National Socialism was a Left Wing Socialist Political Movement

[AlwaysThere]

Just now, mokwit said:

Yes of course, you descend from your great intellectual height every now and then just to put the fools right. You are deluded to the point of psychopathology. It is not us who are mentally ill, it is you who is looking from your own framework that only exists in your head.

 

I don't expect to put fools right. Fools are foolish. I can only expose them as fools.

[AlwaysThere]

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

Bye. I can't help you.

 

Best you try to help yourself 😊

[mokwit]

1 minute ago, AlwaysThere said:

 

Who were the Left at the time?

It would be more accurate to askwho were the International Socialists i.e. the RotFront as that leads less room for confusion. Or are you saying the SA were the Socialists as you alluded in another post.

[AlwaysThere]

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

It would be more accurate to askwho were the International Socialists i.e. the RotFront as that leads less room for confusion. Or are you saying the SA were the Socialists as you alluded in another post.

 

 

I didn't allude to anything. I posted an article asking why the Right are try to paint Hitler as on the Left.

I just see a few mugs here trying desperately to rile things up and to pretend they know something.

 

[mokwit]

Just now, AlwaysThere said:

 

 

I didn't allude to anything. I posted an article asking why the Right are try to paint Hitler as on the Left.

I just see a few mugs here trying desperately to rile things up and to pretend they know something.

 

It is impossible to have any meaningful discourse with someone of your mindset. Bye.

[AlwaysThere]

6 minutes ago, mokwit said:

It would be more accurate to askwho were the International Socialists i.e. the RotFront as that leads less room for confusion. Or are you saying the SA were the Socialists as you alluded in another post.

 

No, You didn't mention International Socialists. You wrote the Left. I simply used the term that you utilised. Now you are trying to tell me that I should have asked you about International Socialists 😊

[mokwit]

1 minute ago, AlwaysThere said:

 

No, You didn't mention International Socialists. You wrote the Left. I simply used the term that you utilised. Now you are yrying to tell me that I should have asked you about International Socialists 😊

It is impossible to have any meaningful discourse with someone of your mindset. Bye.

[AlwaysThere]

44 minutes ago, mokwit said:

It is impossible to have any meaningful discourse with someone of your mindset. Bye.

 

😊

[MicroB]

Someone obviously didn't like being called a Nazi, and lost their sh*t over a drunken Christmas.

 

National Socialism/Fascism is its own ism. Yes, it wasn't particularly original, in pinching ideas from other movements. Mussolini literally invented fascism, after being a socialist journalist; he was quite intellectual. Hitler, less so. Hitler apparently had most of his fellow socialists killed. Mussolini had them rounded up/

 

The Iranian Revolutionaries wrote their constitution heavily influenced by the French Republic Constitution, which in itself was inspired by the American  Constitution . Does that mean the Mad Mullahs are all George Washington fans in turbans. Of course not.

 

The Nazis had this thing called Gleichschaltung; bringing into line. Essentially the process of Nazifying Germany. Socialism (I think you really mean communism, because socialism is not a revolutonary creed) nationalises industries, to bring them under ideological control. The Weimar Republic had already nationalised many industries during the currency crises. The Nazis reversed most of this. The term "Privatization" was coined by commentators at the time to describe what Hitler was doing. Privatisierung was a German term from the 19th Century, first translated into English when a newspaper report speculated about American railroad companies acquiring German companies. Privatization was a cornerstone of Nazi economic power.German industrialists supported Nazi economic policies, because inreturn for business assistance, the Nazis  restored to private capitalism

a number of monopolies held or controlled by Weimar. One of the first acts by Hitler was quite dull. He pursued a policy to return bus companies back to private ownership. They used the term "Reprivatisierung". Next they talked about privatizing the banks. By 1936, a German newspaper, Der Deutsche Volkswirt, ran an editorial speculating about the expansion of the privatisation programme. This newspaper was considered the mouthpiece of Hjalmar Schacht, who was head of the Reichbank, and later Minister for the Economy.

 

When the Communists took over Russia, there was a flight of capital from the country; Monarchists and White Russians fled with suitcases of cash, gold and jewels. The opposite happened in Nazi Germany. Industry quite liked Mr Hitler. While he despised Capitalists, he respected private wealth, right until the end (factories were issuing invoices into 1945, and were still getting some semblance of payment). As a  result, Nazi policies attracted particular  support from across conservative political movements across Europe.

