Hitler and socialism

Please stop saying Hitler hated socialism and/or was a capitalist

I don't know if you're all just idiots or if it's clever leftard propaganda, but

Nazism = National Socialism

Discuss.

Sorry, I meant louis XIV, not IV. Roman numerals are lame, god bless those murederous Arabs for their numbers.

>>40
"Hitler was not a socialist. To claim that he was is ridiculous, given that he threw all the socialists in jail."

Nazi=National Socialist.  Yes, Hitler was a socialist.  He believed in very stringent socioeconomic government controls and government involvement in the economy, which, fyi, is practically socialism by definition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=socialism

It is also practically fascism by definition. 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=fascism

Funny how socialism and fascism are so alike.  Fascism supports stringent socioeconomic (this means control over both the economy, and an individual's private life) controls, as well as the centralization of authority and power.

Socialism, on the other hand, supports stringent government regulation and involvement in the economy, but does not state in the definition that this regulation will extend into a person's personal life, despite the fact that this ideology essentially necessitates the subjugation of individual liberties and rights for the sake of its' promotion.

To put it simply, from my viewpoint, socialism and fascism are both two cheeks of the same ass, and it doesn't surprise me that some of the biggest assholes in history liked one or the other, or some twisted combination of the two.

"He was a nationalist whose party claimed to be 'socialist' by their own special definition, which had few if any of the traits by which we recognise socialsim."

False.  Hitler actually advocated a great degree of government involvement in the economy.. even more government involvement than the current democratic party does in the United States.  The democratic party itself is arguably socialist, or at least has socialist tendencies.

"Lousi the IV said "l'etat, c'est moi", which means 'I am the state'. That does not make Louis IV a socialist- he was a fucking king, for crying out loud. Socialisn means that 'property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control'- i.e. not under the control of a single man, like, oh, say, Hitler."

Again, the definition of socialism: 

'Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.'

Socialism does not require a government by and for the people.  Socialism requires either a centralized government.  It does NOT require that this government is run either directly or indirectly by the people.  Read the definition.  Socialism, regardless of what the root-word is, does not necessitate that the people control the government.  Hitler's government is indeed a classic example of socialism.  It is also a classic example of fascism.

Look, the Labour party in Britain claim to be socialists. There is a high degree of government involvement in the economy. That doesn't change the fact that the British economy is ultimately a free-market capitalist economy, nor does it change the fact that said party has introduced private industry into many areas which were once sole bastion of the state.

Having bits of socialism tacked on does not make you socialist. Just because you're not an ultra-capitalist does not automatically mena you are a socialist. If you think the Democratic party is socialist, then you're off your rocker. They're not even close to left-wing.


Furthermore, you are failing to read the very definitions you are quoting. Observe:

From above definition of socialism: "in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government"

That means that production is owned by the government. Was this the case in NAZI Germany? No, it wasn't, because private companies were allowed to flourish, were actively courted by the state and were the bedrock of the economy. These companies were never nationalised, so the "means of producing and distributing goods" was not owned "collectively or by a centralized government". It may have been regulated, but that is the case in every modern state. Furthermore, that regulation resulted from the totalitarian nature of Hitlers Germany, not any socialist economic tendencies.

"To put it simply, from my viewpoint, socialism and fascism are both two cheeks of the same ass, and it doesn't surprise me that some of the biggest assholes in history liked one or the other, or some twisted combination of the two."

Communism /= Socialism. Don't confuse the two; it looks silly.

"Communism /= Socialism. Don't confuse the two; it looks silly."

I didn't confuse the two.

>>43
"Having bits of socialism tacked on does not make you socialist. Just because you're not an ultra-capitalist does not automatically mena you are a socialist. If you think the Democratic party is socialist, then you're off your rocker. They're not even close to left-wing."

Dems not even close to left-wing you say? LOL.  The democrats want to nationalize the health care industry.  Socialized medicine.. Wikipedia describes the party as being 'center-left'.  If the dems are to the left of center, that makes them more socialist than capitalist, right? Center-left, I would be inclined to describe as socialist, especially considering their apparent intent to socialize health care in the USA, raise price controls on labor, and in general increase the governments control over the economy.

Now, consider that Federal, State, and Local taxes consume 47% of the national income.  How much further to the left do we need to go to become 'Socialist'? How much government management of the economy does it take for you to say a country is 'socialist'? I'm not saying the USA is socialist, but Hitler was significantly farther to the left (in terms of economics, but not social issues), than the democrats.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

"From above definition of socialism: "in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government"

To continue to fuel this discussion, here is another definition of socialism I'm going to offer (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism):
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."

