Nazis were socialists

[Guest]

One reply of the last post noted that the Nazi party's platform valued private property. That is utter crap. A State which regulates and controls economic activity like Nazi Germany cannot value private property (even if it says so). Naziism was a brand of violent socialism that didn't work. Like all forms of socialism, it was tyrannic and violated human rights. (This is why fascism, socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism, ... are all anti-human nature.) In a libertarian word, people who would like to live in communes and form syndicates could do so freely, thanks to private property. Unfortunately for them, they shouldn't have the right to impose their lifestyle on everybody. Libertarian capitalism is the only social system which values toleration and individual rights.

[laphing]

This is why I don't think anarchism has any relation to socialism. If we take your narrow definition of socialism - ie, a system which a state elite merely replaces the capitalist elite in claiming ownership over property - as truth, then clearly anarchism has no relation to socialism at all because it wishes to abolish ownership of property. In short, socialism is just a form of capitalism. <br> <br>Secondly, libertarians do impose their lifestyle on others: they insist that there needs to be a state or governmental agency to enforce ownership claims over property. Capitalism is a big government welfare program. <br> <br>Thirdly, your notion that libertarianism somehow values individuality is absurd. Capitalism is an oligarchal and tyrannical system which subjugates the individual to an elite who control all economic activity through central planning and violence - think of corporations. In late capitalism, the state and capitalist institutions are very much entwined. <br> <br>In brief, capitalism is not much different from National Socialism or Soviet Marxism.

[Yuda]

[color=red]Libertarian capitalism is the only social system which values toleration and individual rights.</font color=red> <br> <br>If you can afford them

[Jemmy_Hope]

That must be why the Nazis threw socialists, communists and trade unionists in labour camps. That must be why capitalists, including short-sighted Jewish capitalists, backed the rising Nazi Party. That must be why the Nazis left German business alone, apart from confiscating Jewish owned firms and handing them over to "Aryan" crooks.

[Pomegranate]

yeh, as long as we can afford property we'll be equal in your society. if not, we're just lazy and really don't have a say. after all, if we can't earn money, we aren't moral by your precious capitalist standards, correct? <br> <br>you have a lot of learning to do about history. but lets start with your asinine claim that the nazis were not for private property. sure, i know nazi stands for "national socialist workers party", are you saying that the name means they were, in practice, some kind of utopian socialist nation? ludicrous. <br> <br>i agree, all brands of socialism are tyrannic and violate human rights, just like all brands of capitalism. that's why we're anarchists. wake up. <br> <br>

[chiggins]

According to the infoshop FAQ, Anarchism is "socialist" because <br> <br>"All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation. Anarchists reject the 'notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product'" <br> <br>so the definition of socialism infoshop uses "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods" applies here. <br> <br>The problem is, workers are perfectly capable of owning the means of production, provided their claim is enforced. Therefore, socialist governments are often more state communist than socialist. It is the "people's" mass transit system, but in reality, it is owned and operated by a central government. If a competing firm were to set up shop and use traditional capitalist methods, that firm would be shut down because it interferes with the "people's" company. <br> <br>Any political system which rejects the concept of private property is ultimately state Communism. Anarchism as it is understood here is merely a reactionary, transitional stage of self-rule that paves the way for a Communist state. Just as we have seen in revolutionary Spain. The minute the syndicates fall apart and start killing each other, a centralized authority will be established to "protect" the workers from themselves. Hello Lenin.

[huntergatherer]

"Just as we have seen in revolutionary Spain. The minute the syndicates fall apart and start killing each other, a centralized authority will be established to "protect" the workers from themselves." <br> <br>But that isn't what happened in Spain. The communists killed or jailed the revolutionaries and destroyed any chance Spain had of not becoming fascist.

[Morpheus]

And the communists restored private property in land, using a great deal of violence to break up the collectives. The syndicates didn't "fall apart and start killing each other" they were forcibly suppressed by Communists &amp; capitalists, working together. The head of state during the Commie counter-revolution was Negrin, literally a member of the capitalist class. Chiggins is lying again. <br> <br>Any political system which accepts the concept of private property is ultimately fascism. Just as we have seen in Pinochet's Chille. The minute private property is restored and companies start competing with each other, a centralized authority will be established to "protect" private property "rights." Hello Hitler.

[Guest]

the nazis were totalitarian, this is true. they wanted to control most aspects of society. but they were for private property, as long as the right people controlled it, those that would support them.

[Levee_En_Masse]

This issue is covered two threads up. I suggest that you continue the discussion on that thread. Just my 2 cents.

[JudeObscure84]

"The German national souls kept privately whispering to each other the suspicion that basically we were nothing but a species of Marxism...For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism.."

(Hitler, Mein Kampf 1971, p.483)

interesting, he was a socialist after all. he just wasnt marxian-socialist.

He hated Marxists because:

only to break the people's national and patriotic backbone and make them ripe for the slave's yoke of international capital and its masters, the Jews."

it was another "jewish" conspiracy to undermine the national unity of Germany.

"the economic independence of the nation" from "the international stock exchange"

"Jew" was just a code word for international capitalist.

