And here comes the Socialism (1 Viewer)

[aociswundumho]

So your understanding is that there can be extremist leftists, but never such a thing as extreme rightists- and Nazis, despite their own proclamation that they are rightists, were actually leftists.

But Hitler explicitly rejected Marxism and socialism, calling it a Jewish ideology, and Nazi policy promoted private property, nationalism, racial hierarchy, and authoritarianism—much like Trumpism today, and core features of far-right fascism, not socialism.

There were no private property rights in Nazi Germany. If the Nazis wanted something you owned, then you gave it up or you would be charged with high treason and placed in a concentration camp. There was no justice available in the court system, it was all controlled by the Nazis. Look up Hugo Junkers.

The first victims in Nazi concentration camps were leftists, not capitalists.

It's not unusual for a leftist government to put other leftists in concentration camps.

The word "socialist" in the Nazi Party name was largely propaganda aimed at appealing to the working class and stealing support from actual leftist movements- again much like Trumpism today.

The original name of the party was The German Workers' Party.

But in practice, the Nazis abolished trade unions,

No, they nationalized them. Hitler supported unions, but you can't have independent unions in a socialist state, and no socialist state has had independent unions.

murdered socialists and communists,

No, they murdered Marxists.

There are many different kinds of socialism.

But socialists and communists joined the Nazis because they had so much in common.

Principles of social Darwinism, and leaving the strong free to eat the weak for lunch just like in the freedom of the jungle, are at the heart of Nazi ideology. These are rightist, not leftist, ideals:

You're wrong. They come from the left. It was the progressive movement in America that gave us eugenics way before Hitler. American progressives were passing compulsory sterilization laws in order to prevent undesirables from reproducing:

Progressives saw sterilization as having natural advantages over traditional methods of helping the poor, such as charity. Sterilization was "scientific" -- its rationale could be found in the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who mused that superior people, like superior crops and farm animals, were the product of good breeding. The term "gene" had not yet been coined -- among the surprises in Bruinius' book is that the science and the word "genetics" were born of the pseudoscience eugenics, and not vice versa -- but any well-read person could understand that if you wanted to rid the world of inferior people, you ought to stop them from passing on their characteristics to future generations. Whereas charity only prolonged and deepened the problem of poverty by allowing the "unfit" among us to survive and procreate, sterilization presented what you might call a permanent, final solution.

That's your history, not mine.

 

[ataraxia]

There were no private property rights in Nazi Germany. If the Nazis wanted something you owned, then you gave it up or you would be charged with high treason and placed in a concentration camp. There was no justice available in the court system, it was all controlled by the Nazis. Look up Hugo Junkers.



It's not unusual for a leftist government to put other leftists in concentration camps.



The original name of the party was The German Workers' Party.



No, they nationalized them. Hitler supported unions, but you can't have independent unions in a socialist state, and no socialist state has had independent unions.



No, they murdered Marxists.

There are many different kinds of socialism.

But socialists and communists joined the Nazis because they had so much in common.



You're wrong. They come from the left. It was the progressive movement in America that gave us eugenics way before Hitler. American progressives were passing compulsory sterilization laws in order to prevent undesirables from reproducing:



That's your history, not mine.

I see. So in your world, there is no such thing as an extreme rightist?

 

[aociswundumho]

I see. So in your world, there is no such thing as an extreme rightist?

I'm an extreme rightist.

 

[ataraxia]

There were no private property rights in Nazi Germany. If the Nazis wanted something you owned, then you gave it up or you would be charged with high treason and placed in a concentration camp. There was no justice available in the court system, it was all controlled by the Nazis. Look up Hugo Junkers.

How is that different than Trump now?

The original name of the party was The German Workers' Party.

Yep- propaganda. He killed all their leaders once he got into power. He just used them to get to power, and then finished them off once he got in- much like Trump.

A Notorious Part of History: May 1933: The Dissolution of Labor Unions in Nazi/Fascist Germany | American Postal Workers Union

apwu.org

But here he is meeting and greeting with the captains of industry:

 

[ataraxia]

I'm an extreme rightist.

So you think you're as extreme as it gets? Would you call for suspension of habeas corpus or assassination of union leaders?

 

[ataraxia]

I'm an extreme rightist.

Here is the standard definition of "rightist": "right wing is characterized by an emphasis on notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".

Left–right political spectrum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Would you say you are extreme in holding those positions?

 

[aociswundumho]

But here he is meeting and greeting with the captains of industry:

Yes, because he had big plans and he wasn't going to make the same mistake every Marxist government does. Marxists will murder the owners of the business, and they put party stooges in charge, and the whole industry goes down the shitter. Hitler was smart enough to let the owners live and give them rewards, and in return they do what the Nazis want for the good of Germany. You get state control without the headaches of ownership.

 

[aociswundumho]

So you think you're as extreme as it gets? Would you call for suspension of habeas corpus or assassination of union leaders?

