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.

Hitler was a right winger.  Though it can be said that his policies took some ideas from socialism.

>>81
Especially if you think some of the corporations as parts of the government.

Yeah, now it makes sense.

>>66
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.

‘Crazy pinko fuckers’ such as, presumably, Hitler. And no, ‘many’ democrats are not socialist. You simply believe this because of your misguided and frankly ignorant perception of what socialism is. I’m not a socialist; socialism is an economic model which in my opinion doesn’t work. That doesn’t mean that I’m not going to take you apart for your bull-headed ignorance.

”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.”

Hmmm, lets see. Add up all the true democracies in the world, and count the number which are as right-wing as the United States. The United states has NEVER EVER elected a left-wing leader. As in ever ever. The United States has NEVER EVER elected a left wing government. As in never ever. The United States is one of the most capitalistic nations on earth, and one where even being secular is frowned upon. But no, it’s not a right-wing political climate at all, is it?


”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.”

Complete bullshit. I’ll explain why.

First of all, making one step to the left IS NOT SOCIALIST. If you have a free market economy with limited government controls, but happen to have national health care and education, you’re not socialist.

Secondly, you’re foolish idea that left means socialism is mirrored in your belief that right means capitalism. Left and right are political terms, not economic terms. Socialism and capitalism however are exclusively economic terms. Yes, left-wing parties tend to have socialist leanings, and right wing parties tend to have capitalist leanings, but the terms are not mutually exclusive. You yourself are claiming that Hitler, who was right-wing, was socialist, and that the Democrats, who support a capitalist economy, are left-wing. Yet at the same time you want us to believe that once you are in any way to the left, you’re automatically socialist, and vice versa? You’re managing to make two incorrect statements that actually contradict each other. Wow, well done sir.


”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.”

Wow, that’s great, except there are plenty of capitalist dictators too. Three of those people were communists, and one was a Baathist. All 4 were as such believers in totalitarianism from the beginning; socialism was merely their economic policy. Since Mao China has become capitalist, but it remains a one-party state. I only have to point at numerous European economies over the last 50 years which have at one point or another been inherently socialist, and yet entirely democratic. My point still stands- I cannot think of a single dictator who was a dictator because he was socialist- it’s an economic idea.

”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.”

No it’s not. Regulation can mean anything. Applying the law of the land (for instance the constitution) to business is regulation. Having standards which a business must meet is regulation. It’s not socialism to prosecute the major figures at Enron, for example, but it is regulation. The more ‘laissez-faire’ an economy is, the more capitalist it is, that is true. But that simply means that the state should not try to control/influence market conditions. In practice, no state is completely removed from the economy. What’s more, getting involved does not instantly make you socialist. Pure capitalism does not exist; there are varying degrees. Furthermore, not being capitalist does not mean being socialist. There is more to it than how free the market is; whether (and how much) business can be privately owned is important as well. For instance, Jewish people could not own business in Nazi Germany, and so instantly that means that the market was not free. However, private companies were still the basis of the economy, and market forces operated within the country.


”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. “

Look, if you seriously think that a three-line definition is the be-all and end-all of a political theory, then you need to GTFO. Don’t be such a fool. It makes you look like an absolute joke when you state that anything beyond a summary you got from Wikipedia is not relevant. Good lord.


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

No he wasn’t. He had just 33% of the vote and simply appointed by Von Hindenburg (the president who did it due to political intrigues, his fear of the communists and the misguided belief that he could be controlled). He then banned the main opposition party, outlawed press and arrested its leader (after the Reichstag fire), and only then secured a democratic majority. History FTW. Get your facts straight.


”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.'”

What? God, that’s such crap. There is a reason that the socialist concept is designed with the sole intention of benefiting the lower classes and poor at the expense of the wealthy- it’s part of the reason it doesn’t work. That is what it’s meant to do, and what its followers believe it will do, so shut up.


 “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.'”

You know what I said about simplistic definitions and how they expose your general ignorance? Yeah, more of that.


“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.”

Arguably a legitimate election? He banned the largest opposition party for crying out loud, and before he had implemented ANY of his economic ideas had become dictator. He also spoke openly about destroying democracy at the earliest opportunity, long before the 1933 election, and so was clearly a despot, so he actually believed in despotism.