Can you blame the monster for not believing in "worker solidarity" and instead for "national unity"? Does this automatically vanquish his title of being a socialist? Marx did not define socialism you know, he merely gave it a dialectic. He made it into a science which Hitler rejected.

I dare you to go into the Mein Kamf book and point out one thing that Hitler did not do that he said he was going to do. His book is nearly a blueprint of WWII. thank God he never finished what he wrote.

[Levee_En_Masse]

"Jew" was just a code word for international capitalist.

Really, and what kind of argument would you make to say that it isn't the other way around? What would you say in this instance to prove that Hitler denounced Jews as a roundabout way of denouncing capitalism? After all, Hitler firmly believed in Eugenics, as well as the nationalistic mysticism about the "Aryan" race. If his anti-semitism was a veil for his socialism, then why was it that he carried it out more firmly than any "socalist" policies? His strongest ideological influence came from decidedly non-socalist sources....

Adolf and his classmates soon sensed where the majority of their teachers' loyalties lay. They took the punishment that was required for making sketches of Bismarck, greeting one another with the German "Heil," singing German patriotic songs or wearing a cornflower as a symbol of loyalty to the Prussian house of Hohenzollern. They relished any German victory in the Pacific, Africa or any other part of the world. Like many of his classmates Adolf was developing into a German nationalist. He and his friends, like the intellectuals who favored a natural political map, believed that all Germans should be united under one flag.

http://smoter.com/influenc.htm

This suggests that Hitler's influences came mostly from the grosdeutch style of Germanic nationalism. This, along with the Eugenics and mystical leanings causes one to question claims that the Nazis were purely influenced by socialism, and when they were, it was probably by Stalin's socialism to the East. In my opinion, Stalin's "socialism in one state" achieved the same goals that Hitler wanted to achieve with his German nationalism - submission to the State, strong institutions for crushing dissidents (Gulags), and the suppression of rebellious national groups. Hitler's economic views were probably adapted from the the Soviet Union's policies as a means of rebuilding Germany as an imperial world power, and especially to do so as a means of outpacing the existing powers. That and as a way of getting support during an ongoing economic crisis, with vague promises of work and national greatness.

And the ongoing issue here is how far one can extend a label before it becomes meaningless. Hitler sounds like someone who believes in fairies and unicorns and the Easter Bunny, but who nonetheless goes around insisting that he is a excellent scientist.

[Guest]

Really, and what kind of argument would you make to say that it isn't the other way around? What would you say in this instance to prove that Hitler denounced Jews as a roundabout way of denouncing capitalism? After all, Hitler firmly believed in Eugenics, as well as the nationalistic mysticism about the "Aryan" race. If his anti-semitism was a veil for his socialism, then why was it that he carried it out more firmly than any "socalist" policies? His strongest ideological influence came from decidedly non-socalist sources....

Levee, Im not arguing that this was his signature stamp for being a socialist. Hitler's vanguard use for capitalist was directed at jewish bankers whom he believed ruled the world through finance capitalism. international capitalism was just as evil to him as the twin danger of international communism;also an invention by the jew. he was just an anti-semitic loon.

This suggests that Hitler's influences came mostly from the grosdeutch style of Germanic nationalism. This, along with the Eugenics and mystical leanings causes one to question claims that the Nazis were purely influenced by socialism, and when they were, it was probably by Stalin's socialism to the East. In my opinion, Stalin's "socialism in one state" achieved the same goals that Hitler wanted to achieve with his German nationalism - submission to the State, strong institutions for crushing dissidents (Gulags), and the suppression of rebellious national groups. Hitler's economic views were probably adapted from the the Soviet Union's policies as a means of rebuilding Germany as an imperial world power, and especially to do so as a means of outpacing the existing powers. That and as a way of getting support during an ongoing economic crisis, with vague promises of work and national greatness.

what the heck are you arguing? he was against marxian socialism. he admitted in the pages of his book, Mein Kamf. but he was still a socialist, and a nationalist. hence the name national socialist. even if he was influenced by all that you say, and he was, how does that not make him a socialist?

And the ongoing issue here is how far one can extend a label before it becomes meaningless. Hitler sounds like someone who believes in fairies and unicorns and the Easter Bunny, but who nonetheless goes around insisting that he is a excellent scientist.

You mean how far you will keep denouncing what fascists claimed to be themselves, by applying your definition of socialism, and what they were? You keep telling me what socialism is, but you still cannot prove that Hitler was not a socialist.

[JudeObscure84]

The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day.

Hitler, Mein Kampf- The struggle with the red front

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch07.html

[Levee_En_Masse]

I'm arguing that Hitler was not a socialist, but that he borrowed Stalin's socialism in one country because it achieved the same goals that Hitler wanted to achieve with his nationalism, and he was even less interested in the liberation of the working class (if that's possible) than his Fascist colleagues in Italy and Spain. If Germany had won World War I, the Nazis would have no raison d'etre, and Hitler would have supported the existing government (which he did during the war) as a means of achieving Greater Germany. If a bourgeois capitalist government represented a path to a Greater Germany, then Hitler would have supported them as well. Most of the economic rhetoric used by the Nazis is the result of the reparations regime standing in their way, hence the vague denunciations of "international finance" and "bankers". How much would Hitler have to do NOT to be a socialist?