Hitler really was a socialist

[Rockstar]

https://youtu.be/eCkyWBPaTC8

[Skybird]

That video lasts over four hours. No chance I will go through that. No chance I can imagine anyone here will. ;)

But I say since years and years that the Nazis - were socialists. It inthe party name, and its in their implementation of economics and monetarian policies, and their understanding of communal order and the purpose of the state. Hayek knew they were socialists. von Mises knew they were socialists. And this author, again Austrian school of economics, argued in favour of it, too.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

And they are right. They are spot on. To me it is one of the biggest triumphs that political propaganda has ever managed to acchieve in all human history that the Sovjest could convince the world afterwards that there was a natural antagonistic rivalry between them (the Reds) and the Brownies, between the Left and the Right, and that the one - the right - was evil and that the left - the Sovjet - stood for the good.

They both are twin brothers, Socialism and Nazism. They are offsprings of the same thinking and mental attitude. Which might explain why left dictatorships and right dictatorships so often, almost always, show the same brutal face of tyranny, barbary, torture, and totalitarian dictatorship to force people under their yoke. What is the same, does the same, for the same motives, and the same results.

Hitler explained in an adress to the party in February either 1944 or 1945 (I always mistake the year) that to him there were no principle differences between Nationalsocialism and Bolshewism. Ideological differences were not what had brought Stalin and Hitler to go after each other's throat. Not at all.

I have always strictly refused to chose between Communsits and Nazis, the Lefties and the Rights, and to see the one as bad and evil and the other as good and the salvation, and to support the one and condemn the other. To me they are both two sons from the same family, the one worse than the other. There is nothing reasonable to choose between them, because it is a choice between two lethal poisons, a choice between been Cyanide and Strychnin. The one is not one inch better than the other. Both kill.

I therefore dispise both the left and the right. And I applaude when they go after each other and crack their skulls open, instead going united after us libertarians. Because free people is the only one thing they both hate even more than their tyrannic ideological twin brother.

[Catfish]

Let's say I strongly disagree with the above.

[Rockstar]

I love the comments:

“Hitler can’t be a socialist because I’m a socialist and Hitler was bad.”

“You can look up Nazi economy on WIKIPEDIA”. Comedy gold!! :har:

Wikipedia, seems to be the favorite go to source for all the liberal socialist types. Those koolaide drinkers worship it as their oracle of truth, that and MSNBC and Russiagate conspiracies.

https://youtu.be/8rWnuuEN024

[Rockstar]

Warning to all you bleeding heart socialists and liberals Wikipedia wasn’t around when the author wrote this book. He actually lived it.

The Vampire Economy. Doing Business Under Fascisim

https://www.amazon.com/Vampire-Economy-Doing-Business-Fascism-ebook/dp/B0052YQ1CK

[Rockstar]

Nice thing about the above videos is he indexes them by topic. So you can jump to a particular subject of interest. Seems to me socialists, liberals, Democrats are all taking ideas straight from Hitlers Nazi playbook.

AND get this, he lists well over 100 sources of his research. Sadly the socialist liberal oracle of truth Wikipedia isn’t included.

[Skybird]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Reimann

For completeness. The author apparently was a far left marxist economist and activist. One should have that in a back corner of one's mind, as context relation.

[Rockstar]

Thomas Sowell one of the greatest thinkers in the U.S. started off his career as a Marxist. Of course he eventually came to understand the nature of it and became a supporter of capitalism.

When asked what changed his mind. He simply said: “Facts”

[Skybird]

Indeed the German Wikipedia entry is more precise than the quoted English one. Reimann travelled the Sovjet Union, and according to German Wikipedia came to the conclusion that "Stalin's state socialism with added industrialization was not functional and practicable". He also was awarded Germany's highest civilian order, the Bundesverdienstkreuz (dont know for what, they did not write that).

I did mention his left background more as an illustration that it was ironcially a Leftie describing Hitler's ideology as socialist, not just some confused mind, or a libertarian like me. Usually Lefties describe Hitler/Nationalsocialism as an antagonist to socialism, not as an equivalent.

People get blinded too easily on the Nazis, becasue of the strong racism card they added. Not that racism in socialism is new, or antisemitism, but the perfectionizing of the genocide against the Jews by industrialising the process of massacring them is what catches all the attention and gives Nationalsocialism the appearance of being something different than just socialism combined with nationalism - and a murderously intense racism and genocide whose victims served as scapegoats. But Stalin did pretty much the same kind of things. The difference is - he won the war, Hitler lost it. And so the political ideology books got written the way they were written.

[mapuc]

I remember having a thread about Hitler's political standpoint some years ago. I wrote it because a FB friend said he was a far right wing politician, My friend belonging to the left wing was convince Hitler was far right.

As mentioned then-I don't know if Hitler is far right or far left I only know he was a very evil person with million of life on his conscience

I do not understand why a left wing or a right wing person need to put Hitler on the opposite site of the political thing...He was very evil and it's important we do not repeat history and put an evil person in charge again.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Markus socialism and capitalism have been around much longer than Hitler and Marx. I think one reason why socialists squirm and deny Hitler was a socialist is best summed up in one of the comments found in the above videos.

“Hitler can’t be a socialist because I’m a socialist and Hitler was bad.”

[Catfish]

The comments in the first link are really worth reading :03:, but apart from this idea cooking up every year at some time, Hitler was not a socialist. Stop quoting monarchist Mises or the internet and read some books.

Can you imagine that those terms or concepts are not enough or not suited to describe a particular ...ism.

[Sean C]

It's literally in the name: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

[Skybird]

It cannot be what should not be... The whole bipolar model of ideological warfare by the left would be deligitimized, and that cannot be allowed.

In case of doubt, just shoot the messenger.

[Dowly]

"Those of you who deny that Hitler was a socialist [dramatic pause], you're actually denying the Holocaust. [..] Marxist holocaust denialists refuse to accept Hitler's socialism."
-Rockstar's new Youtube butt budy.

[Catfish]

It's literally in the name: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
So the name makes Kim Jong Un's "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" a democracy run and voted for by the people?

(Following not directed at Sean C) :

Yes, i will also not accept Hitler's socialism, but i will abstain to discuss this bull here :03:
It cannot be what should not be... The whole bipolar model of ideological warfare by the left would be deligitimized, and that cannot be allowed.
The thing is it is not 'bipolar'. This claim bubbling up in certain media every now and then has been discussed and debunked broad and wide and there's not much to add. Just because i do not argue with you about the 5G conspiracy or freemasons does not mean that i agree with any of this, neither does this make it true.
In case of doubt, just shoot the messenger.Boom. :O:

[Skybird]

You must not discuss it. Your view may be mainstream, it is popular and agreed to be the politically correct and wanted truth. Yes. History gets written by the victors.


