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

Historia, Magistra Vitae
Into the Shadows
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Into the Shadows" channel.

@thegameplace3748 : Nope.
4
@thegameplace3748 : Depends. In what things you want to achieve equality? Reality is rather unequal by default, take biology and genes for starters.
4
@strychen "Fun fact, Nazis weren't socialists either once Hitler took over the party." Wrong. Nazis were always socialists, especially after they took over. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
4
Conservatism doesn't mean what you think it means. The Nazis weren't conservatives in Germany.
4
@thegameplace3748 : In most cases equity is just a fancy word for stealing.
3
There was no coup. Cope harder.
3
@strychen "Most of the world wholeheartedly agrees fascism is bad and has no place on earth. I dont feel the need to read the book, but I wont tell you that you cant. I just dont believe the book is needed to teach or learn how bad fascism is." The problem is, 99% of the world has no clue what Fascism means nor what it represented, precisely because they have not read their books. You don't necessarily need the books to learn how bad Fascism is, but you need them to understand what Fascism even is in the first place. For example, National Socialism aka Nazism is not Fascism.
3
@strychen "Nazism is not Fascism, but they absolutely were fascist." Wrong. Nazis were National Socialists. Fascists were Fascists. Two different ideologies.
3
@strychen "You left out the part where the capital F in fascist is specifically tied to the Italians and Mussolini. " Wrong. It makes no difference how you spell or write the word. Fascism has always referred to Mussolini's ideology alone.
3
@strychen "But the Nazis were fascist. " Wrong. Again, They were National Socialists, not Fascists. Two different things.
3
@strychen "you're confusing the fact that the party Hitler joined and the party he took over were fundamentally different before and after." Sure they were different, however after Hitler took over, they certainly took a hard turn into socialism that's for sure.
3
@strychen "I once the Brown Shirts emerged, they went after socialists and Marxists because they were no longer socialists, but fascists" Wrong. Again, they had nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever. Also they were after Marxists and Bolsheviks, because according to them, they were practicing socialism wrong. They were their political, socialist rivals... just like Mensheviks and Trotskyists and anyone opposing the Bolshevik regime were back in the USSR.
3
@strychen "TL:DR - the socialist in their name was a misnomer once the brown shirts emerged." Wrong. Socialism in their name still signified what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level.
3
@strychen "if they took a hard turn into socialists, why did they first get rid of all the socialists and Marxists??" For the same reasons both Lenin and Stalin did after the October Revolution. Go read some books, if you don't know.
3
@strychen : People like you should go and read some history, before commenting.
3
The far-right doesn't even want to. It wants the government to be as small as possible. You see, people on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
3
@bakthihapuarachchi3447 : Actually both Fascism and Nazism were revolutionary far-left. They had nothing to do with right wing of any kind.
3
@grandcanyon-d4d : Wrong. Neither have anything to do with Right wing.
2
@knightsnight5929 : Wrong. National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism.
2
@grandcanyon-d4d : Wrong. Both were part of the 3rd position movement. National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on ethnonationalism. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel.
2
"Well, I'm not sure many people know what a coup or insurrection looks like in real time. " Nor do you. Go look at what Augusto Pinochet did in Chile. Now that was a coup.
2
@Monica_Leigh "he wasn't a socialist " Wrong. By definition and his own words, he was. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
2
@Monica_Leigh "and they used the socialist party title to appeal to more people." The party title was there to signify what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level. However, Hitler did specifically say, that he wants to appeal to ALL socialists. “But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” — Adolf Hitler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
2
@Monica_Leigh "As soon as he was in power he shut down the socialist party and every other party that wasn't the Nazis." Sure, exactly how the Bolshevik regime with Lenin and Stalin did, after the October Revolution. That's how socialist regimes operate... first they eat their own rivals.
2
@Monica_Leigh "despite the author stating that neither the Nazis nor their policies were socialist. " Except the author, who was a Marxist, specifically says that they had socialist policies and that their economy was almost identical to Stalin's USSR.
2
@BAM5636 : Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever. Right wing doesn't believe in collectivism.
2
@snakeduck64 : Marxism was the reason why National Socialism was a thing in the first place.