As stated, there are many variants of socialism.  Socialism and fascism both require stringent socioeconomic controls.  Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy.  An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are *CONTROLLED*  (regulated) substantially by the government.

Ok, so now we have a more general idea of what socialism is.  Socialism, generally, is significant government controls/intervention into the economy... speaking very generally.  It has many forms.  Intense state ownership, regulation, or 'control' of industry.  Socialism is not *just* state ownership of industry - there is more to it than that. 

"Communism /= Socialism. Don't confuse the two; it looks silly."

I didn't confuse the two.  I don't think I even mentioned communism. 

Hitler used planned economy, so does communism but the differences are that Hitler used it to found his war while communism use it to control expenses.

>>46
Wrong. They were both militarily aggressive despotisms, just that Germany was more developped. Had the communists rose to power instead of the socialists, world war 2 would have happenned anyway.

>>47
I don't think you get me there.
Planned economy is a cornerstone in communism. Hitler used planned economy but that doesn't make him a socialist.

>>45
"Dems not even close to left-wing you say? LOL.  The democrats want to nationalize the health care industry.  Socialized medicine.. Wikipedia describes the party as being 'center-left'.  If the dems are to the left of center, that makes them more socialist than capitalist, right? Center-left, I would be inclined to describe as socialist, especially considering their apparent intent to socialize health care in the USA, raise price controls on labor, and in general increase the governments control over the economy."

The democrats were in power for well over 8 years in the 90s, and socialism simply wasn't on the agenda. They are left wing relative to the Republicans, yes, but if you compare them to any of the left-wing parties in Europe (and I mean even the moderate ones) they look completely right wing. The Democrats may look left-wing in the highly conservative climate of U.S. politics, but as a standard they are not, or at least have appeared as such in government.

Furthermore, 'centre' does not mean capitalist. It means exactly what it says- something which lies between the extremes of the right/left model (which is itself outdated anyway). Centre-left does not mean socialist, by any stretch of the imagination. To say so is ridiculous. By your logic, Britain was a socialist state in the 1980s, when the British right-wing conservative party were in power under Reagons best friend Thatcher.

"I didn't confuse the two."

Well, you referred to socialism as having produced some of the greatest assholes in history. Now, unless these are socialists who you know personally who happen to be epic assholes, I don't see how thats true. Communism produced many brutal dictators etc, but as socialism is primarily an economic rather than political theory, there have been very few brutal socialist governments- none, in fact that I can think of. Socialism does not necessitate government oppression, unlike communism.

"As stated, there are many variants of socialism.  Socialism and fascism both require stringent socioeconomic controls.  Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy.  An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are *CONTROLLED*  (regulated) substantially by the government."

Regulation is not the same as control. There is a subtle but very important difference. For example, the U.S. government regulates U.S. companies (every government on earth does to some degree)- it does not control them however.

More importantly, simply controlling the economy does not make you socialist. What you do with the economy is also crucial.

The stringent economic controls you talk about resulted (crucially) for different reasons and to acheive different ends than those usually associated with socialism. Hitlers state first and foremost rejected democracy and was totalitarian- as such, it was necessary that it had massive control over all aspects of life. That does not make it socialist, as socialisms aim was/is to provide an economic system which benefits the lower-classes (even if that rarely worked in practice); government control was thus used to this end.

This NOT the case in Nazi germany, where government control had entirely different aims and as such simply CANNOT be described as socialism. Hitlers economic policies were based around producuing a strong army which could then be used to create a roman-style emperial economy- that control resulted from his racial-political ideology, which had nothing to do with economics, never mind socialism.

Every king of Europe once had total control of the economy by virtue of their being absolute rulers. It didn't make them socialists because their policies were not socialist in nature. Hitler was not a socialist; he was simply a despot, and despots can control the economy if they bloody well like. It doesn't make them socialists.

>>48
So when we are discussing how the state organises the economy the state is socialist, but when we are discussing what the state uses the economy for it is not socialist? This cannot occur since it is a contradiction.

Anyway the facts provided already prove that socialism utilises a planned economy in both situations.

Socialism paves the way for tyanny by placing it's ideology above justice and liberty. In the case of the nazis it was racial purity, which is another twisted form of equality.