But endlessly repeating wrong stuff does not make it any less wrong. The claimed arguments you refer to, in parts are known to me. They are the usual limited thinking inside the politically accepted box. You could as well argue that the ECB indeed were independent because politics claim so and the claim serves their interests. That return is to be expected, but by fact create din relaity and beyond the written paragraphs it is wrong, and the ECB is the strong ally and supporter of the EU'S political agendas - thats what it was created for to be. So is the standard view on that national socialism is no socialism and that the state economy of Nazi Germany did not had all traits and characteristics of a socialist planned economy. It had. It was. And Goedbbels agiutated already in the very early 30s agauinst the possessing property owning class and let no dozubt on what it would mean for them if the NSDAP would ever come to govenrment power, it was fully truly socialist propaganda he argued with. It does not matter whether by name or not, it is the klatterns, the mechanisms, the functuonalities that get porpagated. That Hitler did not explicitly found his arguments by mentioning Marx I know myself - but that is irrelevant. The dish gets called differently, but it tastes the same and is made of the same ingredients. And so i say: its not two but one dish only.



And this, it is common practice amongst socialists and communists since one hundred years to always claim that when socialism fails somewhere (once again), to argue that then it was no "real", no "true" socialism, because, so the narrative, real socialism works and function per definition. One claims and bases on the beleif that one just knows it works, and so one refuses to prove it. If socialism blows it up, its never socialism's guilt, but that of the others, but when economic succees is generated due to entrepreneurship and competent management or whatever, the succeess easily is claimed by lefts. So it is with Hitler as well. Its a failure story, and thus it cannot be socialism. Stalin's Russia of course has nothing to do with socialism, but was just tyranny. The GDR, that was no socialism, but corruption. Cuba, its the evil wicked Yanks, not socialism. Chinese "socialism" is successful, and why? Becasue it has a ver yheavy dose of corrupted capitalism ijected. Without it China would be something nobody talks about today.



Socialism is alwayss the innocent victim. Because we all know: socialism just works, and it is alwayy the persecuted, enver the persecutor.



Why needing to prove the obvious if everybod knows it? :doh:

[MaDef]

Does it matter? Hitler is dead, and has been for some time.

[Onkel Neal]

:haha: :subsim:


:nope:

[Catfish]

Ok this was not a good post, i meant those usual suspects always popping up when this subject appears once more, and i cannot even say "no offense meant" because i strongly disagree with any such opinion.

But this does not represent Subsim, members in general or this website :oops:.

edit: i changed it. If you insist to let the original be there i will change it back.

[Onkel Neal]

Danke!

It makes my head ache when someone associates "SUBSIM" with any particular person's opinion. I appreciate your understanding.

We all read stuff that we find preposterous, here and elsewhere on the web. SUBSIM does not have the time, energy or moral authority to regulate speech, except in the most egregious cases.

Never underestimated the power of ignore.

[Rockstar]

Does it matter? Hitler is dead, and has been for some time.

Good point. Something else to consider just because you’re a socialist or believe in socialism. Does not make you a Nazi.

[MaDef]

Having said that, I will expand a bit and say there are some disturbing parallels politically, in what went on in Germany back in the 30's, and what is taking place here in the U.S. today.

[derstosstrupp]

I looked into this question pretty extensively back when I was doing some independent study of Austrian economics, and a speaker talked about the national socialist economic policy. So I dug into speeches. Here’s Hitler himself talking about the government approach to fixing prices and controlling the economy:

https://archive.org/details/Hitler_Speeches/Hitler_Speeches/1937-05-20_-_Adolf_Hitler_-_Ansprache_an_die_Bauarbeiter_in_Berchtesgarden_ue ber_die_NS-Wirtschaftspolit.mp3#

And starting about five minutes, he leaves no doubt about the brutal approach to those who don’t want to tow the line, producers and sellers who want to fix prices for themselves etc:
“Wenn es irgendwo schlimm wird, gehen wir auch schlimm vor, zu dem Zweck haben wir die Konzentrationslager, das kann man nicht mit Gerichten machen, wissen Sie das dauert Monate lang, das geht so nicht.“

This was state-run economy writ large, the approach being that individual business owners have a duty to the “Volksgemeinschaft” to stay within the price guidelines set by the government.

[Rockstar]

You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. . . In this respect they certainly differ from the former Social-Democratic officials. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.’ Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.

p. 6 (letter from a German businessman)

[Exocet25fr]

Hitler wasn't Socialist, he was National Socialist (Nazi), it's different!:)

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/the-differences-between-socialism-and-national-socialism/

[Dowly]

Hitler wasn't Socialist, he was National Socialist (Nazi), it's different!:)

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/the-differences-between-socialism-and-national-socialism/
No no no no, see internet video man says he was.

[Rockstar]

Exocet25fr I’d suggest giving the video a listen too, it’s a long but I think it would be time well spent. Below is a list of sources the gentleman in the video used for study before presenting his conclusions.


Number of Sources 107

Aly, G. “Hitler’s Beneficiaries: How the Nazis Bought the German People.” Verso, 2016. (Original German 2005).

, A. “Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy.” Yale University Press, 1990.

Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany." Universitat de Barcelona, PDF.

, K. "Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine under Nazi Rule." Harvard University Press, 2004.

Birchall, I. “The Spectre of Babeuf.” Haymarket Books, 2016.

Bormann, M. “Hitler’s Table Talk.” Ostara Publications, 2016.

Bosworth, R. “Mussolini’s Italy: Life under the Dictatorship 1915-1945.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2006.

Brown, A. "How 'socialist' was National Socialism?" Kindle, 2015.

Colingham, L. "The Taste of War: World War Two and the Battle for Food." Penguin UK, 2011.

Dilorenzo, T. “The Problem with Socialism.” Regnery Publishing, Kindle 2016.

Engels, F “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Written, 1880. Progress Publishers, 1970.

, L. "Russia in Flames: War, Revolution, Civil War, 1914-1921." Oxford University Press, Kindle 2018.

Evans, R. “The Coming of the Third Reich.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2004.

Farrell, N. "Mussolini: A New Life." Endeavour Press Ltd, Kinde 2015.

, G. "The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and its General Conceptions." RJG Enterprises Inc, 2003.

, G. "The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation." Black House Publishing LTD, 2015.

Friedman, M. “Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition.” university of Chicago, Kindle 2002. (originally published in 1962)

de Coulanges, “The Ancient City: A Study of the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome.” Pantianos Classics, Kindle 2017, first published in 1877.

Gellately, R. "Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe." Vintage Books, 2008.

Gentile, G. “Origins and Doctrine of Fascism: with Selections from Other Works.” Routledge, 2017.

Geyer, M. & Fitzpatrick, S. "Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared." Cambridge University Press, Kindle 2009.

Grand, A. "Italian Fascism: It's Origins and & Development." University of Nebraska Press, 2000.

Hayek, F. "The Road to Serfdom." Routledge, original 1944.