The communist party in China claims to believe in socialism. By your flawed reasoning, it’s just a ‘brand’ of socialism- one than believes in a free-market economy and private enterprise, and which is capitalist by all accounts.

If all you can do is flaunt dictionary definitions like they’re gospel and produce simplistic babble which misses the point, and intend to pursue political debate in the future, then prepared to get laughed at.

Or possibly elected president, if the Republicans run out of decent candidates or your dad happened to have the job previously.

THere is no such thing as the left-right scale. It is jargon and a very poor approximation of a person's political opinion. Unless of course that person strives to be as left or right as possible and doesn't care about anything else, in which case they probably suffer from a psychological illness and their judgement is in question.

>>83
"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.

"‘Crazy pinko fuckers’ such as, presumably, Hitler."

Yes, exactly.  Hitler was a socialist.  (Crazy pinko fucker.)

"And no, ‘many’ democrats are not socialist."

Yes they are.  They advocate all manner of socialist programs, and in general more government control of the economy, and in some cases individuals and their private lives as well.

"You simply believe this because of your misguided and frankly ignorant perception of what socialism is."

If you are to the left of center, and advocate socializing a few industries, you are at the very least somewhat describable as 'socialist'. 

”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.”

"Hmmm, lets see. Add up all the true democracies in the world, and count the number which are as right-wing as the United States. The United states has NEVER EVER elected a left-wing leader. As in ever ever. The United States has NEVER EVER elected a left wing government. As in never ever. The United States is one of the most capitalistic nations on earth, and one where even being secular is frowned upon. But no, it’s not a right-wing political climate at all, is it?"

What a load of bullshit.  Yes, there are a lot of religious nuts here, but there are also plenty of crazy pinko bitches of various kinds too, and believe it or not, they have won elections in the past.  Your claim that the United States has never elected a left wing government EVER is completely ridiculous.  What would it take for you to think that americans have elected leftists? Do you think that the government isn't 'leftist' unless the democrats have filled all positions in government, or at least control the senate, the congress, and the presidency?

”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.”

"Complete bullshit. I’ll explain why.

First of all, making one step to the left IS NOT SOCIALIST. If you have a free market economy with limited government controls, but happen to have national health care and education, you’re not socialist."

You are blurring a very big distinction.  We have public education because certain political figures of the past thought it was necessary for the preservation of other liberties.  National health care doesn't have jack shit to do with preserving liberty, it has to do with violating it.  The fact that you throw the two together like that is laughable.

Secondly, we are not taking just 'one' step to the left, we have taken MANY steps to the left.  Social security, socialized medicine (if the dems get their way), all manner of regulations for various industries (especially firearms dealers), welfare & other various social safety nets, the list just goes on and on.  The government is playing a massive role in the economy, and spends a huge portion of the national income, once you factor in local and state taxes along with the federal ones. 

"Secondly, you’re foolish idea that left means socialism is mirrored in your belief that right means capitalism. Left and right are political terms, not economic terms."

'Left' and 'right' are indeed political terms - with implications for the economic systems that tend to go along with the terms.     

"You yourself are claiming that Hitler, who was right-wing, was socialist, and that the Democrats, who support a capitalist economy, are left-wing."

Hitler was not right wing, not in the economic sense of the term, anyway.  'Right-wing', in the word's economic sense, tends to refer to those who think that the government should play less of a role in the economy.  Hitler did not think the government should play less of a role in the economy.  In Hitler's brand of socialism, the government played a very significant role in the economy indeed - the government and the corporations were practically in bed together.

"Wow, that’s great, except there are plenty of capitalist dictators too."

Did I ever say there weren't? Anyway, I think you would be rather hard pressed to find ANY 'capitalist dictators' who were anywhere near as violent, ruthless, brutal, or oppressive as many of the socialists/fascists I listed above. 

"Three of those people were communists, and one was a Baathist. All 4 were as such believers in totalitarianism from the beginning; socialism was merely their economic policy."

Yes.  Socialism was their economic policy.  Thus, they were socialists. 

"My point still stands- I cannot think of a single dictator who was a dictator because he was socialist- it’s an economic idea."

An economic idea that requires authoritarianism to be implimented. 

"No it’s not. Regulation can mean anything. Applying the law of the land (for instance the constitution) to business is regulation."

