• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I considered that, but discarded it.
Searching the internet for a law about humorous laws being
treated as strictly as the laws of physics, I couldn't find one.
I propose....
Skwim's Law

Well, there's also Rule 34, but that may not apply here.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
I think most of us are familiar with Godwin's Law, but for those who haven't: Godwin's law - Wikipedia

It comes up in a variety of different contexts, but much of the time it's brought up in the context of international relations and how we deal with other countries. We might single out some leader of some rogue nation, declare that he's "just like Hitler," and this somehow justifies any number of hostile or violent actions against them or their country. (i.e. "what if we could have used a drone to kill Hitler?")

It's also used in arguments and debates regarding domestic politics, as our current president has often been associated with Hitler.

So, my questions to the peanut gallery are as follows:

1. Why do people do this? What is the point?

2. Does using Hitler in the context of modern politics display an ignorance of history, WW2, who Hitler was and the nation he ruled?

3. Could it have the effect of distorting history?

4. Does a comparison to Hitler justify and validate any number of attitudes and political actions (up to and including violence, torture, and assassination) which wouldn't normally be considered justified against an ordinary human being?

5. Does one side play the Hitler card more than the other? Or are both sides (left and right) equally guilty of using it to suit their ends?

6. Does Hitler give a good name to war?

Godwin's law is just an internet meme, one of the earliest, and quite boring now.

What would have been interesting is to take some of those questions you presented and inserted "fascist" in the question. Why are people talking about "fascists"? For example. It's more ..... contemporary.

Whatever.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Lefties use it a lot against Conservatives, not knowing that Germany under hitler was a socialist country, one of their own.
Because, as everyone knows, socialist countries are well-known for wanting to criminalize trade unions, sweeping privatization and, of course, wide-scale arrests of active socialists.
 
Last edited:

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It's a nice way of saying you've "lost" the argument.

Anyway, all that aside... Hitler wasn't the worst guy on the planet at least his cruelty stopped with those whom he considered German, or closely related people. (Like Austrians, etc...) You have situations in the modern day like Iran, China, or North Korea where even that doesn't matter. Say the wrong thing and in either place and even if you're a native or of some certain pure blood of race or origin you're still getting your *** kicked. Also, worth mentioning that while Hitler is blamed for a lot of atrocity much of it was at the hands of his lieutenants and not within his daily purview. Hitler himself was a nationalist, a socialist, and very progressive. He loved animals and was a vegan. Though certainly the war had taken a toll on his mental stability and it's hard to say how much of what happened in the late years of the war was by his hands or someone else's. I'm guessing someone else's based on his personal troubles that would have effectively made him unable to be anything more than a figurehead at that juncture.

As for political leanings, I've never actually heard many people on the center or right invoking Hitler to make their point. It seems to be a bleeding heart leftist thang... :D

Hitler killed perhaps more "Disloyal" germans than any other people except perhaps jews and Russiaans.
Many right wing groups in europe are neonazis and model them selves on Hitler.
Hitler was the supreme leader, and very little happened that he neither knew about or instigated.
He even had generals shot.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hitler killed perhaps more "Disloyal" germans than any other people except perhaps jews and Russiaans.
Many right wing groups in europe are neonazis and model them selves on Hitler.
Hitler was the supreme leader, and very little happened that he neither knew about or instigated.
He even had generals shot.

Eh, was par for the course really at the time in most of the world. It's pretty exaggerated in importance either way. Anyway, Nazi's would not be right-leaning in any kind of way -- they were about social programs up the wazoo. This is just lies the left-leaning media tells people to dupe them into believing they're something different, lol. Modern leftists have abandoned only the nationalism and embraced multiculturalism, after that they're exactly the same mentally as 1930-40's Nazi's. Of course, we're only speaking ideologically not about Hitler and his goons and their personal actions which were often at variance with their advertised position.

Most of our tech sector was imported from captured German resources after the war and they not only brought designs and examples, but the people. Those people had a drastic influence on the academic sectors and most of them became Americans. They kept their socialist and progressive leanings and they colored the scientific attitude that was acceptable domestically -- of course, they abandoned the blood and soil concept when they became American's as it just wouldn't sell to country as heterogeneous as this. :D That "attitude" that they brought with them seeped down from the top of the ivy league towers down to the floor of the entire education system. That's why for the most part those ideas are extremely popular in that space and probably always will be.