Hazlitt, H. “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics.” Three Rivers Press, 1979. (originally published 1946)

, B. “The Death of Democracy: Hitler’s Rise to Power.” William Heinemann, Kindle 2018.

, C. “Mussolini: The Rise and Fall of Il Duce.” St Martin’s Press Griffin, 2008.

Hirschfeld, G. “The Policies of Genocide: Jews and Soviet Prisoners of War in Nazi Germany.” Routledge, Kindle 2015 (original 1986).

Hitler. A. “Mein Kampf.” Jaico Books, 2017.

Hitler, A. "Zweites Buch (Secret Book): Adolf Hitler's Sequel to Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017.

Hobsbawm, E. "The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991." Abacus, 1995.

, H. “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.” Kindle.

Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932). (English translation)

Keen, S. “Use-Value, Exchange-Value, and the Demise of Marx’s Labor Theory of Value.” PDF.

Kershaw, I. “Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis.” Penguin Books, 2001.

Kershaw, I. “Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison.” Cambridge University Press, Kindle 2003.

Keynes, J. "National Self-Sufficiency," The Yale Review, Vol. 22, no. 4 (June 1933), pp. 755-769.

Kobrak & Hansen. “European Business, Dictatorship, and Political Risk, 1920-1945.” Berghahn Books, 2004.

, R. “The Accumulation of Capital.” Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1951. (Originally written in 1913.)

, R. “The National Question” 1910.

Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume I Book One: The Process of Production of Capital.” PDF of 1887 English edition, 2015.

Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume II Book One.” Penguin Classics, Kindle edition. (Originally written 1894)

Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III.” PDF, English edition, 2010. (Originally written 1894)

Marx, K. "On the Jewish Question." Edited by Tucker, R. PDF. (Originally written 1843)

Marx, K. & Engels, F. "Manifesto of the Communist Party." PDF 1969, original 1848.

Mises, L. “Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.” Martino Publishing, 2012. (Originally 1949)

Mises , L. "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis." Liberty Fund, 1981. 1969 edition (roots back to 1932).

Moorhouse, R. "The Devil's Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941." Random House Group, Ebook (Google Play) 2014.

Mosley, O. "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered." Black House Publishing, Kindle 2019.

Muravchik, J. “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” Encounter Books, Kindle.

Mussolini, B. “The Doctrine of Fascism.” Kindle, Originally published in 1932.

Newman, M. “Socialism: A Very Short Introduction.” Kindle.

Niemetz, K. "Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies." The Institute of Economic Affairs, 2019.

, F. "Bolshevism, Fascism and Democracy." PDF, 1927.

Neumann, F. "Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933-1944." Oxford University Press, 2009. (Original 1942.)

Orwell, G. "Nineteen Eighty-Four." Penguin Books, 2000 (originally 1949).

Orwell, G. “Homage to Catalonia.” Penguin Books, 2000 (originally 1938).

Overy, R. “The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938.” Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1996 (original 1982).

Reimann, G. “The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism.” Kindle, Mises Institute, 2007. Originally written in 1939.

Reisman, G. "Why Nazism was Socialism and why Socialism is Totalitarian." Kindle 2014.

, L. “Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.” Penguin Books, Kindle.

Smith, A. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” Kindle.

Smith, D. "Lenin's "Imperialism": A Study in the Unity of Theory and Practice." The Journal of Politics 17, no. 4 (1955): 546-69. Accessed February 15, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/2126614.

Sowell, T. “Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition.” Kindle.

Sowell, T. “The Housing Boom and Bust.” Kindle.

Spengler, O. “Prussianism and Socialism.” Isha Books, 2013. First Published 1920.

Stalin, J. "Marxism and the National Question." Red Star Publications, 2015.

Steinbacher, S. "Auschwitz: A History." Penguin Books, 2005.

Snyder, T. "Blood Lands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin." Vintage, 2011.

Temin, P. “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s.” From The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Nov., 1991), pp. 573-593 (21 pages). Jstor.

Tooze, A. “Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of The Nazi Economy.” Penguin Books, 2007.

von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. "Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse." Arlington House Publishers, PDF 1974.

Weller, P. "The New Liberalism: Liberal Social Theory in Great Britain 1889-1914." Routledge 2017.

Young, A. "Nazism is Socialism." The Free Market 19, no. 9 (September 2001).

Zitelmann, R. “Hitler: The Policies of Seduction.” London House, 1999.

"The Cambridge History of the Second World War. Volume III: Total War Economy, Society and Culture." Cambridge University Press, 2017.

The American Economic Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, Papers and Discussions of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting (Apr., 1911), pp. 347-354

Hitler’s Confidential Memo on Autarky (August 1936) http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English61.pdf

Deficit Spending in the Nazi Recovery, 1933-1938: A Critical Reassessment http://personal.lse.ac.uk/ritschl/pdf_files/ritschl_dec2000.pdf

Manish, G. “Labor and Capitalist Exploitation: Böhm-Bawerk and the Close of Marx’s System” https://mises.org/wire/labor-and-capitalist-exploitation-bohm-bawerk-and-close-marxs-system

Mises "Planned Chaos" (an excerpt from "Socialism: An Economic & Sociological Analysis) https://youtu.be/7EnHeZXLzTc

TomWoodsTV - Ep. 1474 What Is Fascism? Published on 21 Aug 2019 https://youtu.be/qOsVqXMFAdg

Woods, The Forgotten Depression of 1920, https://mises.org/library/forgotten-depression-1920

Woods, T. “The Anti-Marxist Argument That Clinches It.” https://youtu.be/ffq-8qr6avg

Sargon of Akkad Live “Debate: Socialsm vs Capitalism,” https://youtu.be/z6gB3gA9UZg

Sir Oswald Mosley | Interview | Thames Television | 1975 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhF28fzN9I

“Woke Professor SLAMS SpongeBob Squarepants As Racist Colonizer, THIS CANT BE REAL,” https://youtu.be/0CQSQkO0ZQU

Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/private-sector

Online Latin-Dictionary http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/32212/publicus-publica-publicum

Online Etymology Dictionary https://www.etymonline.com/word/public

Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, Third Edition 2010.

Barker, University of Hawaii, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/734722

Bernanke, “The Benefits of Price Stability,” 2006, The Federal Reserve

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20060224a.htm
ECB “The definition of price stability”

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/strategy/pricestab/html/index.en.html

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reichstagsbrandverordnung

http://home.wlu.edu/~patchw/His_214/_handouts/Weimar%20constitution.htm

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weimar_constitution

http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Inflation_in_Nazi_Germany

“A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/state

https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1648092/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

https://fee.org/articles/were-still-haunted-by-the-labor-theory-of-value/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Terboven

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/02/clapping-replaced-jazz-hands-student-union-amid-fears-noise/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7475551/snowflake-students-get-litter-squad-banned/

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2019/july/uk-student-who-was-kicked-out-of-class-for-saying-there-are-2-genders-will-not-return-to-school-nbsp

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/gaslight

[Dowly]

Wikipedia, seems to be the favorite go to source for all the liberal socialist types. Those koolaide drinkers worship it as their oracle of truth, that and MSNBC and Russiagate conspiracies.