 

This policy implied a large-scale programme by which the government transferred ownership to private hands. Hitler's motivation for this  was planning for a war economy. Stalin ran a war economy through state enterprise. It wasn't efficient, because it utterly depended on imported raw materials (Lend Lease etc). Hitler reasons that in a War economy needed low levels of private consumption. He wanted people to save money. Hitler reasoned that the reason people saved money was because of inequality of wealth. Transferance of enterprises into private hands ensured that the "capitalist class" continued to serve for the accumulation of revenue, against which Germany could borrow to purchase Swedish Steel, Ford military trucks, Coca Cola sodas etc. Privatization intensified during the war years, with the goal of "organising less, producing more". So, the companies operating the factories had leased the tooling from the government. Now they could purchase the tooling outright. The accumulation of wealth naturally also brought willing support. German companies such as BASF, Opel, were not strong armed into supporting the Nazis. They profited out of the relationship. In contrast, in Eastern Europe, where a semblance of private industry still existed, it was very different. Factory owners were coerced, asset stripped, and followed the party line out of self-preservation.

 

Both Communism and Nazism/Fascism bred corruption, as do all other 'isms. In the Soviet Union, leaders enjoyed life immensely, by skimming off state industry. Under the Nazis, party members actually owned the companies, and operated them under the protection of the state, as "pseudo-state" companies, in that the proceeds were not channeled to central government.

 

Hence Putin is basically a Nazi. His War of Aggression is supported and financed by private industry. Those tank factories, missile factories bullet factories, all owned by Oligarchs who got them for kopeks on the ruble. Like under the Nazis in Germany, capital had flowed inwards into Putin's Russia, hence the reluctance of many Western copanies to leave. Organisations that emerged purely in the private sector have allied themselves to Putin (the Hacker groups). Where Putin is failing as a Nazi is that he's not been able to reign in private spending, despite launching shiney new Ladas that are missing airbags and ABS pumps (like the woeful Nazi era VW, which was only made into a decent car by an Opel executive post WW2), evidenced by the masses of Russians you are hanging out with in Thai bars or Gentleman Clubs, who probably called you a Nazi.

 

 

 

 

Quote

All of the Precepts of Socialism are based on community.

 

That fair definition for an 8th grader.

 

Quote

The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, indeed all the Socialist partys, believed in the dictatorship of the "workers and peasants" where all would live in peace and harmony, from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.

 

Simplistic, but I suppose fits with afore mentioned 8th Grade understanding. As an 8th Grader, your spelling is poor.

 

 

Quote

In order to achieve this utopia, the "class enemy" must be fought and defeated and the instruments of oppression (bourgoiuse captialist government) overthrown in a revolutionary mass movement. In Bolshevik terms, that revolution is to be led by the "vanguard", the elightened activists.

 

That is a definition of Bolsheviks, and to an extent, Mensheviks, but does not apply to other forms of Socialism. I don't see the Swedish king swinging from a lamp post on a Stockholm street.

 

 

Quote

The National Socialists beleived in the racial community of all Germans, an Aryan volksgemeineshaft. They were opposed to and fought the existing bourgeouise government, which was viewed as a tool of the racial enemy,  and as such the National Socialists were revolutionary. 

 

More piss poor spelling

 

 

Quote

Both philosophies were revolutionary. Revolution is a tool of the left.

 

But not just the Left. Trump wants a revolution. He is not Leftwing. Khomeni returned to  Iran following the Shah seizing private land, to launch an Islamic Revolution. The Boston Tea Party Goers and others described themselves as Revolutionaries. Maggie Thatcher's time has been referred to as a Thetcherite revolution. etc.

 

 

Quote

Both philosphies had enemies. The Bolsheviks, for example, had the bourgeoise and capitalists. The National Socialists, had the Jews.

 

So do other movements, which you have deliberately ignored, because it spoils your drunken Christmas rage post.