I find it amusing that the media refers to the Nazi's as "right" as it couldn't be a bigger lie -- there isn't much difference between them and communists or any other similar leftist idealism. Right-leaning means: "Keep your hands off my stuff, don't change things drastically, don't screw with my religion, and enforce the law" for most right-leaning folks. Does that sound like the basis of Nazi ideology or does it sound similar to the social progressiveness of the left? Certainly not... Though, that being said, it's worth it to avoid conflating the two completely as the differences have been noted. There would be no place for multiculturalism, for example, in Nazi word-view at the time. But, honestly, to me it just comes off as an attempt to make that failed experiment more palatable to the masses. National socialism sounded really great to the German people until it wasn't. I view leftism similarly... lol
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Because, as everyone knows, socialist countries are well-known for wanting to criminalize trade unions, sweeping privatization and, of course, wide-scale arrests of active socialists.
Right in their name, national socialists. The means of production were under government control. There were many socialist government programs, the most notable being the payoff of a Volkswagen when X number of stamps filled the little book.
No one got a car, but they thought they would. The VW was designed as an inexpensive socialist car for the masses.

There wasn't sweeping privatization, just the opposite.

You list some very nasty acts of the national socialists, like the other socialist countries of China, the USSR, all former eastern block countries, Cuba and Venezuela.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Eh, was par for the course really at the time in most of the world. It's pretty exaggerated in importance either way. Anyway, Nazi's would not be right-leaning in any kind of way -- they were about social programs up the wazoo. This is just lies the left-leaning media tells people to dupe them into believing they're something different, lol. Modern leftists have abandoned only the nationalism and embraced multiculturalism, after that they're exactly the same mentally as 1930-40's Nazi's. Of course, we're only speaking ideologically not about Hitler and his goons and their personal actions which were often at variance with their advertised position.

Not exactly the same. The Nazis also targeted people with disabilities, so they wouldn't have been able to benefit from any of the social programs. They weren't exactly a welfare state either. They were at war and had labor shortages, so they wouldn't be inclined to just let people stay at home and collect money for doing nothing. The Nazis were also warmongers, while leftists tend to be peaceniks.

But the biggest difference by far was their racial policies, the idea of a "master race" and how "Aryans" are nature's chosen rulers. Anyone who wasn't part of the master race or if they had some sort of birth defect or disability - they just didn't belong. I don't see leftists doing anything like that.

Most of our tech sector was imported from captured German resources after the war and they not only brought designs and examples, but the people. Those people had a drastic influence on the academic sectors and most of them became Americans. They kept their socialist and progressive leanings and they colored the scientific attitude that was acceptable domestically -- of course, they abandoned the blood and soil concept when they became American's as it just wouldn't sell to country as heterogeneous as this. :D That "attitude" that they brought with them seeped down from the top of the ivy league towers down to the floor of the entire education system. That's why for the most part those ideas are extremely popular in that space and probably always will be.

So, you're saying that American liberalism and progressivism came from captured German scientists who became US citizens and taught in academia? There may be some truth to that, although historically, European countries in general tended more towards progressivism and quasi-socialistic policies than America typically did. They started in that direction after the Revolutions of 1848, which was kind of a wake up call for them - one that America never got.

So, it wasn't that the Nazis were more socialistic than other European countries at the time, as they were already moving in that direction long before the Nazis took power. Napoleon III and Bismarck both supported social programs, although both were also nationalists. But it made sense from their point of view, as a government which supports and takes care of its own people engenders the goodwill and loyalty of the masses, which are essential for a nationalist regime to maintain power.

Naturally, as Europeans brought these ideas to America, they slowly permeated the American political culture. Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom favored social programs, and FDR's New Deal even more so, as were other necessary measures to help the country get out of the Depression.