AND get this, he lists well over 100 sources of his research. Sadly the socialist liberal oracle of truth Wikipedia isn’t included.

Below is a list of sources the gentleman in the video used for study before presenting his conclusions.
https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reichstagsbrandverordnung https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weimar_constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Terbovenhttps://i.imgur.com/Bky7tEs.jpg
Tonight on Tucker Carlson Tonight: Is Internet Video Man a Liberal Socialist??

[mapuc]

Whether it was Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot or some other dictator I couldn't care less about where they stood politically.. They were plain and simple very evil. To use a biblical term they were Anti-Christ.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Well Mapuc, like I said the ideas of socialism have been around much longer than Hitler and Marx. Being a socialist doesn’t make anyone into either of them or a Nazi. In my humble uneducated opinion socialism like any system of governance has its benefits and draw backs, it can be something good or bad it all I think depends on the leadership and the people submitting themselves to it.

After watching the entire video he makes a very good case that Hitler and his party were very much National Socialists. Everyone is free to make their own decision after watching it.

[Sean C]

So the name makes Kim Jong Un's "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" a democracy run and voted for by the people?

(Following not directed at Sean C)


That's a fair point.

[Skybird]

Socialism (capitalism) is not just a word, but a method. The method is old, the name is not. Millenia, not centuries. It either works, or it doesnt. What a modern theoreticist thinks it should, is not relevant. The historical record already is established. It speaks volumes.

[Catfish]

From the Washington post, link is here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

But since it is behind a paywall i quote the article:


"The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists

The Nazis hated socialists. It was the governments that rebuilt Europe that embraced social welfare programs.

By Ronald J. Granieri
Ronald J. Granieri is a Templeton Education Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and history professor at the U.S. Army War College. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
February 5, 2020




Did you know that “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist”? That means that Hitler and his henchmen were all socialists. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist, too. That means Bernie Sanders and his supporters are the same as Nazis … doesn’t it?

Anyone who has been on political Twitter in the past decade has seen a version of this syllogism. Conservatives, seeking to escape the “fascist” and “Nazi” labels tossed at them by leftist critics since the 1960s, have turned the tables. Books such as Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” have noted that many leading fascists, such as Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, started out as socialists, just as many early 20th-century “progressives” embraced eugenic ideas ultimately linked to Nazi racist genocide. This connection has become a silver bullet for voices on the right like Dinesh D’Souza and Candace Owens: Not only is the reviled left, embodied in 2020 by figures like Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren, a dangerous descendant of the Nazis, but anyone who opposes it can’t possibly have ties to the Nazis’ odious ideas.

There is only one problem: This argument is untrue. Although the Nazis did pursue a level of government intervention in the economy that would shock doctrinaire free marketeers, their “socialism” was at best a secondary element in their appeal. Indeed, most supporters of Nazism embraced the party precisely because they saw it as an enemy of and an alternative to the political left. A closer look at the connection between Nazism and socialism can help us better understand both ideologies in their historical contexts and their significance for contemporary politics.

The Nazi regime had little to do with socialism, despite it being prominently included in the name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The NSDAP, from Hitler on down, struggled with the political implications of having socialism in the party name. Some early Nazi leaders, such as Gregor and Otto Strasser, appealed to working-class resentments, hoping to wean German workers away from their attachment to existing socialist and communist parties. The NSDAP’s 1920 party program, the 25 points, included passages denouncing banks, department stores and “interest slavery,” which suggested a quasi-Marxist rejection of free markets. But these were also typical criticisms in the anti-Semitic playbook, which provided a clue that the party’s overriding ideological goal wasn’t a fundamental challenge to private property.

Instead of controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build a utopian society, the Nazis focused on safeguarding a social and racial hierarchy. They promised solidarity for members of the Volksgemeinschaft (“racial community”) even as they denied rights to those outside the charmed circle.

Additionally, while the Nazis tried to appeal to voters across the spectrum, the party’s founders and initial base were small-business men and artisans, not the industrial proletariat of Marxist lore. Their first notable electoral successes were in small towns and Protestant rural areas in present-day Thuringia and Saxony, among voters suspicious of cosmopolitan, secular cities who associated both “socialism” and “capitalism” with Jews and foreigners.



This fear of social revolution and a sense that democracy, with its cacophony of voices and the need for compromises, would threaten their preferred social hierarchy gave Nazism its appeal with these voters — even if it meant sacrificing democracy. While Communists abetted the destruction of German democracy, seeing it as a way to eventually produce the revolution they wanted, the only German political party that consistently resisted Nazi arguments, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), offered another sign of the discontinuity between socialism and Nazism.

Those outside Germany who embraced Nazi ideas were also generally anti-leftists. When Frenchmen murmured “Better Hitler than [Socialist Party Leader and Prime Minister Léon] Blum,” they were well aware what National Socialism represented, and it was most emphatically not “socialism.” When many of those same Frenchmen set up the puppet Vichy government in 1940, they did so under the banner of “Travail, famille, patrie,” (Work, family fatherland), happy to use state resources to support their idea of authentic Frenchmen — even as they criticized capitalism for providing benefits to people they didn’t view as French.

Unlike much of the European left, many conservatives proved willing to work with Nazis — something they later regretted — an association that tainted postwar European conservatism. When it came time to rebuild European politics after the war, therefore, it fell to center-left parties such as Labour in Britain, the Socialists in France and the SPD in Germany, which abandoned rigid Marxist doctrines, alongside the new center-right movement of Christian Democracy, which rejected traditional nationalism, to take up the challenge. This was the hour of the welfare state, supported by social and Christian Democrats, which encouraged social solidarity within a democratic and capitalist framework.

Despite this reality, linking socialism and Nazism to critique leftist ideas became a political weapon in the post-World War II period, perhaps unsurprisingly given that the Cold War followed directly on the heels of World War II. Scholars as diverse as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hannah Arendt used the larger concept of “totalitarianism” to fuse the two. This formula made it easier for Americans to slip comfortably from considering the Soviet Union a wartime ally to recognizing it as an existential threat. Totalitarianism emphasized the structural similarities and violent practices of Nazi and Stalinist regimes.

This concept, however, proved controversial as an explanation of the origins or subsequent appeal of either communism or Nazism/fascism. Although Hitler and Stalin had cooperated in an effort to conquer Eastern Europe in 1939 to 1941, this was more a marriage of convenience than a byproduct of ideological synergy. Indeed, the two sides eventually fought a genocidal war against each other.


Austrian economist and future Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek added an extra layer to the conversation about socialism and Nazism with his 1943 bestseller, “The Road to Serfdom.” As a staunch free marketeer, Hayek was appalled by the rise of economic planning in democratic states, embodied by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Hayek warned that any government intervention in the market eroded freedom, eventually leading to some form of dictatorship.

