the location of this or that along it?
1
@jluvs2ride The bottom line is they didn’t enact such policies. They didn’t nationalize major industry or redistribute wealth on a scale any greater than that of western democracies at the time and actually less so in most cases. Instead, Capitalists got richer under the Nazis. This is not socialism in the sense used by anyone on the left.
1
@jluvs2ride It certainly has at times but not always. And the same can be said of the right. You can’t avoid tyranny just by avoiding the left.
1
@guyvert49 By that definition the old kingdom pharaoh Khufu of ancient Egypt was a socialist😂🤣😆🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@jluvs2ride He replaced them with something that was not a trade union. At the same time Franklin Roosevelt was creating the national labor relations board to work with real unions.
1
@guyvert49 Yet you’re saying we should judge the past with a definition you just made up in clear disregard of the past and how such ideas were understood at the time.🤣😂😆🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@guyvert49 Examples of authoritarianism on the right other than Hitler? LOL For instance every monarch in the Romanov, Bourbon and Hohenzollern houses, Otto von Bismarck, the Medici, The Tokugawa shogunate, every ruling dynasty in China for literally thousands of years, Every monarch of imperial Rome-How much time do you have?
1
@jluvs2ride No you need to conceptualize what happened accurately and compare it to what was happening in places that actually moved to the left in the way they treated unions like, for instance, the United States at the time. Attempting to shame a historian with YOUR ignorance, as you’re doing now is a particularly stupid thing to do.
1
@guyvert49 😂🤣😂🤣 Never mind that the very concept of the modern left was coined during the French revolution as the first leftists rebelled against an authoritarian monarch of the Bourbon House. Do you remember what they did with him? no probably you don’t even know that. At some point you’re going to have to face the fact that you’re totally clueless about the history of ideology and can’t speak with any comprehension about any of it.
1
@jluvs2ride A truly leftist king would abdicate and work towards the abolition of the monarchy. Those to his right might be people like Joseph Demaistre who wanted to preserve or restore the monarchy. Demaistre’s Work provided a lot of the foundations of Nazism.
1
@jluvs2ride It would unite people within the master race across social classes but it wasn’t going to destroy social classes. That would be a campaign for class warfare. Class warfare is exactly what Hitler attacked Marxists for doing because it destroyed a unity between classes.
1
@guyvert49 The point is that Nazism is a historical ideology. Its history is what determines where it came from. And no new definition at ANY TIME in the future can change its history. But there are plenty of right wing dictators in the 20th century. Here's only a start: Albania: Ahmet Zogu Zog Shefqet Verlaci Mustafa Kruja Rexhelp Mitrovica Austria: Engelbert Dollfuss Kurt Schuschnigg Croatia: Ante Pavelic Czech Republic: Emil Hacha Portugal: Joaquim Pimenta de Castro Sidónio Pais Óscar Carmona António de Oliveira Salazar Marcelo Caetano
1
@jluvs2ride MA from the University of Tennessee and thesis defense with distinction says otherwise.
1
@jluvs2ride Britain and the US enacted wage and price controls without abolishing independent labor movements.
1
@guyvert49 Oh they most definitely were authoritarian. None of them subscribed to leftist ideology. You’re going to try at this point to change historical origins of ideologies because they don’t fit a definition that you came up with or someone like you came up with long after the fact and it just doesn’t work that way. Again remember the principles of an ideology are defined by its history not by what you or someone thinks it should be today. As I’ve already pointed out conservative authoritarianism has a very long history in Europe and in Latin America too among other places. 20th Century right wing dictatorships came out of that same tradition and have had many things in common with their antecedents.
1
@guyvert49 Liberal democracies Including the United States and France arose from rebellions against traditional authoritarian governments. But with enough historically illiterate morons, Demagogues and crackpot anarchists, who don’t know and or don’t care what’s necessary to maintain liberty, they can also succumb back to authoritarian rule. In your ignorance you believe that the right has always been defined in terms of individual liberty but that’s a very recent phenomenon in history. The right has co-opted or attempted to co-opt what actually started on the left. But its authoritarian tendencies often return to imperil the individual.
1
@jluvs2ride I’m not ignorant. I studied with Cornell European intellectual historian Dr. Owen Bradley, Writing about the development of fascist thought from Joseph Demaistre to Carl Schmitt. Your belief in fantasies that fly in the face of the known facts of the largely private, capitalistic German economy under the Nazis does not change what it was. Your complete misunderstanding of the foundations of Nazi ideology is nowhere near as good as my knowledge of them.
1
@jluvs2ride No your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge. It’s called reading. And unless you do it you have no idea what you’re talking about, no way to separate propaganda from full consideration of historical facts or any knowledge of the people who developed fascism and what they said about it. We don’t just read secondhand sources in grad school. We read the original writings of the political theorists who developed ideology like fascism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. You’re the one who has been programmed with nonsense from people who either don’t know or don’t care about the facts of history.
1
@jluvs2ride It’s laughable how you people think that you can characterize ideological theory that developed over a more than a century without reading any of the original writings from the people who developed it during that time. Instead you ape the words of conspiracy theorists who go on a fishing expedition to try to cull out enough factoids to prove the absurd and then you call the people who are actually read on the subject “programmed”🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@jluvs2ride I also quoted original speeches from Hitler and I provided Context for what you quoted that you ignored Or didn’t understand because you’re uneducated.
1
@jluvs2ride I think at least one of the speeches that you quoted attributing to Hitler was from Otto Strasser not Hitler by the way. Even Strasser wasn’t a real leftist. But he represented more of what Hitler was trying to purge out of the Nazi party than what Hitler wanted. I’m sure you also don’t know that as a condition for getting their support to be named German chancellor Hitler met with German industrialists and promised that there would be no actual socialist economic policies taking away their property and that then he kept those promises in most every case. So I have to laugh when you claim that I’m the one lacking in education because I don’t repeat the ignorant propaganda that you don’t know is wrong because you haven’t looked at the actual sources and facts.
1
@Yvory6 If that’s how you look at it you’re actually rewriting history. Socialism is one ideology with economic and social philosophy: that’s how it was started.
1
@Yvory6 Oh it’s not so simple as saying that anything with an authoritarian government is Socialism. It’s not so simple as saying that what we might consider to be conservative in the present-day United States or Britain would be in 1920s or 30s Germany. It’s not so simple that you can identify Hitler’s ideology simply based on where he was spotted in public. It’s not so simple that you can understand Socialism as a historical movement without reading its history since the 18th century. But if you do that it is coherent. There are common threads of thought that identify Socialism and distinguish it from other ideology. It’s not whatever you want to be Socialism can be because of whatever arbitrary nonsense you make up.
1