I find it amusing that the media refers to the Nazi's as "right" as it couldn't be a bigger lie -- there isn't much difference between them and communists or any other similar leftist idealism. Right-leaning means: "Keep your hands off my stuff, don't change things drastically, don't screw with my religion, and enforce the law" for most right-leaning folks. Does that sound like the basis of Nazi ideology or does it sound similar to the social progressiveness of the left? Certainly not... Though, that being said, it's worth it to avoid conflating the two completely as the differences have been noted. There would be no place for multiculturalism, for example, in Nazi word-view at the time. But, honestly, to me it just comes off as an attempt to make that failed experiment more palatable to the masses. National socialism sounded really great to the German people until it wasn't. I view leftism similarly... lol

To call something "right" or "left" is merely an abstraction anyway. It's also somewhat conditional on the society making the definitions. At its most basic level, I see the "right" as being supportive of the status quo (or "the way things used to be"), whatever that may be in any given society. The "left" tends to be in opposition to the status quo, whatever that may be (or at the very least, more flexible and open to change).
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Right in their name, national socialists.
They called themselves that a ruse. They weren't actually socialists.

The means of production were under government control.
False. Hitler's government privatized many industries and only maintained governmental control of industries it believed were necessary for rearmament or national self-sufficiency.

"Hitler's reason for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement control over the rights of the people: “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur was narrowly circumscribed.”

Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds. Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937-38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues. There was also an ideological motivation. Some among the Nazi Party held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. This caused great disputes among some members, such as Otto Ohlendorf, to be at odds with the nationalizing and regulatory actions of the government. The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.”"

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia


"Although modern economic literature usually ignores the fact, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several State-owned firms in different sectors. In addition, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party.

Ideological motivations do not explain Nazi privatization. However, political motivations were important. The Nazi government may have used privatization as a tool to improve its relationship with big industrialists and to increase support among this group for its policies. Privatization was also likely used to foster more widespread political support for the party. Finally, financial motivations played a central role in Nazi privatization. The proceeds from privatization in 1934-37 had relevant fiscal significance: No less than 1.37 per cent of total fiscal revenues were obtained from selling shares in public firms. Moreover, the government avoided 23 including a huge expenditure in the budget by using outside-of-the-budget tools to finance the public services franchised to Nazi organizations.

Nazi economic policy in the mid-thirties went against the mainstream in several dimensions. The huge increase in public expenditure programs was unique, as was the increase in the armament programs, and together they heavily constrained the budget. Exceptional policies were put in place to finance this exceptional expenditure, and privatization was just one among them. Nazi Germany privatized systematically, and was the only country to do so at the time. This drove Nazi policy against the mainstream, which flowed against privatization of state ownership or public services until the last quarter of the twentieth century."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

There were many socialist government programs, the most notable being the payoff of a Volkswagen when X number of stamps filled the little book.
No one got a car, but they thought they would. The VW was designed as an inexpensive socialist car for the masses.
Boy, that sure does sound like a socialist program that was promised and not actually put in place. I wonder if that's at all connected with the fact that they called themselves socialists and yet once in power did a whole bunch of things that are the opposite of what a socialist government actually would do that I mentioned earlier?

There wasn't sweeping privatization, just the opposite.
Blatant lie. The Nazis privatized many industries.

You list some very nasty acts of the national socialists, like the other socialist countries of China, the USSR, all former eastern block countries, Cuba and Venezuela.
You mean, socialists have a policy of arresting socialists?
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
They called themselves that a ruse. They weren't actually socialists.


False. Hitler's government privatized many industries and only maintained governmental control of industries it believed were necessary for rearmament or national self-sufficiency.

"Hitler's reason for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement control over the rights of the people: “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur was narrowly circumscribed.”

Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds. Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937-38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues. There was also an ideological motivation. Some among the Nazi Party held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. This caused great disputes among some members, such as Otto Ohlendorf, to be at odds with the nationalizing and regulatory actions of the government. The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.”"

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia


"Although modern economic literature usually ignores the fact, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several State-owned firms in different sectors. In addition, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party.

Ideological motivations do not explain Nazi privatization. However, political motivations were important. The Nazi government may have used privatization as a tool to improve its relationship with big industrialists and to increase support among this group for its policies. Privatization was also likely used to foster more widespread political support for the party. Finally, financial motivations played a central role in Nazi privatization. The proceeds from privatization in 1934-37 had relevant fiscal significance: No less than 1.37 per cent of total fiscal revenues were obtained from selling shares in public firms. Moreover, the government avoided 23 including a huge expenditure in the budget by using outside-of-the-budget tools to finance the public services franchised to Nazi organizations.