Yes, but the question is 'how much' regulation? If you have relatively lower amounts of regulation, taxation, and control of the economic sphere of things in general, you are more capitalist than centrist or socialist.

"Having standards which a business must meet is regulation. It’s not socialism to prosecute the major figures at Enron, for example, but it is regulation. The more ‘laissez-faire’ an economy is, the more capitalist it is, that is true. But that simply means that the state should not try to control/influence market conditions. In practice, no state is completely removed from the economy. What’s more, getting involved does not instantly make you socialist."

I'm not trying to say government involvement to any extent makes you socialist.  If that was true, wouldn't every government in history be socialist? I am not saying that.  What I am saying is that you need to have some sense of proportion.  If the government is 'center-left' it is clearly more socialist than capitalist, for example.  So for you to say that the democrats, a party describable as 'center-left' are 'right-wing', is completely absurd.

"Furthermore, not being capitalist does not mean being socialist."

Right.  It means you are either centrist, leftist, or socialist, depending on how far you think one must go to the left in order to be called a 'socialist'.

"Look, if you seriously think that a three-line definition is the be-all and end-all of a political theory, then you need to GTFO. Don’t be such a fool. It makes you look like an absolute joke when you state that anything beyond a summary you got from Wikipedia is not relevant. Good lord."

Don't you be a fool either.  Do you think all socialists are benevolent well meaning folks who just want to drop food out of the sky for all the poor people? Don't be such a fool.  There are plenty of socialist assholes.  Socialism does NOT specify what is to be done with the economy once the government controls it.  I was right.

"No he wasn’t. He had just 33% of the vote"

Yet still won the election. 

”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.'”

"That is what it’s meant to do, and what its followers believe it will do, so shut up."

Not necessarilly.  The simple fact that many socialists think a certain way, does not mean that if you don't think as such that you aren't a 'socialist'.  You are trying to blur the feelings a bunch of people have with their political ideas.  The two are not necessarilly intertwined, and socialism doesn't, as you seem to think, require the former.

"You know what I said about simplistic definitions and how they expose your general ignorance? Yeah, more of that."

LOL.  I don't see any substantiation or proof yet, just mindless emotional drivel from someone who doesn't want to lose the argument.  Plz, don't respond until you have some actual facts to back yourself up with.

"Arguably a legitimate election? He banned the largest opposition party for crying out loud, and before he had implemented ANY of his economic ideas had become dictator."

Yes, he banned the largest opposition party - after being elected & attaining the power to do so via the election.

"He also spoke openly about destroying democracy at the earliest opportunity, long before the 1933 election, and so was clearly a despot, so he actually believed in despotism."

A democratically elected despot, sure.  The fact that someone believes in despotism does not mean that they can't run for office and become elected democratically.

"If all you can do is flaunt dictionary definitions like they’re gospel and produce simplistic babble which misses the point, and intend to pursue political debate in the future, then prepared to get laughed at."

And conversely, if all you can do is say that a want to help the poor is a requirement to be socialist without any substantiation whatsoever, be prepared to get laughed at.

“Yes they are.  They advocate all manner of socialist programs, and in general more government control of the economy, and in some cases individuals and their private lives as well.”

No they don’t. Of course, we have no idea what you believe constitutes socialism, but clearly it’s something which is discordant with more widely held beliefs about what is/isn’t socialism.

 
”If you are to the left of center, and advocate socializing a few industries, you are at the very least somewhat describable as 'socialist'. “

No you’re not. You are precisely that: left of centre. You cannot support a free-market economy based for the most part on the capitalist model and be socialist. If you have some social programs, then you simply have social programs. It doesn’t make you socialist. Allow me to be very clear: it simply doesn’t.


”What a load of bullshit.  Yes, there are a lot of religious nuts here, but there are also plenty of crazy pinko bitches of various kinds too, and believe it or not, they have won elections in the past.  Your claim that the United States has never elected a left wing government EVER is completely ridiculous.  What would it take for you to think that americans have elected leftists? Do you think that the government isn't 'leftist' unless the democrats have filled all positions in government, or at least control the senate, the congress, and the presidency?”

No, but a government which supported and then implemented notably left-wing policies would be something. The fact is, there has never been one.



