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.

“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.