Nazi economic policy in the mid-thirties went against the mainstream in several dimensions. The huge increase in public expenditure programs was unique, as was the increase in the armament programs, and together they heavily constrained the budget. Exceptional policies were put in place to finance this exceptional expenditure, and privatization was just one among them. Nazi Germany privatized systematically, and was the only country to do so at the time. This drove Nazi policy against the mainstream, which flowed against privatization of state ownership or public services until the last quarter of the twentieth century."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf


Boy, that sure does sound like a socialist program that was promised and not actually put in place. I wonder if that's at all connected with the fact that they called themselves socialists and yet once in power did a whole bunch of things that are the opposite of what a socialist government actually would do that I mentioned earlier?


Blatant lie. The Nazis privatized many industries.


You mean, socialists have a policy of arresting socialists?
The nazi government had defacto control of all industry once hitler became their dictator. How ? Any company or industrial corporation that had impact on the government or the people was monitored closely under Albert Speer, primarily. If they were not meeting the goals required, they were hauled before the government and warned, and sometimes told exactly what changes they were to make. Failure resulted in nationalization or replacement of leadership. There was no legal recourse for the company people in the process.

That is government control, socialism is about government control.

I suggest you read Speers autobiography, or, "The Arms of Krupp" by William Manchester. The latter, though primarily about the Krupp family and arms production, idoes touch upon what happened to other industries.

The VW was designed by Porsche at hitlers direction, was road tested ( 1,000,000 miles) by the SS. Though the people through the government program did not get The Peoples Car, it was in production and the VW company existed. Socialism.

Well of course socialists kill socialists. The government is in control, and has the ability to liquidate those that are a threat to the state, or just not socialist enough.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
They called themselves that a ruse. They weren't actually socialists.


False. Hitler's government privatized many industries and only maintained governmental control of industries it believed were necessary for rearmament or national self-sufficiency.

"Hitler's reason for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement control over the rights of the people: “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur was narrowly circumscribed.”

Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds. Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937-38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues. There was also an ideological motivation. Some among the Nazi Party held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. This caused great disputes among some members, such as Otto Ohlendorf, to be at odds with the nationalizing and regulatory actions of the government. The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.”"

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia


"Although modern economic literature usually ignores the fact, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several State-owned firms in different sectors. In addition, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party.

Ideological motivations do not explain Nazi privatization. However, political motivations were important. The Nazi government may have used privatization as a tool to improve its relationship with big industrialists and to increase support among this group for its policies. Privatization was also likely used to foster more widespread political support for the party. Finally, financial motivations played a central role in Nazi privatization. The proceeds from privatization in 1934-37 had relevant fiscal significance: No less than 1.37 per cent of total fiscal revenues were obtained from selling shares in public firms. Moreover, the government avoided 23 including a huge expenditure in the budget by using outside-of-the-budget tools to finance the public services franchised to Nazi organizations.

Nazi economic policy in the mid-thirties went against the mainstream in several dimensions. The huge increase in public expenditure programs was unique, as was the increase in the armament programs, and together they heavily constrained the budget. Exceptional policies were put in place to finance this exceptional expenditure, and privatization was just one among them. Nazi Germany privatized systematically, and was the only country to do so at the time. This drove Nazi policy against the mainstream, which flowed against privatization of state ownership or public services until the last quarter of the twentieth century."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf


Boy, that sure does sound like a socialist program that was promised and not actually put in place. I wonder if that's at all connected with the fact that they called themselves socialists and yet once in power did a whole bunch of things that are the opposite of what a socialist government actually would do that I mentioned earlier?


Blatant lie. The Nazis privatized many industries.


You mean, socialists have a policy of arresting socialists?
I recommend reading....
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia
Central planning & great control over the economy, even over
private business is a far cry from a free economy. The "socialist"
label fits well, albeit with a distinctive German flavor.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The nazi government had defacto control of all industry once hitler became their dictator. How ? Any company or industrial corporation that had impact on the government or the people was monitored closely under Albert Speer, primarily. If they were not meeting the goals required, they were hauled before the government and warned, and sometimes told exactly what changes they were to make. Failure resulted in nationalization or replacement of leadership. There was no legal recourse for the company people in the process.

That is government control, socialism is about government control.
Firstly, present examples of this for context.

Secondly, please explain the widespread privatization, the demolition of trade unions and the persecution of socialists.

