National Socialism was a Left Wing Socialist Political Movement

[Yagoda]

2 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

You have enough time to troll though. None of your posts have any substance to them

Have you noticed that none of them are even trying to debate the point?

 

Could it be they cant because my analysis is correct?

[Yagoda]

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That is why I thanked you!

If you were smart enough, you would have come up with it first. But imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks for your admiration

[scottiejohn]

55 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Have you noticed that none of them are even trying to debate the point?

 

Could it be they cant because my analysis is correct?

What is the point of debating anything with you as according to you you are always correct and everyone else wrong. Not of course that you ever answer any questions which impinge on your narrow mined attitude to all topics!

[Yagoda]

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

What is the point of debating anything with you as according to you you are always correct and everyone else wrong. Not of course that you ever answer any questions which impinge on your narrow mined attitude to all topics!

Translation: You are right in your analysis and I cant argue against it. 

[Yagoda]

The best part is that after two days and two pages, no one has even attempted to refute my argument.

 

Happy New Year 

[johnnybangkok]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

The best part is that after two days and two pages, no one has even attempted to refute my argument.

 

Happy New Year 

[cjinchiangrai]

Another MAGA apologist post that attempts to rewrite the facts. Don't feed the trolls.

[Yagoda]

13 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Another MAGA apologist post that attempts to rewrite the facts. Don't feed the trolls.

Cant argue against my analysis can you? What facts am I seeking to rewrite? This is the Political Soapbox, are you saying that my subject isnt topical? And how can it be a troll if its the truth? You surely arent disputing it, and none of your ilk have..

[gamb00ler]

23 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.

Such a great leap is worthy of an Olympic gold medal in the long jump.

[Yagoda]

14 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Such a great leap is worthy of an Olympic gold medal in the long jump.

Really? So you dont see the correlation between the Socialist ideal and mass murder?

 

Can you name a Socialist regime that hasnt engaged in mass murder?

 

Pol Pot was a Socialist too, btw.

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Really? So you dont see the correlation between the Socialist ideal and mass murder?

 

Can you name a Socialist regime that hasnt engaged in mass murder?

 

Pol Pot was a Socialist too, btw.

CCF party.

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Such a great leap is worthy of an Olympic gold medal in the long jump.

Marx actually states this in his writings (not in Kapital). Source: Oxford Professor.

 

 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Marx actually states this in his writings (not in Kapital). Source: Oxford Professor.

 

 

Link please.

[mokwit]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Link please.

Saw it on TV in an interview of an Oxford Professor of Politics. Marx was writing in some journal/newspaper.

 

Of course if there is no link it must be untrue, right?

[mokwit]

16 hours ago, AlwaysThere said:

 

Pity the fool who felt the need to make up such a pile of steaming horse💩 on New Year's eve.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

That's one interpretation by a US Army Lecturer deemed fit for publication by WP. I couldn't access your link as it is behind a paywall but have read it previously. He does machinations and backflips to try and distance Nazism from Socialism. The header says the Nazis hated Socialists, actually they hated what the regarded as Jewish Bolshevik Internationalists who sought to gain control via Marxism.

 

Here is just one alternative take. Please note this was written by people who were there. Anything coming from MSM or Universities has to be viewed as possibly being tainted by postwar propaganda/bias.

 

'National Socialism’s Anti-Capitalism and “Socialism”

But what about National Socialist economics? Let us look at Gustav Stolper’s German Economy, 1870-1940 (1940). Stolper was the long-time editor of a German economic magazine oriented toward a classical liberal viewpoint. He was forced to leave Germany with Hitler’s rise to power due to his politics and his Jewish family background, and found refuge in the United States. Stolper explained some of the socialist aspects to Nazi ideology and policy:

“The National Socialist party was from the outset an anti-capitalist party. As such it was fighting and in competition with Marxism . . . National Socialism wooed the masses [from three angles]. The first angle was the moral principle, the second the financial system, the third the issue of ownership. The moral principle was ‘the commonwealth before self-interest.’ The financial promise was ‘breaking the bondage of interest slavery’. The industrial program was ‘nationalization of all big incorporated business [trusts]’.

“By accepting the principle ‘the commonwealth before self-interest,’ National Socialism simply emphasizes its antagonism to the spirit of a competitive society as represented supposedly by democratic capitalism . . . But to the Nazis this principle means also the complete subordination of the individual to the exigencies of the state. And in this sense National Socialism is unquestionably a Socialist system . . .