>>50
That is not what I said.
What I said was planned economy and socialism is not the same thing. Planned economy is just a element of communism and
using 1 element from socialistic ideas does not make Hitler or Germany socialistic.

It's like the americans and the bible, they read and live the things they want to and ignore the things that doesn't fit them.

>>51
So what does socialism do then? How does it stop people from owning the means of production? Collective ownership? So how are all these people represented? By the state? So it's a planned economy? Right? The planned economy IS a fundamental element of socialism. The only differences between it and communism is that in communism the state owns people aswell as their property.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
+
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
=
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

>>52
There, you said it yourself: "he planned economy IS a fundamental element of socialism."

It's a part, not a fundamental part but atleast not the ideology itself.

This whole thread is illogical. Hilter having socialist leanings doesn't make conservatism inherantly good or socialsim inherantly bad. Nice try, guys. Get back to us once you graduate college and enter the real world.

If Hitler was a socialist then Hitler and Stalin would have teamed up and destroyed the America and Britain and taken over the entire world.

If Hitler was a socialist then the whole of Western Europe and the whole world would currently resemble North Korea.

>>50
I presume part of what you were saying is a response to my post, so I'll answer the bit that seems relevent.

"So when we are discussing how the state organises the economy the state is socialist, but when we are discussing what the state uses the economy for it is not socialist? This cannot occur since it is a contradiction."

No I'm simply pointing out that controling all aspects of the state (including the economy) is something that every despotic regime does- there's a wrod for that, and it's totalitarianism. Just being a totalitarian state does not make you a socialist.

Socialism is about controlling the economy in a certain way to meet a certain end- in general, to improve the conditions of the working classes and distribute wealth evenly. Thats what makes it socialism- those specifics.

In a totalitarian state the economy is controlled to meet whatever end that particular state wishes. But that does not make any state that does it socialist. Communist Russia was a totalitarian state that used its powers to create a socialist economy. Hitlers Germany was a totalitarian state that did not.

Part of socialism is government control of the economy, but that does not make every government that controls its economy socialist. Hitler may have heavily regulated the economy,  ubt shared none of the aims or concerns which socialism is designed around; indeed he was a long way off. All the French kings controlled their economies, but did so on such a fashion that was the complete antithesis of socialism.

Controlling the economy does not make you socialist- thats a stupid thing to say. I'm not defending socialism, as I don't think it works in most situations (though as can be seen in China it can form a valuable stepping stone to a free-market economy), but Hitler simply wasn't a socialist.

>>55
nice logic, i guess its safe for me to assume anyone with socialist leanings supports communism.

>>57
Actually I know lots of socialist anarchists and social leaning liberals who fucking hate communism.

>>58
Lies, you have no friends or acquaintances outside your immediate family.

Right wing americans are so full of shit.

>>58
Has no sarcasm detector

>>53
So their ideology was socialist, their economic policy was socialist and they even fucking called themselves socialist, but they just happenned to believe everyone should work for the collective, just happenned to have a planned economy and just happenned to call themselves the national socialist worker's party.

Fair enough, we'll leave the argument there. Whether the public believes that it is all a coincidence (they called themselves socialists for fuck's sake) or not is up to them.

Anit-smetic = right wing    unequal = right wing

need I say more

>>63
economic right wing != "values" right wing


need i say more.

i am 56 and i still fail to see answer

>>49
"The democrats were in power for well over 8 years in the 90s, and socialism simply wasn't on the agenda."

Clinton wasn't a socialist dem.  Not all dems are the same.

"They are left wing relative to the Republicans, yes, but if you compare them to any of the left-wing parties in Europe (and I mean even the moderate ones) they look completely right wing."

That's because europe is full of crazy pinko fuckers.  Wikipedia describes them as 'center-left'.  Dems are far from right wing.  Many within the party are no doubt at the very least borderline socialist.

"The Democrats may look left-wing in the highly conservative climate of U.S. politics, but as a standard they are not, or at least have appeared as such in government."

LOL.  More like:  'The democrats may look right-wing in the highly left-wing climate of european politics, but as a standard, they are not, or at least have appeared as much in government.'

Fixed.

"Furthermore, 'centre' does not mean capitalist. It means exactly what it says- something which lies between the extremes of the right/left model (which is itself outdated anyway)."