2
@rn6312 : No such thing as "actual socialists". They all were socialists and it was only a matter of socialist infighting.
2
@m.r4841 : Wrong. Try again.
2
@m.r4841 : Cope harder.
2
@strychen "Seems like a history book would do you some good!" I highly suggest reading 'the Vampire Economy' by Günter Reimann.
2
@strychen : Nope. Cope harder.
2
@RextheRebel : Well to be fair... National Socialism only focused on a certain racial minority, while Marxism focuses on everyone who owns any property and means of production. As it turned out, there were more "bourgeoisie" to be purged than there were Jews.
2
@scottkrater2131 "The most important word, National." Nationalism is neither left nor right attribute by itself. In fact, Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. In Socialist ideologies, the collective (such as the State) is superior to the individual.
2
@scottkrater2131 "Communist were the mortal enemies of Germany according to the NSDAP themselves." True, because according to the NSDAP, they were doing socialism wrong, and that National Socialism instead was "proper" socialism. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit… The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it… National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.” — Adolf Hitler , Hitler Speaks (1940)
2
@gcs7817 "The Nazis absolutely were the Conservative Party seeing as how they opposed and fated the left. " They didn't oppose the left in general. They specifically opposed Marxism and Social Democracy. And again, the Nazis weren't conservatives in Germany.
2
There was no contraction. National Socialism was racial socialism, not Marxist socialism.
2
"Now, how do we get people who support Trump in the US to understand what he did, in fact, was a coup? " Except it wasn't.
1
"Seriously, what I saw documented on film was no more, no less than what happened here in the US on January 6th." What happened in your little precious Amurica during that day, was nothing more than a run-of-the-mill riot. Nothing more, nothing less. People like you who are out of touch with reality, are the very reason why we Europeans laugh at your country.
1
@JinksDeJenn " I hope you don't say that out of some defense of political dogmatism." No. I say that as a matter of fact. If you think that the January 6th riot was a coup, then you have no clue what you are talking about whatsoever.
1
@JinksDeJenn "Despite the outcome being bad, the only thing will matter is that the ideology of libertarianism is being followed; this is political dogma. The name of that particular religion is libertarian and the name of their god is Ayan Rand. " Good. At least it would be a step forward in your American country.
1
@JinksDeJenn " If you're inferring that authoritarianism is superior to freedom, then we live in different worlds. " Of course not, which is why Libertarianism is the superior option.
1
Nothing to do with far-right nor right wing or any kind in the first place.
1
@b.j.880 "The Nazis are as socialist as North Korea is Democratic and Popular (DPRK)" Well North Korea is democratic to a degree, since they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place... unlike socialist Cuba for example.
1
@adoredpariah "the Nazi's used the name for populist appeal " Wrong. They used the name because a) it signified what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level and b) they specifically wanted to attract other rival socialists to join their socialist cause instead. Hitler was very clear on this. “But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” — Adolf Hitler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
1
@adoredpariah "and killed off the socialists in the government. " Wrong. He didn't. However both Lenin and Stalin killed other socialists after the October Revolution, so your point being what exactly?
1
@adoredpariah : The point is, that if those Neo-Nazis aren't voting for the people who are advocating for collectivism and socialism, then they aren't Neo-Nazis in the first place.
1
@FreeVegan771 "focus was on achieving power whatever the cost" Maybe, however in order to do this, you need to centralized the power of the government and the economy in general ... hence, to use socialism. After all, you cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@BAM5636 "No, Hitler wasn't really a socialist." Wrong. By definition he was. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@BAM5636 "He took over the socialist party and used it in name only." Wrong. Hitler thought the Marxists were INSINCERE about their socialism. One of the main points made in Mein Kampf. And the reason why, for the Nazis, socialism had to become nationalist.
1
@BAM5636 "He had hard right ideology and wad a nationalist." Wrong. National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever.
1
"He talks about how it was to confuse the general population into thinking they were left wing communists (and to mock the communists), " Wrong. He specifically says how he wants to differentiate his socialist ideas from the Marxists.
1
" however calling nazi's socialist or left leaning couldn't be further from the truth. " Wrong. It's a historical fact. National Socialism was racial socialism, a far-left 3rd position movement based on ethnonationalism. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control.