I suggest you read Speers autobiography, or, "The Arms of Krupp" by William Manchester. The latter, though primarily about the Krupp family and arms production, idoes touch upon what happened to other industries.

The VW was designed by Porsche at hitlers direction, was road tested ( 1,000,000 miles) by the SS. Though the people through the government program did not get The Peoples Car, it was in production and the VW company existed. Socialism.
How does one example disprove all the widespread evidence of Hitler's clearly anti-socialist policies?

Well of course socialists kill socialists. The government is in control, and has the ability to liquidate those that are a threat to the state, or just not socialist enough.
I've provided you with historical evidence that the Nazis' privatized many previously nationalized industries and businesses, persecuted socialists and demolished trade unions.

How is that socialist?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I recommend reading....
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia
Central planning & great control over the economy, even over
private business is a far cry from a free economy. The "socialist"
label fits well, albeit with a distinctive German flavor.
Only if you choose to ignore all of the privatization, union busting and persecution of socialists.

From the link:

"Direct state ownership was avoided due to the expense of operations but were "sometimes necessary when private industry was not prepared to realize a war-related investment on its own.”[43] Companies privatized by the Nazis included four major commercial banks in Germany, which had all come under public ownership during the prior years: Commerz– und Privatbank , Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft , Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank . [44][45] Also, the government sold some of the "preferred" shares of various industries to raise funds while retaining the "common shares" to ensure control in the following industries: the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks), the second-largest joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was IG Farben) and Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG , a company controlling all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry. The government also sold shares in a number of shipbuilding companies, and taxed municipal utilities while promoting utilities operated by Nazi Party members or affiliates.[46] Additionally, the Nazis transferred some public services to organizations operated by or affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies.[47]"

[...]

"Hitler's reason for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement control over the rights of the people:[49] “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur was narrowly circumscribed.”[50]


[...]

"The Nazis banned all trade unions that existed before their rise to power, and replaced them with the German Labour Front (DAF), controlled by the Nazi Party.[80] They also outlawed strikes and lockouts.[81] The stated goal of the German Labour Front was not to protect workers, but to increase output, and it brought in employers as well as workers.[82][82] Journalist and historian William L. Shirer wrote that it was "a vast propaganda organization...a gigantic fraud."[82]

[...]

The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[72] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.[73] Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented "racial self-help" and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare.[74] Thus, Nazi programs such as the Winter Relief of the German People and the broader National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) were organized as quasi-private institutions, officially relying on private donations from Germans to help others of their race - although in practice those who refused to donate could face severe consequences.[75] Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds. It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill."[76] Successful efforts were made to get middle-class women involved in social work assisting large families,[77] and the Winter Relief campaigns acted as a ritual to generate public sympathy.[78] Meanwhile, in addition to being excluded from receiving aid under these programs, the physically disabled and homeless were actively persecuted, being labeled “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters.”[79]

All of the above policies are literally the exact opposite of socialist policies. It was clearly not a free market, but to call it a socialist regime is utterly absurd.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
Great interviews of the 20th century: Adolf Hitler interviewed by George Sylvester Viereck
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Only if you choose to ignore all of the privatization, union busting and persecution of socialists.
Socialism is all about the people (ie, government) controlling
the means of production. Nazis certainly did that.
Even union busting serves that by taking control away from
non-governmental entities, & consolidating economic control
in government.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Socialism is all about the people (ie, government) controlling
the means of production. Nazis certainly did that.
Even union busting serves that by taking control away from
non-governmental entities, & consolidating economic control
in government.
Again, you're literally ignoring everything I've already explained. The Nazis' privatized previously nationalized businesses and industries and - whatever spin you put on it - banning unions is not a socialist policy, where "community control" stands as much for workers as it does the state. Banning unions is the exact opposite of what socialism actually espouses - wherein strong unions are used to protect the common people from the oppression of businesses.

Over-simplifying socialism to make it out like the Nazis were socialists is just a denial of both history and reality.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Again, you're literally ignoring everything I've already explained.
This is because you're looking at the trees,
while ignoring the forest.
The Nazis' privatized previously nationalized businesses and industries and - whatever spin you put on it - banning unions is not a socialist policy, where "community control" stands as much for workers as it does the state. Banning unions is the exact opposite of what socialism actually espouses - wherein strong unions are used to protect the common people from the oppression of businesses.