A centrist would be a mix of capitalism and socialism - what is generally referred to as a mixed economy.  If you travel further to the left than this, you are better described as socialist than capitalist in my book.  Likewise, if you travel to the right of this center, you are better described as 'capitalist' or pseudo-capitalist.

"Centre-left does not mean socialist, by any stretch of the imagination."

That's partly bullshit.  The democrats are, generally, center-left.  Some democrats might be more conservative than others, but the party as a whole leans more to the left than to the right.  The democrats are not more right wing than left wing.  The democratic party does lean to the left of the center, and is thus better described as socialist than capitalist, in a lot of cases.  The democratic party has generally adopted many of the former positions of the Socialist Party in the USA, incidentally, believe it or not.  Considering this, and that wikipedia describes them as 'center-left', I'd say it is easy to say they are better described as socialist than capitalist overall, and that many of the more progressive democrats are indeed essentially socialists.

"Well, you referred to socialism as having produced some of the greatest assholes in history. Now, unless these are socialists who you know personally who happen to be epic assholes, I don't see how thats true. Communism produced many brutal dictators etc, but as socialism is primarily an economic rather than political theory, there have been very few brutal socialist governments- none, in fact that I can think of. Socialism does not necessitate government oppression, unlike communism."

Pure horse shit.  Socialism, just like communism, ends up getting rammed down the people's throat at gunpoint.  Socialism, unlike capitalism, depends upon an authoritarian method of controlling the people and forcing them to comply with the government's economic schemes and plans. 

Here's one of history's most widely known and brutal socialists: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein

Socialism, whether you like it or not, is almost ALWAYS an authoritarian ideology.  In a capitalist system, you are FREE to decide to go live on a commune voluntarilly.  In a socialist system, you cannot go live in capitalist la-la land.  In a socialist system, if you don't go along with the economic and social schemes/plots of the government, you will be dealt with in a typical authoritarian manner.  In a capitalist system, you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't violate the rights of others.

"Regulation is not the same as control. There is a subtle but very important difference. For example, the U.S. government regulates U.S. companies (every government on earth does to some degree)- it does not control them however."

Regulation is half-assed control.  It is indeed a socialist idea.  The more regulatory measures that are in place, the more socialistic the system.  The more 'hands off' or laissez-faire, the more capitalist.

"More importantly, simply controlling the economy does not make you socialist. What you do with the economy is also crucial."

Bullshit.  The definition does not specify that you need to do anything with the economy.  It simply states that the government plays a large role in the economy, period. 

"The stringent economic controls you talk about resulted (crucially) for different reasons and to acheive different ends than those usually associated with socialism. Hitlers state first and foremost rejected democracy and was totalitarian- as such, it was necessary that it had massive control over all aspects of life."

Hitler was a democratically elected leader, elected by the people.

"That does not make it socialist, as socialisms aim was/is to provide an economic system which benefits the lower-classes (even if that rarely worked in practice); government control was thus used to this end."

That might be the aim of some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists.  That is not the aim of all who fit the category 'socialist.'

"This NOT the case in Nazi germany, where government control had entirely different aims and as such simply CANNOT be described as socialism."

All you are saying is that because Nazi Germany's intentions were different from the intentions of other socialists, it doesn't make nazi germany socialist.  The definition of socialism doesn't say a thing about intentions, sorry.

'socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.'

" Hitler was not a socialist; he was simply a despot, and despots can control the economy if they bloody well like. It doesn't make them socialists."

Hitler was a democratically elected leader.  He was elected by the people in what was arguably a legitimate election.  He was indeed further to the political left than the democrats, according to numerous sources, and according to simple fucking logic and dictionary definitions.  Now, you are just being stubborn.  Hitler was a socialist.  His brand of socialism may be slightly different in 'nature' than what you think of as socialism, but that does not change the fact that it is 'socialist' by definition.

>>55
"If Hitler was a socialist then Hitler and Stalin would have teamed up and destroyed the America and Britain and taken over the entire world."

Right, because all socialists just love each other.  There isn't any such thing as warmongering bloodthirsty socialists who want to spread their own brand of socialism throughout the world by force.

>>60
"Right wing americans are so full of shit."

Left-wing americans are even more full of shit.

>>68
no u


Also, if socialism = fascism then capitalism = anarchy.