1
"who claim that the nazi party were socialists. " It's not a claim. It's a historical fact.
1
"However, Mein Kampf lays out why they were clearly not. " Wrong. It specifically says they were, including Hitler's 2nd book. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd. From his 2nd book for example; "I am a German nationalist. This means that I proclaim my nationality. My whole thought and action belongs to it. I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate. I love this Folk and hate only its majority of the moment, because I view the latter to be just as little representative of the greatness of my Folk as it is of its happiness."
1
@Mike-kc5ew "Uh yeah, that's bullshit" Nope. Cope harder.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "I guess you think North Korea is a democracy as well? " They are democratic to a degree, since they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place... unlike socialist countries like Cuba for example, where neither are a thing.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "Just because they have the name Socialist in their name, has nothing to do with what they are. " They had it in the name because it signified what they advocated for; socialism on a national level. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "What the nazis were actually were Nationalistic and extreme right wing. " Wrong. They had nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever. They were far-left socialists, and "extreme right wing" would be Anarcho-Capitalism anyways.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "It's nice to see that you also believe that North Korea is a Democracy, " They are democratic to a degree, since they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place... unlike socialist Cuba for example, where neither are a thing.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "There are many right wing government examples throughout history that were an "advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls." Wrong. There have been none. The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the government, for the benefit of all (collectivism). People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
1
@Mike-kc5ew " then that diverges from what the initial terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" really mean. ... I suggest you go back to where those terms came from, the French Revolution, and understand why you're trying to redefine what agreed on terms really mean." The whole modern day political spectrum already diverges from the initial terms (French Revolution), where Monarchy was on the right and Classical Liberalism (free market capitalism) was on the left.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "I think that deserves a look into why you would try to frame "left-wing" and "right-wing" in that context?" Because that is how our modern day political spectrum works.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "Right wing countries are defined as countries that look back, and want to make "wherever" great again." Now you confusing right wing with conservatism/traditionalism. They are two very different things.
1
@Mike-kc5ew " That's a right wing principle, and that's very much what Nazi Germany did. " Nazi Germany didn't want to look back. Hitler specifically despised their outdated Monarchy and the Kaiser. He was in favor of the republic.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "Yeah, no it's not. " Then care to elaborate what does socialism do on the left when Liberalism i.e. Capitalism is supposed to be there? After all, it was Classical Liberalism (Left) which fought against the Monarchy and Aristocracy (Right) during the French Revolution.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "all the other incriminating items regarding how right wing the nazi party was. " There is none. Nazi party has nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever. It was purely a far-leftist movement and almost identical to Stalinism.
1
@Mike-kc5ew " and *typically favors socially traditional ideas*; the conservative group or section." And this is where Oxford is wrong, because what constitutes as traditional is completely relative and depended on the country in question. Conservatism is not a political ideology and there are no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Where that wording from Oxford falls apart is literally when we look back at the French Revolution, where it was the original Progressive Liberals who were in favor of free enterprise and private ownership, NOT the conservatives who backed up the Monarchy.
1
@Mike-kc5ew " So there is at least a portion of society that agrees that to be right wing, a person or party will also have the characteristic of being traditionally conservative." No, just no. There is no correlation between right wing and conservatism, nor progressivism for that matter. Both conservatism and progressivism are relative terms. For example, the American right wingers would be extremely progressive in China, or Cuba.
1
@Mike-kc5ew " Now, there are those who also try to argue that Italy under Mussolini was somehow left wing too, which is also garbage. " Fascism was purely a far-left ideology also. Not only did Mussolini start out as a Marxist, but also he never stopped being a socialist in general. Fascism was based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a wavering Marxist, Georges Sorel. It literally comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society, which is brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
1
@Mike-kc5ew " This goes on, you care to guess the side that the nazi's picked in the Spanish Civil War? It was the Nationalist faction, which every historian agrees was a very right-leaning political group. " Neither the Nazis nor Franco had anything to do with right wing. Every historian agrees that they were 3rd position movements, which rejected both Capitalism and Marxist socialism.