”You are blurring a very big distinction.  We have public education because certain political figures of the past thought it was necessary for the preservation of other liberties.  National health care doesn't have jack shit to do with preserving liberty, it has to do with violating it.  The fact that you throw the two together like that is laughable.”

I never said it had anything to do with liberty, but the fact is that you can regulate education without having to have state-education. State education exists because it guarantees what is considered a basic right to citizens. Some governments view healthcare the same way. For example, in the UK there is both private and national healthcare, but the Labour government is now trying to introduce private companies into the education sector in the hope that it will form the basis of a new model. Labour is supposed to be a left-wing party, but now supports and encourages private education, whilst at the same time resolutely defending and modernising a much criticises national healthcare service. It’s an ideal example of how the simplistic view you subscribe to simply don’t hold true in the real world.



”Secondly, we are not taking just 'one' step to the left, we have taken MANY steps to the left.  Social security, socialized medicine (if the dems get their way), all manner of regulations for various industries (especially firearms dealers), welfare & other various social safety nets, the list just goes on and on.  The government is playing a massive role in the economy, and spends a huge portion of the national income, once you factor in local and state taxes along with the federal ones.”

Um, just so you know, if anything the U.S. economy is becoming more capitalist, as the move away from FDRs ‘New Deal’ towards neoliberalism over the last 25 years shows. What you are saying simply isn’t true.


”Hitler was not right wing, not in the economic sense of the term, anyway.  'Right-wing', in the word's economic sense, tends to refer to those who think that the government should play less of a role in the economy.  Hitler did not think the government should play less of a role in the economy.  In Hitler's brand of socialism, the government played a very significant role in the economy indeed - the government and the corporations were practically in bed together.”

And does that make him socialist? As I said before, no, because socialism is not a 3 line theory. Once you stop using a simplistic definition to make your point, you will understand this.


Did I ever say there weren't? Anyway, I think you would be rather hard pressed to find ANY 'capitalist dictators' who were anywhere near as violent, ruthless, brutal, or oppressive as many of the socialists/fascists I listed above. 

Well, there are several notable capitalist dictators, none admittedly as notorious as Stalin. But then again, slavery in Africa was the result of capitalist avarice at its most potent, as was most subsequent colonial activity. You don’t need to be a dictator to be a bastard.

”Yes.  Socialism was their economic policy.  Thus, they were socialists.”

Yes, but they were dictators because they were communist. There are lots of socialists all over the world (including, according to you, the Democrats) who support democracy. Hence, socialism /= dictatorship.


”An economic idea that requires authoritarianism to be implimented.”

You know, I did say something which you conveniently left out of that post:

‘I only have to point at numerous European economies over the last 50 years which have at one point or another been inherently socialist, and yet entirely democratic.’

That would be me, destroying your ‘point’.


”Yes, but the question is 'how much' regulation? If you have relatively lower amounts of regulation, taxation, and control of the economic sphere of things in general, you are more capitalist than centrist or socialist.”

Indeed, and if you support private enterprise and competition, then you would be more capitalist than socialist.


”I'm not trying to say government involvement to any extent makes you socialist.  If that was true, wouldn't every government in history be socialist? I am not saying that.  What I am saying is that you need to have some sense of proportion.  If the government is 'center-left' it is clearly more socialist than capitalist, for example.  So for you to say that the democrats, a party describable as 'center-left' are 'right-wing', is completely absurd.”

MY point was that YOU need to have some sense of proportion. If Hitler supported private enterprise and free-market conditions and did not seek to improve the lives of workers at the expense of private enterprise, then he was not socialist. He borrowed ideas from socialism, but used them to completely different ends, which is why a simplistic definition of any theory is foolish.


Right.  It means you are either centrist, leftist, or socialist, depending on how far you think one must go to the left in order to be called a 'socialist'.

You see, this is the problem. You’re defining your whole world by a left/right model which was dead by 1918. It didn’t apply in Hitlers time an it certainly doesn’t now.


”Don't you be a fool either.  Do you think all socialists are benevolent well meaning folks who just want to drop food out of the sky for all the poor people? Don't be such a fool.  There are plenty of socialist assholes.  Socialism does NOT specify what is to be done with the economy once the government controls it.  I was right.”