Hayek was enormously influential across the globe within the rising conservative movement during the second half of the 20th century. He advised future leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and his book became foundational for the right. Hayek’s assertion that all government interventions in the economy led to totalitarianism continues to animate popular works such as D’Souza’s “The Big Lie,” reinforcing the idea that the welfare state is a gateway drug to genocide.

But while these ideas may make sense to free market purists, the history shows that it was the parties that arose in reaction to the Nazi horrors that built such welfare states. Denouncing their programs as “socialism” or warning of a tie between the two is nothing less than historical and political sophistry that attempts to turn effect into cause and victim into victimizer.

Historical analogies have a useful purpose to simplify and clarify, but they work best when used carefully. As manifest problems with global capitalism, as well as political gridlock, encourage a new hunger for fundamental political transformation, it is especially important that we understand the tragic decisions of the 1930s and their consequences in their full context, rather than simply transposing words from the past onto the debates of the present.


National Socialism preserved private property, while also putting the entire resources of society at the service of an expansionist and racist national vision, which included the conquest and murderous subjugation of other peoples. It makes no sense to think that the sole, or even the primary, negative aspect of this regime was the fact that it used state power to allocate financial resources. It makes as little sense to suggest that using state power to allocate some financial resources today will automatically result in the same dire consequences.

Historical “gotcha” threatens to reduce our political conversations to meaninglessness, and we should resist it. Debates over the proper role of the state in protecting citizens against the negative exigencies of the market are necessarily complex. Finding the proper balance of interests within a democratic political order depends on the measurement of results, not on the power of magic words to devalue competing ideas."

[derstosstrupp]

They were against what they called international socialism and advocated socialist policies for the nation. Socialism can wear many shirts, the concept is the same, management of the economy by the state to some degree or another, stressing service to the community, whatever that community might be, international or national, and the subjugation of the individual to the whole.

If you have the time and the patience (it’s a stream of consciousness mess at times), I suggest a readthrough of Mein Kampf. All doubt about this question will be gone. Hitler regarded advanced nations as those who are the least individualistic, and equated individualism with “Jewry” and primitive tribes. He also clearly states that he views capitalism as an individualistic ideology that is destined to fail.

His goal was to marry nationalism and socialism, because he felt the “reactionary”, national parties were not advocating for the worker enough, and he felt the socialists were not sufficiently national or proud to be German and prone to letting the nation slip into Bolshevism .He states it perfectly clear here in this appeal to the nation in 1932. Especially at five minutes where he basically explains this marriage of nationalism and socialism:

https://archive.org/details/Hitler_Speeches/Hitler_Speeches/1932-07-15_-_Adolf_Hitler_-_Appell_an_die_Nation_8m_10s.mp3#

“As long as nationalism and Socialism continue on as separate and distinct ideas, they will be beaten by their unified enemies. They become unbeatable the day both ideas merge into a single one.”

That said, they came to define capitalism as “international high finance” (as Hitler attacks it in that clip) and they looked at capitalism through that lens I believe mostly. Because national socialism stressed empowerment of the individual to an extent, rewarding individual initiative. For example, they valued the small business owner’s leadership and initiative, and so yes there was some small element of capitalistic initiative being rewarded on a very small scale. Remember that business owners still had to tow the line as I posted before. They liked their individual initiative, but that doesn’t mean they could do what they wanted, if that makes sense. Hence Hitler defined the individualism that he attacked as “doing what you want without regard for its effect on the community”. In other words, take the initiative to do some thing for the community that is beneficial, and you will be respected as a dynamic individual, but you had better not just think for yourself without putting the community first.

[Skybird]

My God, how easily can people's minds get caught by shallow views like this? Somehting is written and that already makes it the new reality?

I just said it before, I do not care for the name and term "socialism", but the functional principles in which state and society organise interactions and trade, bartering that is, property, the relation between individual and collective. And if you look at the economical structure of the Third Reich, the financial policy, the expropriation of the producers either by making them obedient party members so that they voluntarily put their potentials under the state's command, or: well, by exproriating them, the control of generating currency tokens, the organising of the communal collective of society to influence it better and educate and brainwash it by state-wanted ideological drill, then it is as socialist a collective and state and planned economy as something can become.

Von Mises did not invent a theory of how to put socialism artificially into Nationalsocialism, he just soberly observed and then described the principles in which the Nazis ran their state and system - and recognised it as what it was. The principles of last but not least power politics (thats what it always comes down to, doesn't it), of monetarian policy and economics that also are found in the conception that nowadays is called "socialism". But these were attempted time and again long before th word "socialism" was ever pronounced for the frst time by a human mouth.

Its as I said: that everybody today beleives that the Nazis were anythign but soiclaism and that Nazism and socialsim are totla antagonists is the biggets propaganda success in the histor of mankind. Almost EVERYBODY believes this bull. Mainstream media included - but is that really a surprise?


This has the quality standard of a leftist German political TV magazine on ARD. I'm out.

[derstosstrupp]

My God, how easily can people's minds get caught by shallow views like this? Somehting is written and that already makes it the new reality?

I just said it before, I do not care for the name and term "socialism", but the functional principles in which state and society organise interactions and trade, bartering that is, property, the relation between individual and collective. And if you look at the economical structure of the Third Reich, the financial policy, the expropriation of the producers either by making them obedient party members so that they voluntarily put their potentials under the state's command, or: well, by exproriating them, the control of generating currency tokens, the organising of the communal collective of society to influence it better and educate and brainwash it by state-wanted ideological drill, then it is as socialist a collective and state and planned economy as something can become.

Von Mises did not invent a theory of how to put socialism artificially into Nationalsocialism, he just soberly observed and then described the principles in which the Nazis ran their state and system - and recognised it as what it was. The principles of last but not least power politics (thats what it always comes down to, doesn't it), of monetarian policy and economics that also are found in the conception that nowadays is called "socialism". But these were attempted time and again long before th word "socialism" was ever pronounced for the frst time by a human mouth.

Its as I said: that everybody today beleives that the Nazis were anythign but soiclaism and that Nazism and socialsim are totla antagonists is the biggets propaganda success in the histor of mankind. Almost EVERYBODY believes this bull. Mainstream media included - but is that really a surprise?


This has the quality standard of a leftist German political TV magazine on ARD. I'm out.

Yeah this is absolutely correct. People view socialism today through the lens of “international socialism”, social democracy etc., and forget what Hitler was trying to achieve, that is, a unified national body organized on socialistic principles.

Hitler was also largely pragmatic though, in that he did accept money from industrialists who would tow the line, so he wasn’t probably what many socialists would consider pure per se, but one thing is for sure, the average German during the regime experienced a socialist society and economy. The concept of “Volksgemeinschaft” was hammered into peoples heads constantly. And from the horses mouth as I posted before, the first clip being 1937 at the height of the four year plan, they had very definite ideas about price fixing and control of the national economy.