1
@Mike-kc5ew " And who did they fight against? The Republican faction, which was supported by the Soviet Union, was a very left-leaning faction. In fact, this is why people call the Spanish Civil War a proxy war because it pitted the right wing nazi party against the left wing communists before WWII." It was never a battle of left against right, but a struggle between different left-wing ideologies, an internationalist and a nationalist one.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "No, the nazi's were very much right wing, and most historians agree with that." Still wrong, and they do not. Socialism and centralized planning in general are not right wing positions. They belong to the far-left, where Nazism sits, on the right side of Marxism.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "They walked like a right wing fascists, they talked like right wing fascists, they were right wing fascists. " Wrong. There is no such thing and they did no such thing. Fascists were also far-left, 3rd position socialists. Not to mention, Nazism and Fascism were two fundamentally different ideologies.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "Only those in the right wing who are uncomfortable with calling the nazi's right wing try to come up with the historical nonsense that they were left wing, " Nothing nonsense about historical facts, hun. It's also not about "being uncomfortable", it's about being historically accurate. You people are just not making any sense, when you try to put free economics on the same side as authoritarian central planning and call it the same.
1
@Mike-kc5ew "The reality is that nazi's are what happens when the right wing goes too far right," Wrong. When the "right wing goes too far right" you will get Libertarianism / Minarchism, so someone like Javier Milei, the new Argentinian president. This is literally the complete opposite of Nazism, Fascism and other socialist 3rd position ideologies which were merely arguing that their method of implementing socialism on a national level is "proper socialism", and that Marxism is just doing socialism wrong.
1
@Mike-kc5ew " just as the Stalin era communists are what happens when the left wing goes too far left. " Except according to your logic, Stalin should also be on the far-right with the Nazis ... after all, he was a nationalist and a traditionalist. Same goes for Mao and the other Chinese socialists.
1
@BTScriviner : The OP is correct though. At the end of the day, right is advocating for individualism and the left is advocating for collectivism.
1
@BTScriviner "China calls itself "communist," but it is just a capitalist dictatorship." Wrong. China is still a socialist country, has nothing to do with capitalism and there is no such thing as "capitalist dictatorship" which is an oxymoron, since Capitalism is completely opposed to any authoritarian control over the economy.
1
@BTScriviner "Putin is a right-wing dictator. " Wrong. He has nothing to do with right wing of any kind.
1
@BAM5636 "Lol, yes it absolutely does. " Wrong. It doesn't. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
1
@BAM5636 "Fascism itself is a far right ideology as is nationalism. " Wrong. Neither are. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. Meanwhile Nationalism is devotion to the State which sees all other states as inferior and in competition. Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. In Socialist ideologies the collective (such as the State) is superior to the individual.
1
@BAM5636 "This isn't debatable. " True. Which is why I'm here to educate people like you who are trying to make it debatable.
1
@chaimafaghet7343 "No that's a libertarian you're thinking of. " Technically the term Libertarianism was invented by socialists, but in the American context, yes, I'm referring to Classical Liberalism (individualism) which sits on the right side of the modern day spectrum, opposed to Socialism (collectivism) which is on the left side.
1
@chaimafaghet7343 "Consider that the original right wing was monarchist, and the people holding your current views were the left. There is no right any more, just a far left and a further left that can't agree on economic policy." True that.
1
@BAM5636 : If you want to know about the basics of Fascism, then I highly suggest reading 'the Doctrine of Fascism' by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, or 'the Philosophy of Fascism' by Mario Palmieri.
1
@BAM5636 : Cope harder.
1
@BAM5636 : You just have no clue what you are talking about. Simple as that.
1
@BAM5636 Keep coping.
1
All of these kinds of documents have been from the left. If you are looking for right wing documents, 'the wealth of nations' should be the first one.
1
@rn6312 : What are you even talking about and how is this relevant?
1
@strychen "Russia and Argentina are run by fascist dictators (Argentina only very recently) and MAGA leader is a wannabe fascist dictator." Misinformed people like you are the very reason why these books are needed. Putin is not a Fascist. Russia doesn't have Fascism. Meanwhile Argentina has had Neo-Fascism ruling the country of decades (Peronism) and only now they are finally starting to pull away from it, thanks to Javier Milei. MAGA also has nothing to do with Fascism and there has never been Fascism in the US in the first place.