 

Quote

 

Both philosophies were similar economicaly. Socialism entails the State the owning the means of production. National Socialism was hybrid, private ownership under the direction of the state for the benefit of the state was permitted, and the government owned other economic concerns (viz, the SS economic empire).

Both philosophies were "mass movements". Everything was to be a benefit to either the "people" or the "volk"

 

 

Wrong, as I demonstrated. You might be referring to the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetrieb (DWB), a holding company for SS-enterprises. These were not financed through appropriated German assets, but through war booty. Ownership fell to some individuals, rather than the State. Postwar, the DWB didn't become some asset of the German Federal Government, to be disposed of to the German people. It was simply dissolved and stolen assets returned to France etc. German private industry was a very willing participant; their interests coincided, because they made lots of money, and were able to inorganically grow their companies very cheaply by buying up companies in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, France, the Netherlands and many other occupied countries.

 

If you believe Hitler cared for the Volk, you have fallen for Nazism. This was merely a recruiting slogan, along with rebranding with the Socialism word that has evidently confused you. He wasn't the first to do that, and not the last, as we have seen in recent days.

 

Quote

The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing.

 

Utter tosh. Infantile in fact. George Washington was a Revolutionary and had a Revolutionary nature, but was not Left Wing. Of course, you might sincerely believe the US Founding Fathers were a bunch of dirty communists, who's remains need to be dug up like Oliver Cromwell, and impaled pikes for public mockery.

 

Quote

The fact that National Socialists are also Socialists is amply demonstrated by the foregoing.

 

No you haven't. What you have demonstrated is an infantile understanding, driven by the fact someone called you a Nazi. All you have demonstrated is that many political ideologies have a propensity to violence.

 

Quote

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

 

Well, factually incorrect. We know the Communists carried out Mass Murder. We know the Nazis carried out mass murder. We know the Maoists carried out mass murder. We know the Islamists carried out mass murder. We knowom British Imperialists carried out mass murder. We know Cromwell's Commonwealth carried out mas murder. We know the Americans carried out mass murder during Westward migration. We know the Spanish carried out Mass Murder in the New World. We know Gaddafi carried out mass murder. We know the Baathists carried out mass murder. We know Jim Jones carried out mass murder. We know the Israelis have carried out mass murder. We know the Palestinians have carried out mass murder. We know the Turkish state carried out mass murder. We know French Gaullists carried out mass murder. The Romans carried out mass murder. Hannibal carried out mass murder. And on and on.

 

You could say "Socialism" is like Nazism, because the end result might be the same. I could say Trump is like a Nazi, based on him and some supporters expressing Nazi-like beliefs. It doesn't make them Nazis. For a start, Trump doesn't possess the intellect. He hasn't suffered some trauma early in life that has shaped his world view. He's just an uncouth masturbator who's turned into an old man yelling at the telly. He's in awe of clever people, hence immediately agreeing with Musk, who I suspect intimidates and manipulates him, because Musk is very clever and manipulative.

 

Billy Joel had it right.

 

 

 

[SiSePuede419]

On 12/31/2024 at 11:55 AM, Yagoda said:

The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing.

False.

Just another Nazi trying to pretend Nazis are Socialists because they called themselves that.

So if a mass murderer calls themselves a Pacifist does that make it true?

Of course not.

You're a <deleted> moron.

Even a dumb AI software indexing software program knows that.

Here's proof...

 

Correct. The German National Socialist Workers' Party (NSDAP), commonly referred to as the Nazi Party, was a far-right political party. Despite the word "socialist" in its name, the party's ideology was rooted in extreme nationalism, racism, militarism, and authoritarianism, which are characteristic of far-right political movements.

While the Nazis adopted some rhetoric and policies that appealed to workers and the lower classes (such as social welfare programs for "racially pure" Germans), their primary focus was on promoting ethnic nationalism, anti-communism, and hierarchical social structures, all of which align with far-right principles.

Their use of "socialism" in their name was more of a propaganda tool to gain broad appeal rather than an indication of adherence to leftist ideology.

[Yagoda]

59 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

False.

Just another Nazi trying to pretend Nazis are Socialists because they called themselves that.

So if a mass murderer calls themselves a Pacifist does that make it true?

Of course not.

You're a <deleted> moron.

Even a dumb AI software indexing software program knows that.