I have already said that I do not believe socialism works, and hence that I do not support socialism. I can only think of one country where it did (Sweden), and even there it was in a limited sense. Some sort of cross between elements of socialism in a fundamentally capitalist economy seems the best way forward, though no-one has ever really struck a perfect balance (and its doubtful anyone ever will- politics are never perfect).

Furthermore, if you even went to wikipedia you’d realise that their ‘definition’/summary of socialism itself describes it as a “broad array” of theories, recognising the huge complexity in defining such an opaque term. What’s more, I can tell you that any respectable description of socialism (i.e. any worth quoting in a discussion) would make some reference to its belief that property and distribution of wealth should be subject to public control- i.e. no private enterprise with the state owning the means of production.


”Yet still won the election. “

He didn’t ‘win’ the election. He didn’t have a majority. Von Hindenburg (the president) simply formed a government using his executive power because parliament lacked a decisive coalition. No single party won the election, and even beyond that, no-one could form a majority coalition.


”Not necessarilly.  The simple fact that many socialists think a certain way, does not mean that if you don't think as such that you aren't a 'socialist'.  You are trying to blur the feelings a bunch of people have with their political ideas.  The two are not necessarilly intertwined, and socialism doesn't, as you seem to think, require the former.”

Fair enough; I don’t claim that all socialist believe the same thing, but I think it’s fair to say that most socialists follow socialism because they BELIEVE it means a better deal for the ordinary man. It’s not simply a notion held by “some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists”, as you claim.



”LOL.  I don't see any substantiation or proof yet, just mindless emotional drivel from someone who doesn't want to lose the argument.  Plz, don't respond until you have some actual facts to back yourself up with.”

What, like pointing out that even books that criticise socialism don’t base it on a dictionary definition? Or that in fact you will never EVER find an academically respectable study on socialism or indeed ANY OTHER POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC THEORY which bases all its conclusions on a dictionary definition?

Do you mean ‘facts’ like those that show you were talking through your arse about the manner in which Hitler gained power? Stuff like that? Or the way in which every one of your arguments is based on a left/right model which is so outdated its not funny, and only taught in political science in a historical sense?


”Yes, he banned the largest opposition party - after being elected & attaining the power to do so via the election.”

You said:

‘Hitler was a democratically elected leader.  He was elected by the people in what was arguably a legitimate election.’

Hitler was not elected in to government. He was appointed by the executive power of the president, as his party did not have a majority and was unable to form one. To be a ‘democratically elected leader’ is to gain power in a democratic fashion, which he did not. The democratic system had failed, and as such the president used his executive power to override it.


”A democratically elected despot, sure.  The fact that someone believes in despotism does not mean that they can't run for office and become elected democratically.”

See above.


”And conversely, if all you can do is say that a want to help the poor is a requirement to be socialist without any substantiation whatsoever, be prepared to get laughed at.”

I didn’t say it was a requirement; it’s just a characteristic. You see, unlike you I’m not trying to define socialism in some narrow ‘tick the boxes’ fashion; nor would I with regard to any political/economic theory. Given that the worlds leading political scientists cannot agree on short definitions for just about any of the major political theories is an indication that debating with one you pulled out of a dictionary is, as I said, foolish.

Wow. Economically speaking he was more of a centrist, not a socialist. He was a despot, obviously, but he didn't want to control the people by controlling the economy, he controlled them by, you know, killing the opposition and eliminating civil liberties and brainwashing the hitler youth to make it seem like their nationalist goals were heroic and noble. Democrats are more economically conservative than Hitler.

"killing the opposition and eliminating civil liberties and brainwashing the youth to make it seem like their national socialist goals were heroic and noble"
Socialism.

>>88
Oh you are clever, actually changing my words. No, that has nothing to do with Socialism. And just because "Socialist" is the second half of Nazi doesn't mean that he was Socialist. Are the current Republicans in office actual Republicans? No, in fact I have heard that many a time on this very board, whenever someone calls Republicans retards there are 20 responses of "gtfo faggot libral the Bush administration and the congressmen are NEOCONS NOT REPUBLICANS DON'T EVER CALL THEM REPUBLICANS GRRRRR INTERNET TOUGH GUY"

Hilter was not a socialist for 2 important reasons.