No. Why do you think those are right wing positions?

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, because he had big plans and he wasn't going to make the same mistake every Marxist government does. Marxists will murder the owners of the business, and they put party stooges in charge, and the whole industry goes down the shitter. Hitler was smart enough to let the owners live and give them rewards, and in return they do what the Nazis want for the good of Germany. You get state control without the headaches of ownership.

You think industry can work without a government and system of laws? Any examples?

 

[ataraxia]

No. Why do you think those are right wing positions?

So Trump and Hitler are not rightists in your world. Who is?

 

[aociswundumho]

You think industry can work without a government and system of laws? Any examples?

Sure, the lex mercatoria was a system of private law and private courts which lasted for about 600 years. It was fast, cheap, and produced fair decisions.

 

[aociswundumho]

So Trump and Hitler are not rightists in your world. Who is?

Javier Milei.

Deep down Trump is a NYC liberal.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

You're forgetting that Hitler formed an alliance with Stalin.

You mean after forming the Anti Comintern Pact in 1936, three years before the invasion of Poland. Because Hitler... did not like leftists.

Doesn't matter what they say they believe in, it matters what they do, and if they push for state control over the economy, then yes they are are socialist. It can't be any other way.

What they believe in matters a great deal because it directly affects their policy and their decisions. Some ideas and policies won't even be considered because they're so repugnant to the ideals of the government in charge. Capitalism existed in Germany because Germany was willing to allow industrialists to own their property, so long as it served the interests of the state. The Soviet Union seized control of the factories to let workers run them. Big differences come from minor disagreements.

No, Hitler was a man of the left. He goes on your side.

Hitler literally sided with the members of the Freikorps. The people who murdered Rosa Luxembourg. I don't know what world you think a Socialist would side with the people who crushed the Spartacus League, but it isn't reality. Hitler was a member of the far right. Simple as that.

 

[aociswundumho]

You mean after forming the Anti Comintern Pact in 1936, three years before the invasion of Poland. Because Hitler... did not like leftists.

For a long time Hitler's best and closest friend was Ernst Rohm, who was a leftist.

Capitalism existed in Germany because Germany was willing to allow industrialists to own their property, so long as it served the interests of the state.

1) There were no property rights in Nazi Germany. If Hitler wanted your business to do something, you either did it or you would end up in a concentration camp. No property rights means no capitalism.

2) "so long as it served the interests of the state" is another way of saying "socialism".

The Soviet Union seized control of the factories to let workers run them.

That lasted for about 1 or 2 years. Then for the next 68 years is was central planning.

Hitler literally sided with the members of the Freikorps.

So? Rohm was a member of the Freikorps and he was left wing.

The people who murdered Rosa Luxembourg.

I guess since Stalin murdered Trotsky that makes Stalin right wing.

I don't know what world you think a Socialist would side with the people who crushed the Spartacus League, but it isn't reality.

They were Marxists, and Hitler saw them as political competitors. Again, leftists often murder each other over trivial differences.

 

[joluoto]

All cheer Comrade Trump, the lifetime leader of the Democratic People's Republic of America (DPRA), who brought the revolution to the proletarian masses and crushed the power of the bourgeoise!

 

[Peacenik]

Anyone who loves and supports their race is practicing collectivism.

You should be fine with both statements.

Absurd at face value.

Anyone who tries to justify racism is lying to themselves.

 

[Questerr]

Lovers of socialism like yourself, can never accept any link between fascism and your socialist fantasies. If you read the 25 point program of the NSDAP, you will see nearly a dozen that socialists like yourself would endorse completely.

You’ll also find lots of points conservatives would love to see implemented.

 

[Fletch]

You’ll also find lots of points conservatives would love to see implemented.

If you view socialism on a spectrum of left to right, communism would be to the left and fascism to the right. The two poles are just opposite sides of the same collectivist coin. Look at China for example. Do they more resemble communism or fascism?

 

[Questerr]

If you view socialism on a spectrum of left to right, communism would be to the left and fascism to the right. The two poles are just opposite sides of the same collectivist coin. Look at China for example. Do they more resemble communism or fascism?

Fascism given the fact that they have embraced private ownership and the existence of billionaires.

The “left-right” dynamic has been outdated for a long time anyways. There’s a reason why a two axis model is used nowadays, like the “political compass”.

 

[Fletch]

Fascism given the fact that they have embraced private ownership and the existence of billionaires.

The “left-right” dynamic has been outdated for a long time anyways. There’s a reason why a two axis model is used nowadays, like the “political compass”.

I agree, they are more fascist than communist now, but notice the ease of transition from one to another. Its almost like they are two sides of the same collectivist coin.

 

[Questerr]

I agree, they are more fascist than communist now, but notice the ease of transition from one to another. Its almost like they are two sides of the same collectivist coin.

It’s almost as if they are both “up”. Incidentally, as is conservatism given its collectivist views on social issues.