Here's proof...

 

Correct. The German National Socialist Workers' Party (NSDAP), commonly referred to as the Nazi Party, was a far-right political party. Despite the word "socialist" in its name, the party's ideology was rooted in extreme nationalism, racism, militarism, and authoritarianism, which are characteristic of far-right political movements.

While the Nazis adopted some rhetoric and policies that appealed to workers and the lower classes (such as social welfare programs for "racially pure" Germans), their primary focus was on promoting ethnic nationalism, anti-communism, and hierarchical social structures, all of which align with far-right principles.

Their use of "socialism" in their name was more of a propaganda tool to gain broad appeal rather than an indication of adherence to leftist ideology.

Noticed the following; no refutation of any facts presented, no attempt to construct a meaningful argument in opposition, cutting and pasting unknown comments from someone else, and insults. Typical National Socialist Behavior.

[SiSePuede419]

8 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

no refutation of any facts presented,

Another uneducated Chad.

There were no facts presented, only opinions.

I proved that.

You haven't any facts.

That's why you attack people.

Because you got nothing.👋

You're not a registered Democrat.

You got no proof of voter registration.

You're a liar on the internet.

[NEEDS PROOF OF VOTER REGISTRATION]

[SiSePuede419]

One dead after Tesla Cybertruck catches fire outside Trump hotel in Las Vegas

 

Another uneducated Chad with his hero's stupid fake truck turned into a bomb.

Good news he killed himself.

Looking forward to more MAGA Chads doing likewise in the next four years until we put adults in charge again.

For those of you want to blame Biden --

According to you he's a doddering old man and Trump's shadow government has been running our government for the past four years.

Yeah, I know it's stupid and insane, but we're talking about what MAGA Chads believe who obviously are not too bright if they think Hitler was a Socialist. 😭

[SiSePuede419]

 

Eric Trump, his son and the executive vice president of the Trump Organization, posted on social media about the incident.

"Earlier today, a reported electric vehicle fire occurred in the porte cochère of Trump Las Vegas..."

 

In English, we call it a Driveway, you pompous twit. 🤑

[RetiredNavy71]

National socialism is Nazism dufus.  Nazism is an extreme right wing ideology utilized by Nazi Germany from 1933-1945.  Try reading history books 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, RetiredNavy71 said:

National socialism is Nazism dufus.  Nazism is an extreme right wing ideology utilized by Nazi Germany from 1933-1945.  Try reading history books 

As it never reads post that contradict it's one track narrative I see little point in it reading and more importantly trying to understand and accept the contents of books which are against it's view!

[Red Forever]

More far right drivel from A.N. driveler in chief.

To expose your far right garbage for exactly what it is: the National “Socialist” party of the late 1920s into the 30s came to power by erm…..attacking Socialists.

There sorted for ya.

[ElwoodP]

Off topic meme removed.

[Yagoda]

11 hours ago, MicroB said:

Someone obviously didn't like being called a Nazi, and lost their sh*t over a drunken Christmas.

 

National Socialism/Fascism is its own ism. Yes, it wasn't particularly original, in pinching ideas from other movements. Mussolini literally invented fascism, after being a socialist journalist; he was quite intellectual. Hitler, less so. Hitler apparently had most of his fellow socialists killed. Mussolini had them rounded up/

 

The Iranian Revolutionaries wrote their constitution heavily influenced by the French Republic Constitution, which in itself was inspired by the American  Constitution . Does that mean the Mad Mullahs are all George Washington fans in turbans. Of course not.

 

The Nazis had this thing called Gleichschaltung; bringing into line. Essentially the process of Nazifying Germany. Socialism (I think you really mean communism, because socialism is not a revolutonary creed) nationalises industries, to bring them under ideological control. The Weimar Republic had already nationalised many industries during the currency crises. The Nazis reversed most of this. The term "Privatization" was coined by commentators at the time to describe what Hitler was doing. Privatisierung was a German term from the 19th Century, first translated into English when a newspaper report speculated about American railroad companies acquiring German companies. Privatization was a cornerstone of Nazi economic power.German industrialists supported Nazi economic policies, because inreturn for business assistance, the Nazis  restored to private capitalism

a number of monopolies held or controlled by Weimar. One of the first acts by Hitler was quite dull. He pursued a policy to return bus companies back to private ownership. They used the term "Reprivatisierung". Next they talked about privatizing the banks. By 1936, a German newspaper, Der Deutsche Volkswirt, ran an editorial speculating about the expansion of the privatisation programme. This newspaper was considered the mouthpiece of Hjalmar Schacht, who was head of the Reichbank, and later Minister for the Economy.