1. He say socialists as a threat and jailed them

2. He Was racist and racism is not part of the in Socialist idiology.

you right about that.  
Hilter took a lot of diffrent ideas from diffrent political idiologies

Heil Finklestein!
Heil Katz!
Heil Moskowitz!
Heil Szenes!
Heil Weiss!
Heil Juden alles!
Sieg Heil!

sozis uber alles

>>90
Both points have nothing to do with him be socialist.

I believe he was technically socialist, but his brand of socialism is far different and possible far more radical then anything we know socialism to be today.

If we can consider Hitler a socialist (which is correct in my opinion) we can also consider most governments (good or bad) to be socialist and it opens up new positive examples for socialism to counteract the new negative ones. This argument no matter its outcome changes nothing.

>>94
 unfortuntly you are cherrypicking facts and ignoring facts that are inconvenent. 

Fact remain that hitler saw left wingers as threats and jailed them.

You forget that socialism has no place for racism.  racism is a radical right wing trait. 

make no mistake I do respect your opinion, however you need to do some more reasearch.

H

socialist myth busted.

>>95
Racism can exist in a socialist government if you make one assumption; that the people you are persecuting are sub-human and don’t deserve socialism's equality. Do you think people like Hitler actually view Jews/other races as people? What would you say if I told you that my cat deserves the same equal opportunity that everyone else is getting? You would of course laugh at such a thought. This is how fascist’s view people of other races, they do not give them the status of man and therefore do not give them the benefits. They instead give them the status of my cat.

Saw left wingers as threats? Yes he sure did, but it was based on his racism not on politics. Left wingers tend to be anti-racist but im trying to tell you that’s no the determining trait of what makes a person left or right. Regardless of what people think of America’s politicians, most if not all are anti-racist, does this mean we are all left wingers?

>>97


I demand healthcare for this guy's cat!

>>98
Racist.

>>99

You can't deny medical treatment just because the cat's racist.

>>84

True.

Especially Hitler wanted to mobilize all the people politically. In this case, I think it is too socialist.

Hitler was all about DER VOLK and stuff.

Nazism = National socialism
Communism = International socialism

>>100
You are racist.

>>86
"“Yes they are.  They advocate all manner of socialist programs, and in general more government control of the economy, and in some cases individuals and their private lives as well.”

"No they don’t."

Yes, actually they do.  If you are going to refute my statement, how about you offer something a little more significant than:  'nuh uh!!!1'  ?

"Of course, we have no idea what you believe constitutes socialism,"

I have already told you what I believe constitutes socialism.  I gave you several definitions from acceptable sources.

"but clearly it’s something which is discordant with more widely held beliefs about what is/isn’t socialism."

What is the widely held view is really beside the point.  It was the widely held view that the earth was flat a while ago, this does not make it true.  I have acceptable sourcing stating that my view is the correct view of what socialism is.  Thus, it is fine for me to refer to those who fit the bill as 'socialists.'

"No you’re not. You are precisely that: left of centre. You cannot support a free-market economy based for the most part on the capitalist model and be socialist.  If you have some social programs, then you simply have social programs. It doesn’t make you socialist. Allow me to be very clear: it simply doesn’t."

I'm not saying having social programs makes one socialist.  It is all about proportion.  How much of every dollar does the government spend? How much control does the government exert over the economy through regulatory and or other measures?  You need a sense of proportion, and you need to take these things into account before you make a decision. 

"No, but a government which supported and then implemented notably left-wing policies would be something. The fact is, there has never been one."

Yes there has.  FDR implimented many noteable leftist policies.  Many of the policies he implimented had respective mirrors in the Soviet Union.  What about social security? What about welfare? Your assertion that no leftist government has ever been in power or promoted/implimented ideas that could be considered 'leftist' is really absurd.  We have many social programs right now, and the governments who put them into play were indeed leftist governments, or at least acted as though leftist.

"Labour is supposed to be a left-wing party, but now supports and encourages private education, whilst at the same time resolutely defending and modernising a much criticises national healthcare service. It’s an ideal example of how the simplistic view you subscribe to simply don’t hold true in the real world."

What the fuck? So because some groups are of mixed political views, I am wrong? I don't fucking think so, sorry.  There is a word to describe those people:  centrists. 