It was way more of a socialist society than any of us will ever experience in our lifetimes most likely.

[Skybird]

Yeah I agree, and for the record, if that was not already clear, I was answering to Catfish, not to you, Stosstrupp.

the average German during the regime experienced a socialist society and economy.
That nails it.
It was way more of a socialist society than any of us will ever experience in our lifetimes most likely.Well, the politically correct (=self-denying, left) Gesinnungsdiktat is already hammered out mecilessly by certain parties, the Greens and lefts, the EU, and the media, universities, schools, even kindergardens, and the monetarian regime by the ECB and FED can only be decribed as 100% pure money socialism. The GDR 2.0 is alive and prospering. Never was socialism having such heydays like today. We will all become equal after the party is over. Equal in poverty.



Russia today, since short time, holds more reserves in pure gold than in dollars, and it still is dumping away the remaining few dollars it still has. Wer Ohren hat, der höre, wer Augen hat, der sehe. Reason is the emerging collapse of FIAT money, and the escape from financial sanctions imposed by the US that can not be uphold without the dollar ruling.

The financial repressions against Western populations enforced by the Western states and their vicarious agents the central banks, will become brutal. The massacre already has begun. Most people are still sleeping.

[Catfish]

I would not necessarily believe everything what Hitler said in his speeches, as i would not believe his party's slogans, nor the name of the "Bewegung".

I am open for ideas, but not for this kind of revisionism to please certain political movement in the USA. I have not heard one argument here that would convince me of the claim that the NSDAP or Hitler would have been "socialist", apart from the (empty) name. This has nothing to do whether i like communism or socialism or captitalism or x'ism, or none of them, it just is not true. So it was socialist, but i do not see equality in the third Reich, not even among the purest aryans (lmao), then cars for all (not really), same loans for the workers (ask Krupp, Heinkel, even Junkers what they thought about that). A nice trick to try to turn it all around, but sorry won't fall for it.

[derstosstrupp]

What’s interesting is that in 1933 the Social Democrats were pushing the narrative, “these guys aren’t really socialists”, as can be heard by Otto Wels, the prominent Social Democrat politician, in 1933 here in his famous debate with Hitler prior to the enactment of the enabling act. To be fair though, they hadn’t had the opportunity yet to see what the Nazis had in mind, but for that matter they probably didn’t listen to them or read what they wrote either, because the Nazis were clear about implementing socialism (especially in those days, when the Strasser element, the further-left element of the party was very strong):

https://archive.org/details/Hitler_Speeches/Hitler_Speeches/1933-03-23_-_Adolf_Hitler_vs.mp3#

(I keep pushing these clips, but they are fascinating windows into history in my opinion.)

As an aside, this debate is also particularly interesting, because it’s really the last glimpse of the semblance of parliamentary democracy before the enabling act. Although with all the shouting back-and-forth and interrupting, quite different than what many of us are used to. It’s also scary/sad, in that Hitler is not wrong in it, he completely owns Wels. Hitler had the advantage here of socialist democrats doing nothing for over a decade, so he had the prime opportunity to rebrand socialism in his own image (and did).

English transcript of the speeches (Wels, then Hitler) here page 119. I don’t know what this website is or what it supports, but at any rate:
http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Adolf%20Hitler%20-%20Collection%20of%20Speeches%20-%201922-1945.pdf

[derstosstrupp]

I would not necessarily believe everything what Hitler said in his speeches, as i would not believe his party's slogans, nor the name of the "Bewegung".

I am open for ideas, but not for this kind of revisionism to please certain political movement in the USA. I have not heard one argument here that would convince me of the claim that the NSDAP or Hitler would have been "socialist", apart from the (empty) name. This has nothing to do whether i like communism or socialism or captitalism or x'ism, or none of them, it just is not true. So it was socialist, but i do not see equality in the third Reich, not even among the purest aryans (lmao), then cars for all (not really), same loans for the workers (ask Krupp, Heinkel, even Junkers what they thought about that). A nice trick to try to turn it all around, but sorry won't fall for it.

People can say what they want about the Nazis, but one thing is for sure, at least with inner policy, they absolutely did what they said they were going to do. The four year plan, the establishment of state owned and run unions for workers, the KdF program, the wage reforms, the constant holding of the individual German beholden to the Volksgemeinschaft, the compulsory labor and Wehrmacht service in the name of said Gemeinschaft etc etc.

These are all things I would consider and most would consider socialist. They are not wrong per se, don’t get me wrong, the evils of Nazism lie elsewhere, not per se in their socialism, that I want to be clear about. Just stating things as I have come to understand them to be based on research, not pushing any particular political agenda in the USA. And certainly not to attack socialism as a concept, because for certain societies and peoples, it works for them if they choose to make the sacrifices. And if the members of those societies see the benefits of their sacrifices (higher taxes or whatever) in better government services, better healthcare, what have you, then it works.

So I think you may need to divorce the concept of Socialism from the emotional response that Nazism elicits. And strictly look at Socialism as a concept that was attempted to be implemented, maybe not perfectly, but certainly with intention, by the regime. And as an aside, “equality in everything” I don’t think is ever the intended practical outcome of socialism, that may be a goal of strict Marxism, but not socialism as most tend to understand it. Socialism as a concept simply seeks to implore (or compel) individuals to make sacrifices for the common good.

[Skybird]

https://www.aier.org/article/why-hayek-was-right-about-nazis-being-socialists/



Many socialisms in the house of collectivism.
Priceless.



But did any of these socialisms have anything to do with the nature and content of what became the National Socialist ideology and actual policies? Granieri insists that National Socialism could not be “socialist” because it did not pursue a “utopian” ideal for greater equality for all as a whole. But this presumes that the only legitimate utopian dream, and therefore benchmark for labeling something “socialist,” is the one that Granieri considers good and right.
In fact, the Nazis had a utopian vision for the future; it began with their notion of German race purity on the basis of which they rejected the older Prussian idea of aristocratic and class hierarchy. All “real” Germans were equal and were to be given opportunities for education, occupational and professional advancement as the means by which they could make their contribution to the high good of the German people as a whole.
That Nazi egalitarianism was limited to only those “real” Germans possessing the racial characteristics that guided their ideological thinking, with Jews classified as the lowest and most treacherous of race enemies, does not change the fact that they, too, were “utopians” with social equality goals, but only for those within the “in-group.” This was nothing but a variation of the Marxist theme that the world is divided into irreconcilable social classes, with the “capitalists” being the inescapable “class enemies” of “the workers.” And as in the Soviet practice, they and their children were stripped of all rights and opportunities, and made into permanent pariahs to be reeducated to serve “the building of socialism” or liquidated.