 

When the Communists took over Russia, there was a flight of capital from the country; Monarchists and White Russians fled with suitcases of cash, gold and jewels. The opposite happened in Nazi Germany. Industry quite liked Mr Hitler. While he despised Capitalists, he respected private wealth, right until the end (factories were issuing invoices into 1945, and were still getting some semblance of payment). As a  result, Nazi policies attracted particular  support from across conservative political movements across Europe.

 

This policy implied a large-scale programme by which the government transferred ownership to private hands. Hitler's motivation for this  was planning for a war economy. Stalin ran a war economy through state enterprise. It wasn't efficient, because it utterly depended on imported raw materials (Lend Lease etc). Hitler reasons that in a War economy needed low levels of private consumption. He wanted people to save money. Hitler reasoned that the reason people saved money was because of inequality of wealth. Transferance of enterprises into private hands ensured that the "capitalist class" continued to serve for the accumulation of revenue, against which Germany could borrow to purchase Swedish Steel, Ford military trucks, Coca Cola sodas etc. Privatization intensified during the war years, with the goal of "organising less, producing more". So, the companies operating the factories had leased the tooling from the government. Now they could purchase the tooling outright. The accumulation of wealth naturally also brought willing support. German companies such as BASF, Opel, were not strong armed into supporting the Nazis. They profited out of the relationship. In contrast, in Eastern Europe, where a semblance of private industry still existed, it was very different. Factory owners were coerced, asset stripped, and followed the party line out of self-preservation.

 

Both Communism and Nazism/Fascism bred corruption, as do all other 'isms. In the Soviet Union, leaders enjoyed life immensely, by skimming off state industry. Under the Nazis, party members actually owned the companies, and operated them under the protection of the state, as "pseudo-state" companies, in that the proceeds were not channeled to central government.

 

Hence Putin is basically a Nazi. His War of Aggression is supported and financed by private industry. Those tank factories, missile factories bullet factories, all owned by Oligarchs who got them for kopeks on the ruble. Like under the Nazis in Germany, capital had flowed inwards into Putin's Russia, hence the reluctance of many Western copanies to leave. Organisations that emerged purely in the private sector have allied themselves to Putin (the Hacker groups). Where Putin is failing as a Nazi is that he's not been able to reign in private spending, despite launching shiney new Ladas that are missing airbags and ABS pumps (like the woeful Nazi era VW, which was only made into a decent car by an Opel executive post WW2), evidenced by the masses of Russians you are hanging out with in Thai bars or Gentleman Clubs, who probably called you a Nazi.

 

 

 

 

 

That fair definition for an 8th grader.

 

 

Simplistic, but I suppose fits with afore mentioned 8th Grade understanding. As an 8th Grader, your spelling is poor.

 

 

 

That is a definition of Bolsheviks, and to an extent, Mensheviks, but does not apply to other forms of Socialism. I don't see the Swedish king swinging from a lamp post on a Stockholm street.

 

 

 

 

But not just the Left. Trump wants a revolution. He is not Leftwing. Khomeni returned to  Iran following the Shah seizing private land, to launch an Islamic Revolution. The Boston Tea Party Goers and others described themselves as Revolutionaries. Maggie Thatcher's time has been referred to as a Thetcherite revolution. etc.

 

 

 

So do other movements, which you have deliberately ignored, because it spoils your drunken Christmas rage post.

 

 

Wrong, as I demonstrated. You might be referring to the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetrieb (DWB), a holding company for SS-enterprises. These were not financed through appropriated German assets, but through war booty. Ownership fell to some individuals, rather than the State. Postwar, the DWB didn't become some asset of the German Federal Government, to be disposed of to the German people. It was simply dissolved and stolen assets returned to France etc. German private industry was a very willing participant; their interests coincided, because they made lots of money, and were able to inorganically grow their companies very cheaply by buying up companies in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, France, the Netherlands and many other occupied countries.