>>66
Pop of Europe=730 million
Pop of USA=300 million
Do you mean that the minority should define concepts to the majority? Because here in europe, the majority has the defenition right, meaning that we are not crazy pinkos, its rather your political climate that is extreme.
Capitalism is the always authorian, it has never been achieved by peaceful means. Think those farmers of old wanted to be landless factoryworkers? What would happen to a factory if the cops would not protect the boss? It would be taken over by the workers in a matter of minutes, have happened over and over agian. The policemans gun is what is keeping the insurgence at bay, and this may remind you of another system which you seem to have a interest in. Also, imperialism is something that has always followed from capitalism. And imperialism is violent and authorian by nature. Did the chinese want to import opium from the brittish in the 19th century? No, they were forced at gunpoint.
Hitler was not elected to chancellor. Maybe you should reread this article about a great hero of capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
One way of determining how socialist a person or a party is is by looking at his or theirs allies. Socialists often want to regulate the economy and expropriate private business, and they want to improve the workingconditions for labor. So socialists are backed by unions and hated by business owners (or capitalists as we call over here). Hitler destroyed the unions in germany, and he was backed by big business, among them Henry Ford. So either some capitalsits are socialists (?) or Hitler was not a socialist.

>>69
"Also, if socialism = fascism then capitalism = anarchy."

I'm not saying socialism is always fascism.  Fascism is indeed almost always socialism, on the other hand, since one of the characteristics of fascism is 'stringent socioeconomic controls'.  Look at the definition of fascism.  Fascism involves 'stringent socioeconomic controls'.  This is opposite capitalism, and indeed lies in the realm of socialism and socialistic policies.  Fascism is not right wing, it is left-wing.

Libertarianism lies on the opposite side of the political spectrum from fascism.  Libertarianism, by my definition, is lax or nonexistant socioeconomic controls, in stark contrast to fascism, which is stringent socioeconomic government controls.  The opposite of fascism is libertarianism. 

>>69 is right.

Pure socialism is pure fascism. Pure capitalism is pure anarchism.

>>71
No, the opposite of fascism is Anarchism, which by its nature is socialistic. Libertarian views are flawed in the sense that they believe that they can uphold capitalism without the state, but the only way the have anarchy is through the dissolusion the right to property, or rather, all property is owned by the collective and is under strict direct democratic control (all that affects you,  you should be entitled to affect). Libertarianistic anarchy is just feodalism at best and warlordlike despotism at worst.

>>73

Wow. That was so retarded it doesn't merit rebuttal.

You can have democracy without government? You can have collective but not private ownership? The contradicitions here are hilarious and not even hidden.

>>74
Well of course you can have democracy without government and laws.  Among your friends and family, do you decide by direct vote or by coercion?
Collective ownership. We in my city own the parks together. We are all responsible for their maintanence and we uphold this by paying taxes. Of course there will always be stuff you own by yourself, like your clothes and your toothbrush, but that is selfevident and i thought a academic as yourself would have picked that up.

>>75
Among my friends and family, I do whatever I want, if they want to do something else, fine, but we don't take votes. We discuss until we come to agreement.

How can an imaginary thing own something? Collectives are fictive, individuals are real.

And I've talked to your type before. The other guy used the word "possession" to differentiate. And interestingly, they used the toothbrush as an example as well. Ever trolled the FSP forums?

hitler changed the name of the party when he became leader to make it appeal to the dissilusioned german workers during the depression. there were no socialist aspects to the nazi party, it was spin/PR to improve marketability.
btw 9, totalitarianism is found in all political ideologies. Pure Marist theory (ie extream socialism) dictates that there would be no state whatso ever, that the workers would govern themselves. it is Maxism-Leninism and stalinism (if there is such a thing, it was just a totalitarian contiuism of Marxist-Leninism) that brings aobut the ideas of state control.

hitler and stalin were both totalitarian, but they were in no ways ideolgically similar.

Anarchism can be both collective and idividualistic, ie anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are two broad anarchit groupings. seriously people read some books before answering questions on political ideology.

anarchism isnt the opposit of anything it is the extream of everything. (except liberalism who see the state as fundamental to ensuring freedom, although in some cases a necessary evil as in more classical liberal forms)

>>76
You discuss until you reach an agreement. And if complete agreement could be reached you would vote. You know what i mean stop maing yourself stupider than you are.

"How can an imaginary thing own something? Collectives are fictive, individuals are real."
Yeah, who ever heard about a company ever owning anything, or even being real? Or wait, you count that as an individual?

*if complete agreement could NOT be reached