"Um, just so you know, if anything the U.S. economy is becoming more capitalist, as the move away from FDRs ‘New Deal’ towards neoliberalism over the last 25 years shows. What you are saying simply isn’t true."

Oh? I guess you conveniently ignored the fact that 47% of the national income is consumed by taxes.  What percent of the national income would it take for you to say we were no longer capitalist?  What percentage would it take for you to say we are socialist?
(http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm)

"And does that make him socialist? As I said before, no, because socialism is not a 3 line theory. Once you stop using a simplistic definition to make your point, you will understand this."

I am going to continue to use the actual definition of the word, rather than whatever vague unpronounced definitions of what socialism really is that you seem to hold. 

"Well, there are several notable capitalist dictators, none admittedly as notorious as Stalin. But then again, slavery in Africa was the result of capitalist avarice at its most potent, as was most subsequent colonial activity. You don’t need to be a dictator to be a bastard."

Of course.  I am not saying you DO need to be a dictator to be a bastard.  You should also take note of the fact that, once the libertarian ideas of the american founders reached Africa, they helped the movement to dump slavery there. 

"Yes, but they were dictators because they were communist. There are lots of socialists all over the world (including, according to you, the Democrats) who support democracy. Hence, socialism /= dictatorship."

I didn't say it did equate to dictatorship. 


"You know, I did say something which you conveniently left out of that post:

‘I only have to point at numerous European economies over the last 50 years which have at one point or another been inherently socialist, and yet entirely democratic.’

That would be me, destroying your ‘point’."

Democratic does not mean non-authoritarian.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=authoritarian)


"MY point was that YOU need to have some sense of proportion."

Really? So was mine. 

"If Hitler supported private enterprise and free-market conditions and did not seek to improve the lives of workers at the expense of private enterprise, then he was not socialist."

The desire to improve the lives of workers or lack thereof does not disqualify Hitler from being considered a socialist.

"He borrowed ideas from socialism, but used them to completely different ends, which is why a simplistic definition of any theory is foolish."

The ends to which he used them to are irrelevant.  The definition does not necessitate that the socialist economic policies he impliments be used to forward some particular ideal.  The definition is the definition, and that is all there is to it. 

"You see, this is the problem. You’re defining your whole world by a left/right model which was dead by 1918. It didn’t apply in Hitlers time an it certainly doesn’t now."

No I'm not.  I use the left-right scale purely in terms of economics, and really not much else.  The fact is Hitler was definitely not a right-winger in economic sense of the word that I subscribe to.  Don't try to push Hitler into the economic 'right-wing' camp, he doesn't belong here. 

You can call the economic 'right' economic libertarianism, or fiscal conservatism, or whatever else.  It really doesn't matter to me.  I just happened to be using the term 'right-wing' to describe this set of views.   If you'd rather I used the term economic libertarianism or economic liberalism, that'd be fine with me as well.

"He didn’t ‘win’ the election. He didn’t have a majority."

He had a higher percentage than the other candidates.

"Fair enough; I don’t claim that all socialist believe the same thing, but I think it’s fair to say that most socialists follow socialism because they BELIEVE it means a better deal for the ordinary man. It’s not simply a notion held by “some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists”, as you claim."

Fine.  But nor is it a *requirement* to be a 'socialist' as you asserted.

"Or the way in which every one of your arguments is based on a left/right model which is so outdated its not funny, and only taught in political science in a historical sense?"

As I said before, I consider the right/left scale to apply only to economics.  If you'd rather I replaced 'right' with 'economic libertarianism', or 'fiscal conservatism', that'd be fine with me.  It was merely my choice of wording, nothing more.  When I say 'right', I am referring to the 'economic right'.  To stop the confusion, I'll refer to it as economic libertarianism in the future.  I am not, as you say, attached to right/left.

I JUST WANT TO LLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Socialism works splendidly in theory, it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those that expect natural selection to take place in modern society. With new advances in gene manipulation and human augmentation I think that socialism could work very well for Western Nations in the future.

Because socialism takes the vote away from the retard, and in a society with widespread human augmentation, there are no retards because human beings are capital and bred for a purpose.

Hitler's awesomeness amazes me to this day.

>>106
Sounds good, in theory.

>>106

Nothing's perfect in the world of political administration. Left wing or right wing... it is all shit at the end.