 

If you believe Hitler cared for the Volk, you have fallen for Nazism. This was merely a recruiting slogan, along with rebranding with the Socialism word that has evidently confused you. He wasn't the first to do that, and not the last, as we have seen in recent days.

 

 

Utter tosh. Infantile in fact. George Washington was a Revolutionary and had a Revolutionary nature, but was not Left Wing. Of course, you might sincerely believe the US Founding Fathers were a bunch of dirty communists, who's remains need to be dug up like Oliver Cromwell, and impaled pikes for public mockery.

 

 

No you haven't. What you have demonstrated is an infantile understanding, driven by the fact someone called you a Nazi. All you have demonstrated is that many political ideologies have a propensity to violence.

 

 

Well, factually incorrect. We know the Communists carried out Mass Murder. We know the Nazis carried out mass murder. We know the Maoists carried out mass murder. We know the Islamists carried out mass murder. We knowom British Imperialists carried out mass murder. We know Cromwell's Commonwealth carried out mas murder. We know the Americans carried out mass murder during Westward migration. We know the Spanish carried out Mass Murder in the New World. We know Gaddafi carried out mass murder. We know the Baathists carried out mass murder. We know Jim Jones carried out mass murder. We know the Israelis have carried out mass murder. We know the Palestinians have carried out mass murder. We know the Turkish state carried out mass murder. We know French Gaullists carried out mass murder. The Romans carried out mass murder. Hannibal carried out mass murder. And on and on.

 

You could say "Socialism" is like Nazism, because the end result might be the same. I could say Trump is like a Nazi, based on him and some supporters expressing Nazi-like beliefs. It doesn't make them Nazis. For a start, Trump doesn't possess the intellect. He hasn't suffered some trauma early in life that has shaped his world view. He's just an uncouth masturbator who's turned into an old man yelling at the telly. He's in awe of clever people, hence immediately agreeing with Musk, who I suspect intimidates and manipulates him, because Musk is very clever and manipulative.

 

Billy Joel had it right.

 

 

 

Oh I love it. The Socialists are out defending their movement. Lots of rage and hate being spewed, Trump and MAGA brought up of course, so lets find the few points being made:

 

Point: All of the Precepts of Socialism are based on community.

11 hours ago, MicroB said:

That (sic) fair definition for an 8th grader.

Without belaboring the poor grammar that shows you arent quite 8th grade, and without noting that with your first sentence you hoisted yourself on your own petard of spelling, tell us what the definition should be? Clearly you admit the point, that Socialism is collectivism

 

Point: The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, indeed all the Socialist partys, believed in the dictatorship of the "workers and peasants" where all would live in peace and harmony, from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.

11 hours ago, MicroB said:

Simplistic, but I suppose (sic) fits with afore mentioned 8th Grade understanding. As an 8th Grader, your spelling is poor.

.Again the "simplistic" response, but again, you admit the point is correct. The spelling comment is ironic, I left out an apostrophe, you left out a pronoun. Perhaps before you criticize spelling, you should not make 3rd grade grammar mistakes.

 

So looks like there isnt any dispute about the first two points I made.

 

Point: In order to achieve this utopia, the "class enemy" must be fought and defeated and the instruments of oppression (bourgoiuse captialist government) overthrown in a revolutionary mass movement. In Bolshevik terms, that revolution is to be led by the "vanguard", the elightened activists.

 

11 hours ago, MicroB said:

That is a definition of Bolsheviks, and to an extent, Mensheviks, but does not apply to other forms of Socialism. I don't see the Swedish king swinging from a lamp post on a Stockholm street.

 

To what extent do the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks differ? Enlighten us as to what Socialist movements my point does not apply to? Maoism? Tell us what Socialist movement does not have an "enemy".

 

Btw Sweden isnt Socialist. Try to do a bit of research. Social Democracy and Socialism are different.

 

But hey, looks like this Point is grudgingly agreed to.

 

 

Point: The National Socialists beleived in the racial community of all Germans, an Aryan volksgemeineshaft. They were opposed to and fought the existing bourgeouise government, which was viewed as a tool of the racial enemy,  and as such  the National Socialists were revolutionary. 