“The nationalization of big industry was never attempted after the Nazis came to power. But this was by no means a ‘betrayal’ of their program, as has been alleged by some of their opponents. The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.” (pp. 232-233; 239-240)

German Businessmen Reduced to Enterprise Managers

Guenter Reimann, in The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism (1939), highlighted that while most of the means of production had not been nationalized, they had nonetheless been politicized and collectivized under an intricate web of Nazi planning targets, price and wage regulations, production rules and quotas, and strict limits and restraints on the action and decisions of those who remained; nominally, the owners of private enterprises throughout the country. Every German businessman knew that his conduct was prescribed and positioned within the wider planning goals of the National Socialist regime.

Not much differently than the state factory managers in the Soviet Union, even at that time under Stalin, the German owners of private enterprises were given wide discretion in the day-to-day management of the enterprises that nominally remained in their possession. But Nazi planning agencies set output targets, determined input supplies and allocations, determined wage and work condition rules, and dictated the availability of investment funds and the rates of interest at which they could be obtained through the banking system, along with strict central control and direction of all import and export trade.'

 

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/why-hayek-was-right-about-nazis-being-socialists/

 

Doesn't sound like capitalists controlling the Nazis so they could start wars to profit by. they got their contracts for sure, but everything was costed to the last Reichsmark, and profit was determined by the state.

 

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

Saw it on TV in an interview of an Oxford Professor of Politics. Marx was writing in some journal/newspaper.

 

Of course if there is no link it must be untrue, right?

It just means your claim should be ignored.

[mokwit]

Just now, stevenl said:

It just means your claim should be ignored.

So if there is no link to something it can't be true. What year were you born in, 2000?

 

Other people on this board can make a judgement for themselves as to my reliability regarding information.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, mokwit said:

So if there is no link to something it can't be true. What year were you born in, 2000?

 

Other people on this board can make a judgement for themselves as to my reliability regarding information.

Do you know the difference between 'it can't be true ' and ' it should be ignored '. Looks like you're not wise enough to see that.

[mokwit]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It just means your claim should be ignored.

Yes, it is probably just coincidence that Communist takeovers are followed by mass murder.

[stevenl]

41 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Yes, it is probably just coincidence that Communist takeovers are followed by mass murder.

This is the claim that you said was confirmed by an Oxford professor.

"Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

What you're stating now is vastly different.

[AlwaysThere]

7 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Your welcome. Encouragement helps the challenged.

 

You do know it's You're, don't you? You appear quite 'challenged' yourself.

 

 

 

 

[mokwit]

28 minutes ago, stevenl said:

This is the claim that you said was confirmed by an Oxford professor.

"Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

What you're stating now is vastly different.

No I didn't, I said that an Oxford professor had stated that Marx had written that a section of society had to be eliminated.

 

I never posted:

"Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

 

 

 

 

[stevenl]

Just now, mokwit said:

No I didn't, I said that an Oxford professor had stated that Marx had written that a section of society had to be eliminated.

 

I never posted:

"Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

 

 

 

 

No, look back at the quotes and replies. Looks like you made a mistake with your answer.

[AlwaysThere]

3 hours ago, mokwit said:

That's one interpretation by a US Army Lecturer deemed fit for publication by WP. I couldn't access your link as it is behind a paywall but have read it previously. He does machinations and backflips to try and distance Nazism from Socialism. The header says the Nazis hated Socialists, actually they hated what the regarded as Jewish Bolshevik Internationalists who sought to gain control via Marxism.

 

Here is just one alternative take. Please note this was written by people who were there. Anything coming from MSM or Universities has to be viewed as possibly being tainted by postwar propaganda/bias.

 

'National Socialism’s Anti-Capitalism and “Socialism”

But what about National Socialist economics? Let us look at Gustav Stolper’s German Economy, 1870-1940 (1940). Stolper was the long-time editor of a German economic magazine oriented toward a classical liberal viewpoint. He was forced to leave Germany with Hitler’s rise to power due to his politics and his Jewish family background, and found refuge in the United States. Stolper explained some of the socialist aspects to Nazi ideology and policy:

“The National Socialist party was from the outset an anti-capitalist party. As such it was fighting and in competition with Marxism . . . National Socialism wooed the masses [from three angles]. The first angle was the moral principle, the second the financial system, the third the issue of ownership. The moral principle was ‘the commonwealth before self-interest.’ The financial promise was ‘breaking the bondage of interest slavery’. The industrial program was ‘nationalization of all big incorporated business [trusts]’.

“By accepting the principle ‘the commonwealth before self-interest,’ National Socialism simply emphasizes its antagonism to the spirit of a competitive society as represented supposedly by democratic capitalism . . . But to the Nazis this principle means also the complete subordination of the individual to the exigencies of the state. And in this sense National Socialism is unquestionably a Socialist system . . .