(...)
In 1936, Nazi educator Friedrich Alfred Beck said in Education in the Third Reich, a text meant as a guide for German teachers around the country:
“National Socialism has restored the concept of a people from its modern shallowness . . . By people we understand an entire living body which is racially uniform and which is held together by common history, common fate, a common mission, and common tasks . . . Education, from the standpoint of race and people, is the creation of a form of life in which the racial unity will be preserved through the totality of the people . . .
“Socialism is the direction of personal life through dependence on the community, consciousness of the community, nationalism is the elevation of individual life to a unique (microcosmic) expression of the community in the unity of the personality.”

(...)
But what about National Socialist economics? Let us look at Gustav Stolper’s German Economy, 1870-1940 (1940). Stolper was the long-time editor of a German economic magazine oriented toward a classical liberal viewpoint. He was forced to leave Germany with Hitler’s rise to power due to his politics and his Jewish family background, and found refuge in the United States. Stolper explained some of the socialist aspects to Nazi ideology and policy:
“The National Socialist party was from the outset an anti-capitalist party. As such it was fighting and in competition with Marxism . . . National Socialism wooed the masses [from three angles]. The first angle was the moral principle, the second the financial system, the third the issue of ownership. The moral principle was ‘the commonwealth before self-interest.’ The financial promise was ‘breaking the bondage of interest slavery’. The industrial program was ‘nationalization of all big incorporated business [trusts]’.
“By accepting the principle ‘the commonwealth before self-interest,’ National Socialism simply emphasizes its antagonism to the spirit of a competitive society as represented supposedly by democratic capitalism . . . But to the Nazis this principle means also the complete subordination of the individual to the exigencies of the state. And in this sense National Socialism is unquestionably a Socialist system . . .
“The nationalization of big industry was never attempted after the Nazis came to power. But this was by no means a ‘betrayal’ of their program, as has been alleged by some of their opponents. The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.”

[Skybird]

https://fee.org/articles/hayek-on-the-socialist-roots-of-nazism/



He (Hayek) includes in this lineage the Nazi Party, who were in power at the time he wrote the book (Road to Serfdom). The doctrines which had guided the ruling elements in Germany for the past generation were not opposed to the socialism (https://fee.org/resources/the-xyz-s-of-socialism/) in Marxism, but to the liberal elements contained in it, its internationalism and its democracy.


(...)
In Plenge’s book, 1789 and 1914: The Symbolic Years in the History of the Political Mind, 1789’s ideal was freedom, and the modern ideas of 1914 support the ideal of organization. Plenge asserts, correctly according to Hayek, that organization is the true essence of socialism. Hayek asserts that all socialists until Marx shared this understanding and that Marx tried in vain to make a place for freedom in this modern German idea of grand organization. Starting with the same liberal language as Marx, Plenge gradually abandoned usage of bourgeois liberal terms and moved into the shamelessly totalitarian realm that attracted so many Marxist leaders:
It is high time to recognise the fact that socialism must be power policy, because it is to be organisation. Socialism has to win power: it must never blindly destroy power.
Hayek then shows Social Democratic Party politician Paul Lensch apply a Marxist analysis to Otto Von Bismarck’s protectionism and planning in favor of certain industries:
The result of Bismarck’s decision of the year 1879 was that Germany took on the role of the revolutionary; that is to say, of a state whose position in relation to the rest of the world is that of a representative of a higher and more advanced economic system. Having realised this, we should perceive that in the present World Revolution Germany represents the revolutionary, and her greatest antagonist, England, the counter-revolutionary side.
This unity of the Prussian national identity and the revolutionary socialist project informs the thinking of figures important in the Nazi Party, like A. Moeller van den Bruck. Hayek quotes and paraphrases him from his Prussianism and Socialism:

“Old Prussian spirit and socialist conviction, which to-day hate each other with the hatred of brothers, are one and the same.” The representatives of Western civilisation in Germany, the German liberals, are “the invisible English army which after the battle of Jena, Napoleon left behind on German soil”
Hayek gives more support for this version of events before offering a warning to England; that the “conservative socialism” en vogue at the time was a German export, which for reasons he details throughout the book, will inevitably become totalitarian. Interestingly enough, this was written before the great crimes of the Holocaust were public knowledge and the Nazi regime had become as universally reviled as it soon was.

[Catfish]

I would be careful quoting Hayek or Mises, but especially something like the FEE
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Economic_Education

"FEE is an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN).[1]

State Policy Network
SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom. As of January 2021, SPN's membership totals 163.

Today's SPN is the tip of the spear of far-right, nationally funded policy agenda in the states that undergirds extremists in the Republican Party. SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told the Wall Street Journal in 2017 that the revenue of the combined groups was some $80 million, but a 2019 analysis of SPN's main members IRS filings by the Center for Media and Democracy shows that the combined revenue is over $120 million.[5]

Although SPN's member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation, "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government," reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.[6]"

[Skybird]

From your very own link, Catfish, the very first paragraph:



The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is a right-wing 501(c)3 educational foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia. FEE is an associate member of the State Policy Network (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network) (SPN).[1] (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Economic_Education#cite_note-1)
Founded in 1946, FEE was the first modern think tank (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tank) established in the United States specifically to promote, research and promulgate free market (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Free_market) and libertarian (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Libertarianism) ideas. It continues to do so through its monthly magazine, The Freeman, as well as through pamphlets, lectures, and academic sponsorship. It also publishes reprints of classic libertarian texts, and arranges seminars for American public figures. "Additionally, FEE supports and connects our alumni through the FEE Alumni Network, provides professional development opportunities through internships and networking, and recognizes our most extraordinary alumni leaders with the annual Leonard E. Read Distinguished Alumni Award."

And who the heck is mysterious Leonard Read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read


Leonard Edward Read (September 26, 1898 – May 14, 1983) was the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education) (FEE), one of the first modern libertarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States) institutions in the United States. He wrote 29 books and numerous essays, including the well-known "I, Pencil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Pencil)" (1958).
After a stint in the United States Army Air Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Service) during World War I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), Read started a grocery wholesale business in Ann Arbor, Michigan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan), which was initially successful but eventually went out of business. He moved to California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) where he started a new career in the tiny Burlingame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlingame,_California) Chamber of Commerce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Commerce) near San Francisco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco,_California). Read gradually moved up the hierarchy of the United States Chamber of Commerce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce), finally becoming general manager of the Los Angeles branch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Chamber_of_Commerce), America's largest, in 1939.