1
@strychen "dictators are bad and fascist ones are worse." Actually Fascism didn't have a dictator. Mussolini by definition wasn't one, and they were far away from being the worst. Every single totalitarian and dictatorial regime advocating for whatever Marxist spinoff they had, are the worst when going by the numbers.
1
@Carewolf "Everybody at the time considered them right wing, both the nazis themselves their allies (the conservatives), ... and everybody follwing the war considered them right wing.. " Wrong. Everybody before the WW2 and during the war, knew that National Socialism was a socialist ideology and hence on the left. It just wasn't as radical leftist movement as Marxism. It was not a battle of left against right, but a struggle between different left-wing ideologies, an internationalist and a nationalist one.
1
@Carewolf "Every neonazi alive considers themselves right wing... " Doesn't matter. If they advocate for any kind of National Socialism, they are on the far-left by default.
1
@Carewolf " just because you can seem to grasp they used to have socialists in the party until they purged them." Wrong. They never purged the socialists from their party, since the whole party comprised of various different socialists. If you are referring to the Night of the Long Knives, it had nothing to do with socialism whatsoever.
1
@Carewolf "On the topic of the Mein Kampf, Hitler literally states in the book how socialists are weaklings that needs to die." Then it shouldn't be hard for you to find that quote, or just give me the page number and I can check. However Hitler didn't say such a thing, and he was specifically talking about Marxists and Communists.
1
@Carewolf "So you are arguing against the book too." Wrong. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@Carewolf "But since you guys are always nazis yourself " Nope. You need to cope harder than that, loonie.
1
@Carewolf "If you open a history book or wikipedia on the Night of the Long Knives you will see it was a conflict between Hitler and Strasser, over how to implement "socialism" ... so he eliminated people calling for it in the party, and thus limiting socialism in the party to just mean right-wing authoritarianism," Wrong. It wasn't, and it had very little to do with Strasser in the first place and absolutely nothing to do with socialism. It was strictly about the internal power struggle between Hitler and Röhm. The German army (Reichswehr) generals were afraid that the SA would overtake the Army, hence they told Hitler that if the “revolutionary elements” of the Nazi regime were not brought under control, the army leaders threatened to overthrow the Hitler government and place the country under martial law. The murder of the SA leadership had several important long-term consequences. First and foremost, it cemented an alliance between Hitler and the German army leadership. In return for Hitler purging the SA and prioritizing the needs of the professional army, military leaders supported Hitler in August 1934 when he took the last key step toward full dictatorial control. Now regarding Strasser, what made him and Hitler have a falling out was, as written in the text by Strasser titled "The socialists leave the NSDAP", that he did not approve of Hitlers imperial "Lebensraum" policies and considered National Socialism to be a non-expansionist movement. Also Strasser had sought in the winter of 1932 to reach an electoral agreement with then Chancellor von Schleicher that would have barred Hitler from rising to power.
1
@Carewolf " (right-wing authoritarianism). " Hitler had nothing to do with any kind of right-wing authoritarianism. Hitler was a devout socialist, and a prime example of far-left totalitarianism. Meanwhile Augusto Pinochet, would be a prime example of right-wing authoritarianism.
1
@Carewolf "Hitler didn't want to do any socialists reforms ever, " Wrong. He did, even before they even got into power. Also literally most of the programs listed in their NSDAP manifesto, are about socialist reforms. "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“ — Adolf Hitler, Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.
1
@Carewolf "as the party was now openly right-wing." Wrong. It was never such a thing. Again, the entire Nazi regime consisted of former members of other leftist movements.
1
@Carewolf "After he took power of the state, he outlawed all parties except the Nazis and their allies the conservatives." Just like every socialist regime has done so far, after all, they all are one-party dictatorships for a reason.
1
Nothing to do with far-right.
1
@Bond58 "At least hitler had a free market" Nope, he didn't. They had a Command economy. After all, they also were socialists.
1
True. On the flip side, imagine inventing such a hideous ideology that people are more willing to support a genocidal maniac than your ideology (way to go, Marx).
1
@Schampu4000 "National Socialism is not Socialism at all." Wrong. By definition it was. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1