 

11 hours ago, MicroB said:

More piss poor spelling

 

But no dispute as to the point.

 

Getting good here, loads of agreement.

 

Point: Both philosophies were revolutionary. Revolution is a tool of the left.

11 hours ago, MicroB said:

But not just the Left. Trump wants a revolution. He is not Leftwing. Khomeni returned to  Iran following the Shah seizing private land, to launch an Islamic Revolution. The Boston Tea Party Goers and others described themselves as Revolutionaries. Maggie Thatcher's time has been referred to as a Thetcherite revolution. etc.

 

Feel free to read the dictionary definition of revolution. You spelled Thetcherite wrong. Folks that complain about others spelling should us spell check themselves.

But rather than belabor this point, I would note that we have agreement that the Left uses revolution, and both Socialists and National Socialists were revolutionary, right?

 

Point: Both philosphies had enemies. The Bolsheviks, for example, had the bourgeoise and capitalists. The National Socialists, had the Jews

11 hours ago, MicroB said:

So do other movements, which you have deliberately ignored, because it spoils your drunken Christmas rage post.

What is the relevance of your argument? Do you disagree that the groups in question had enemies? Evidently not. And how is my Post related to Christmas? 

 

So far, so good, he agrees with me. Now we get to the part where he destroys himself.

 

 

Point: Both philosophies were similar economicaly. Socialism entails the State the owning the means of production. National Socialism was hybrid, private ownership under the direction of the state for the benefit of the state was permitted, and the government owned other economic concerns (viz, the SS economic empire).

Both philosophies were "mass movements". Everything was to be a benefit to either the "people" or the "volk".

12 hours ago, MicroB said:

Wrong, as I demonstrated. You might be referring to the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetrieb (DWB), a holding company for SS-enterprises. These were not financed through appropriated German assets, but through war booty. Ownership fell to some individuals, rather than the State. Postwar, the DWB didn't become some asset of the German Federal Government, to be disposed of to the German people. It was simply dissolved and stolen assets returned to France etc. German private industry was a very willing participant; their interests coincided, because they made lots of money, and were able to inorganically grow their companies very cheaply by buying up companies in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, France, the Netherlands and many other occupied countries.

 

If you believe Hitler cared for the Volk, you have fallen for Nazism. This was merely a recruiting slogan, along with rebranding with the Socialism word that has evidently confused you. He wasn't the first to do that, and not the last, as we have seen in recent days.

Notice: not one point I made here was disputed. He goes off on to some rant about the mechanics of how the ownership of private and state enterprises were organized and then admits that "private" industry was a willing participant in National Socialism. Most importantly, he does NOT DENY that in all Socialist systems, private property does not exist. Btw, how does the Gulag differ from the DWB? And tell us how you conclude that Hitler did not care for "the Volk"? 

 

Point: The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing.

 

12 hours ago, MicroB said:

Utter tosh. Infantile in fact. George Washington was a Revolutionary and had a Revolutionary nature, but was not Left Wing. Of course, you might sincerely believe the US Founding Fathers were a bunch of dirty communists, who's remains need to be dug up like Oliver Cromwell, and impaled pikes for public mockery.

In terms of political analysis, the American revolutionaries were left wing, as they were opposed to the traditional conservative monarchal order and sought to ultimately impose a new system. A revolution that seeks restoration of the existing order would be a counter revolution. Are you disgreeing with the point that the National Socialists sought to overthrow the existing order?

 

The last point is telling: 

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

What does he give us: No denial of the fact that Socialism mandates mass murder, just a litany of every one else who commits mass murder.

 

Premise: Socialism in all its variants has as its goal a collective society. National Socialism had as its goal a collective Aryan society. Human beings arent collective and as a result, not all humans will fall into line and be collective. They must be killed in order to fullfill the Socialist dream.

 

 

 

 

[Yagoda]

1 hour ago, Red Forever said:

More far right drivel from A.N. driveler in chief.

To expose your far right garbage for exactly what it is: the National “Socialist” party of the late 1920s into the 30s came to power by erm…..attacking Socialists.

There sorted for ya.