“The nationalization of big industry was never attempted after the Nazis came to power. But this was by no means a ‘betrayal’ of their program, as has been alleged by some of their opponents. The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.” (pp. 232-233; 239-240)

German Businessmen Reduced to Enterprise Managers

Guenter Reimann, in The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism (1939), highlighted that while most of the means of production had not been nationalized, they had nonetheless been politicized and collectivized under an intricate web of Nazi planning targets, price and wage regulations, production rules and quotas, and strict limits and restraints on the action and decisions of those who remained; nominally, the owners of private enterprises throughout the country. Every German businessman knew that his conduct was prescribed and positioned within the wider planning goals of the National Socialist regime.

Not much differently than the state factory managers in the Soviet Union, even at that time under Stalin, the German owners of private enterprises were given wide discretion in the day-to-day management of the enterprises that nominally remained in their possession. But Nazi planning agencies set output targets, determined input supplies and allocations, determined wage and work condition rules, and dictated the availability of investment funds and the rates of interest at which they could be obtained through the banking system, along with strict central control and direction of all import and export trade.'

 

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/why-hayek-was-right-about-nazis-being-socialists/

 

Doesn't sound like capitalists controlling the Nazis so they could start wars to profit by. they got their contracts for sure, but everything was costed to the last Reichsmark, and profit was determined by the state.

 

 

 

Again, there is the washing over of facts in order to present one argument as the right one. 

All of this idiotic arguing over left and right. Hitler insisted that his form of National Socialism was neither left nor right wing.

One thing they were all united against was what some would call "economic anti-semitism". But other than that, they various factions had different views, including on racism. Putting everyone either on the left or the right would be a gross oversimplification.

But the dummies who like to frame everything as for us or against us, can do nothing else.

 

Quote

In Mein Kampf, Hitler directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying:

Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors ... But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.^[31]

In a speech given in Munich on 12 April 1922, Hitler stated:

There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction—to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power—that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.^[32]

 

[Will B Good]

7 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Have you noticed that none of them are even trying to debate the point?

 

Could it be they cant because my analysis is correct?

 

To be fair, had it been any other poster, other that you, people might have engaged.

[AlwaysThere]

3 minutes ago, mokwit said:

No I didn't, I said that an Oxford professor had stated that Marx had written that a section of society had to be eliminated.

 

I never posted:

"Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

 

 

 

 

 

Elimination doesn't mean death. It can mean removing wealth and privilege. Most people own nothing. A few own most of everything.

But of course you can choose to put your own spin on it.

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Such a great leap is worthy of an Olympic gold medal in the long jump.

 

3 hours ago, mokwit said:

Marx actually states this in his writings (not in Kapital). Source: Oxford Professor.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, mokwit said:

No I didn't, I said that an Oxford professor had stated that Marx had written that a section of society had to be eliminated.

 

I never posted:

"Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

 

 

 

 

Gamb00ler's post was in reply to this.

"Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

 

So yes, you did make the claim that an Oxford professor stated 

"Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.".

[AlwaysThere]

7 hours ago, mdr224 said:

You have enough time to troll though. None of your posts have any substance to them

 

Still bitter after an earlier drubbing? Why is it your every post to me is off-topic? 

You know if you dared to post on-topic, your lack of knowledge and general ignorance would be exposed in a moment. Best you stick with what you know, mindless Trolling and stalking.

Prove me wrong. Discuss the topic.

[AlwaysThere]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

Yes, it is probably just coincidence that Communist takeovers are followed by mass murder.

 

Are you stating that Hitler was a Communist?

[mokwit]

31 minutes ago, AlwaysThere said:

 

Again, there is the washing over of facts in order to present one argument as the right one. 

All of this idiotic arguing over left and right. Hitler insisted that his form of National Socialism was neither left nor right wing.

One thing they were all united against was what some would call "economic anti-semitism". But other than that, they various factions had different views, including on racism. Putting everyone either on the left or the right would be a gross oversimplification.

But the dummies who like to frame everything as for us or against us, can do nothing else.

 

 

So why did you post this?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

 

It is nothing other than a washing over of facts to present one argument as the right one - in this case that the Nazis were not Socialists. A gross oversimplification which you endorsed by posting it.

 

The two authors I posted are not talking about what Hitler said about whether the Nazis were Socialist they are looking at how the Nazis controlled the means of production from the standpoint of people who were actually there.

 

Everyone else is a dummy, and you are the smart one, got it.

 

What does this: ' they were all united against was what some would call "economic anti-semitism'

 

They were united against economic ant semitism? so they were united against anybody being economically anti semetic? what does that even mean? I thought they were against Jewish business interests, not 'against economic ant semitism'