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

Walter Bailey
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "The BEST book I've EVER read on Hitler and National Socialism" video.

@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
Libertarian economists want to call any thing authoritarian leftism even though that flies in the face of literally thousands of years of history
8
@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
@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
@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
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
@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
@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
@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
Because you’re always gonna need another hit of nonsense to sustain the charade right?
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
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
@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
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
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
@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
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
@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
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
@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
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
I’m working on a book about Karl Marx’s laissez-faire capitalism.
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
@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
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
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
@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