More National Socialist drivel from the AN dunce in chief. Your point is beyond stupid. Did not the Bolsheviks fight and murder the Menshiviks?

[Yagoda]

3 hours ago, RetiredNavy71 said:

National socialism is Nazism dufus.  Nazism is an extreme right wing ideology utilized by Nazi Germany from 1933-1945.  Try reading history books 

Translation: I can dispute the points being made, so Ill just toss out some Communist propaganda.

 

Tell us what made National Socialist ideology "right wing"?

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Show me how, with all the points you have agreed to, how it wasnt a Socialist movement?

 

It did not result in a socialist economy. So, if it did start as a socialist movement, it wasn't successful. 

[metisdead]

Posts with replies within the quoted content have been removed:

• 28. You will not make changes to messages quoted from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. Do not shorten any post in a way that alters the context of the original post. Do not change the formatting of the post you are quoting.

[WDSmart]

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You let your utopianism get in the way. How do you account for the Socialist record of mass murder? 

There is no record of mass murder in a country with a socialist economy that I know of. And even if there were, there are certainly records of mass murder in countries with a capitalist economy, like my own, the USA. My point is that mass murder or racism or gender bias, although it may occur, are not fundamental cornerstones of socialism or any other economic system I know of - even capitalism. 

[AndreasHG]

 

Yagoda's is possibly the most childish, silly and simplistic definition of socialism and fascism that I have ever read.

 

Both these radical ideologies divide humanity into "good guys" and "bad guys". Dividing the humanity into good and bad guys is a typical tool used by dictators to control their subjects. It's the latin "divide et impera" ("divide to rule", "diviser pour mieux regner" in French), and it has worked since the dawn of time.

 

However, Yagoda completely overlooks the fact that they do so according to different and not always mutually exclusive parameters.

Socialism divides humanity into "good guys" and "bad guys" based on their social class (exploited and exploiters, workers and capitalists).

 

Fascism divides humanity into "good guys" and "bad guys" based on their race or nationality (Arians and non-Arians, Americans and non-Americans, etc.). 

 

Both ideologies give priority to the greater collective good over the pure satisfaction of individual needs. The aim to achieve a greater collective good (the “social” component of these ideologies) is yet another tool used by dictators to justify the sacrifices they impose on each individual. “I deprive you of personal freedom, but it is for a greater good". The greater good of your social class in socialism, or of your ethnicity or nationality in fascism.

This tool is extremely useful to get rid of dissenters, skeptics, and those who march to a different drummer, in politics, economy, arts, etc. Any "exploited" who disagrees with the socialist dictator (or "Arian" with the fascist dictator) is easily and quickly dismissed and labelled as antisocial. Often the final destination of these individuals has been the mental hospitals, both in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

 

Both ideologies give dictators wide freedom to get rid of their opponents, which is why most dictatorships embraced Socialism's class struggle or Fascism's nationalism to gain control of their subjects.

The "Class enemies" or the "enemies of the people" must be annihilated, being them exploiters, profiteers, Jews, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, immigrants, foreigners, sociopaths or antisocials. 

Anyone, at any time and at the sole discretion of the ruling socialist or fascist party, may be assigned to one of the aforementioned categories. Re-education and extermination are synonymous, because they lead to the same result, either in a Gulag or Konzentrationslager.

 

[AloisAmrein]

What a complete bull<deleted> here. I guess the writer is a Trump fan idiot.

[nobodysfriend]

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Premise: Socialism in all its variants has as its goal a collective society. National Socialism had as its goal a collective Aryan society. Human beings arent collective and as a result, not all humans will fall into line and be collective. They must be killed in order to fullfill the Socialist dream.

 

... go and get help . But for you it would come too late anyway ...

As I said before , you are beyond help .

[AndreasHG]

Just now, AloisAmrein said:

What a complete bull<deleted> here. I guess the writer is a Trump fan idiot.

"Idiot" suffices.

[Yagoda]

6 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

 

... go and get help . But for you it would come too late anyway ...

As I said before , you are beyond help .

Translation: Yagodas right, Im wrong, so I will just spew hate as my ilk does.

[Yagoda]

5 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

"Idiot" suffices.

Translation: I cant argue because Im not smart enough so I will just spew vituperation.