Over-simplifying socialism to make it out like the Nazis were socialists is just a denial of both history and reality.
You're missing the central defining trait of socialism, ie, control over
the means of production. Privatization while retaining control is
still socialist. When banning unions serves greater government
control, it serves socialism.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
This is because you're looking at the trees,
while ignoring the forest.
So you claim. But I'm the one who has presented facts that seem to be repeatedly ignored.

You're missing the central defining trait of socialism, ie, control over
the means of production.
By the community or the workers.

Privatization while retaining control is
still socialist.
Please explain to me how privatization is socialist.

When banning unions serves greater government
control, it serves socialism.
Except it isn't, because socialism is about community and worker control.

You're literally ignoring all the actual facts.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So you claim. But I'm the one who has presented facts that seem to be repeatedly ignored.
The problem is that your facts didn't adequately support your argument.
(The existence of facts alone does not an argument make.)
By the community or the workers.
....Or by government.
If any one of these entities takes control, it's socialism.
It doesn't matter which, per the definition.
But socialism is typified by government being large & in charge.
It's just how things play out in command economies.
Please explain to me how privatization is socialist.
Privatization is associated with capitalism, however one
must consider the why & how of its being done.
For Nazis, it gave them greater productivity to do this,
& then maintain tight control over what was produced.
Even Ameristan did this during WW2, commandeering
privately held companies for producing tools of war.
Except it isn't, because socialism is about community and worker control.
You're not using a common dictionary definition, which is typically about
"the people". It's reasonable to see them being government, which is
how all socialist countries evolve, ie, government runs the economy.
You're literally ignoring all the actual facts.
I'm using better facts as part of a cogent argument.
You're just citing bias confirming facts.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The problem is that your facts didn't adequately support your argument.
(The existence of facts alone does not an argument make.)

....Or by government.
If any one of these entities takes control, it's socialism.
It doesn't matter which, per the definition.
But socialism is typified by government being large & in charge.
It's just how things play out in command economies.

Privatization is associated with capitalism, however one
must consider the why & how of its being done.
For Nazis, it gave them greater productivity to do this,
& then maintain tight control over what was produced.
Even Ameristan did this during WW2, commandeering
privately held companies for producing tools of war.

You're not using a common dictionary definition, which is typically about
"the people". It's reasonable to see them being government, which is
how all socialist countries evolve, ie, government runs the economy.

I'm using better facts as part of a cogent argument.
You're just citing bias confirming facts.

Socialism is not about government big or small
It is about removing power from a wealthy elite. And replacing it with the power of the workingking classes. It tends to take democracy to an extreme. It can be as ignorant as the common denominator and as anti intellectual as the extreme right.

Communism tends to socialism where the power has devolved to an elite led by an all powerful leader.

Liberalism tends to a balance between capital and labour with an aim to providing a fair distribution Of both responsibility and benefit. But will reinforce that ideal with regulation if it is not voluntarily agreed. Liberal leaders tend to follow democratic and legal frameworks as a matter of principle.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Socialism is not about government big or small
Government is indeed not part of the definition of "socialism".
But authoritarian government is historically associated with socialism.
And looking at it as a system, it's an emergent property, ie, a highly
probable tendency.
It is about removing power from a wealthy elite. And replacing it with the power of the workingking classes.
That isn't part of the definition of socialism.
Check your dictionaries. I recommend Dictionary.com.
But any mainstream one will do.
It tends to take democracy to an extreme.
Historically, democracy tended to wane with socialism.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Government is indeed not part of the definition of "socialism".
But authoritarian government is historically associated with socialism.
And looking at it as a system, it's an emergent property, ie, a highly
probable tendency.

That isn't part of the definition of socialism.
Check your dictionaries. I recommend Dictionary.com.
But any mainstream one will do.

Historically, democracy tended to wane with socialism.

Not in Europe. Socialism tends to be highly democratic. Such that even the leaders and office holders are directly elected by the total membership.

Here it is all about replacing the power of the wealthy elite with the power of the working class...whatever you might believe the definition of socialism is....
That is the way it works. Only Tony Blair fully understood that you had to play the capatilists at their own game and get them on your side.
 
Top