During this period his views became progressively more libertarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). Apparently, it was in 1933, during a meeting with William C. Mullendore, the executive vice president of Southern California Edison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California_Edison), that Read was finally convinced that the New Deal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) was completely inefficient and morally bankrupt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morally_bankrupt). Read was also profoundly influenced by his religious beliefs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion). His pastor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor), Reverend James W. Fifield, was minister of the 4,000-member First Congregational Church of Los Angeles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Congregational_Church_of_Los_Angeles), of which Read was also a board member. Fifield ran a "resistance movement" against the "social gospel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel)" of the New Deal, trying to convince ministers across the country to adopt libertarian "spiritual ideals". During the period when he worked for the Chamber of Commerce, Read was also deeply influenced by more secular figures, such as Albert Jay Nock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Jay_Nock), and later by Ayn Rand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) and the economists Ludwig von Mises (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises) and Henry Hazlitt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitt).
In 1945, Virgil Jordan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Jordan), the President of the National Industrial Conference Board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Conference_Board) (NICB) in New York, invited Read to become its executive vice president. Read realized he would have to leave the NICB to pursue full-time the promotion of free market, limited government principles. He resigned as a result.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read#cite_note-2)
One donor from his short time at NICB, David M. Goodrich, encouraged Read to start his own organization. With Goodrich's aid, as well as financial aid from the William Volker Fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Volker_Fund) and from Harold Luhnow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Luhnow), Read and Hazlitt founded the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946, which, in turn, helped to inspire Friedrich Hayek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek) to form the Mont Pelerin Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society) the following year. For a period in the 1940s, Rand was an important adviser, or "ghost", as they called it, to Read.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read#cite_note-3)
In 1950, Read joined the board of directors for the newly founded periodical The Freeman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freeman), a free market magazine that was a forerunner of the conservative National Review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review), to which Read was also a contributor. In 1954, Read arranged for the struggling magazine to be transferred to a for-profit company owned by FEE. In 1956, FEE assumed direct control of the magazine, turning it into a non-profit outreach tool for the foundation.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read#cite_note-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read#cite_note-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Read#cite_note-Doherty198-199-6)
Read received an Honorary Doctoral Degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquín (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universidad_Francisco_Marroqu%C3%ADn) in 1976. He continued to work with FEE until his death in 1983.



Nazis in disguise, everywhere!

[Catfish]

The first one is a quote from this FEE itself, where they advertise for themselves which is why it has quotation marks. The article tries to be neutral but clearly states what kind of organisation it is.
I also wonder why you only look at economy questions when it comes to comparing national socialism to socialism, or when equalising both.
Regarding socialism alone, they were committed anti-socialists.

"Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology. Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis’ incorporation of socialist into their name in 1920, “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”. Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, “Hitler was never a socialist.”"

[mapuc]

^Would you say he was a Fascist ? There are those who say so.

Markus

[Rockstar]

^Would you say he was a Fascist ? There are those who say so.

Markus


He has his some ideas on what is Facist, National Socialist, and Marxist Socialist. In the first TIK video I posted I thought he even explain quite well how North Korea can rightfully declare itself a Democratic Republic.


https://youtu.be/NxwidjWJxAc

[Catfish]

^Would you say he was a Fascist ? There are those who say so.
Markus
As far as i learned in history lectures "fascism" is a generic term, with NS being a kind of branch of fascism with some variations. Italy's fascism also had its foreign scapegoats, but it did not go as far as NS.
So you could call Hitler this but he is usually and better called "national socialist".

[...] In the first TIK video I posted I thought he even explain quite well how North Korea can rightfully declare itself a Democratic Republic. [...]
Now i understand why this rightfully true democracy of North Korea must be so opposed to the undemocratic imperialist United States [/cyn]

[mapuc]

I admit I really don't know where to place Hitler's ideology. I have read books, seen documentary and even though I have difficulty to place him in correct ideology box.

I have throughout the years discovered that my friends, depending on their own political ideology standpoint have a tendency to place Hitler in the opposite camp.

All of my friends who vote on left wing parties has placed Hitler in the Fascism camp, while my friends who vote on right wing parties has placed Hitler in the Socialist camp.

And I just don't know where Hitler fit.
That's why I have said-Why is it so important to place Hitler in a certain ideology, isn't it more important to prevent a person like him being elected ?

Markus

[Skybird]

Thge answer to your question is that you will fail to fight an enemy whose ways and methods you do not correctly identify and understand.



And if you identified them you may find that many of these enemies all use the same or comparasble ways and methods. So by individually identifying them you nevertheless gain a common, general knowledge.



BTW, the term Fascism today is more used in a general way that almost is equal to the term "Nazism". Origianlly it was more spoecific and specifially idenetified the members of the Italian black skirt movement by mussolini. This meaning or historical context today is almost obsolete, it seems. If there is a significant trait that stands out and separaes it form just Nazism, then maybe it is its strong ideological accentuation of militarism and military citizenship. In fascism, at leats that was my subjective imrpoessiont hsi always was ideolgically founded form beginning on, whereas in Nazism it was just an added tool of power, added for "pragmatic" purpose. But maybe I see too much difference there, I am not busy with theoretically differentiating the two that much. To me its all the same wicked family, religious and political or both, its all the same wicked family.

Unfortunately, andnthis is most unwelcomed, it is very efficient as a way of power poltics and controlling people. Worse, who,e ature seems to be folliowungb pricnipels of totalitarianism. The fate and the suffering of the individual creature means nothing. The surevival of the species means everythging. That is totalitarianism in its purest, most consistent and most brutal form.



Very sobering. Since long I hold no romantic views on nature anymore.

[Catfish]

All of my friends who vote on left wing parties has placed Hitler in the Fascism camp, while my friends who vote on right wing parties has placed Hitler in the Socialist camp.

That's why I have said-Why is it so important to place Hitler in a certain ideology, isn't it more important to prevent a person like him being elected ?
Markus
Not all ideologically right-wing people place Hitler on the socialist side, a minority does. Hitler was not elected, he had lost the election to Hindenburg.

[Skybird]

Not that simple, the people later had an opportunity (whatever it was worth...) to vote on Hitler uniting the two most powerful state positions in his person. He was not elected into office for Reichskanzler, but there was a referendum on his later amalgamation of the two top state titles, Chancellor and President.

German Wikipedia has a useable brief summary of what happened after the elections 1932:


The SPD recorded the success of Hindenburg for itself. Ernst Heilmann judged that the re-election was “a great victory for the party, a triumph for democracy”. But in a way it also exacerbated the political crisis. Hindenburg could not gain much from the circumstances of the second ballot, as he owed the victory primarily to the unloved Social Democrats and Catholics.

Immediately afterwards, Hindenburg began to lose confidence in Brüning, who had been his most active advocate during the election. Brüning's dismissal on May 29 was followed by Franz von Papen, a chancellor who rejected the republic. On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor and allowed him to dissolve the Reichstag for new elections. On February 4, Hindenburg issued the President's Ordinance for the Protection of the German People, which initially repealed freedom of expression and assembly, and on February 28, the President's Ordinance for the Protection of the People and State, with which the other basic rights were suspended were. Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, the day before Adolf Hitler had combined the offices of Reich Chancellor and Reich President in his person by law.

On August 19, 1934, the National Socialist government let the people vote on this amalgamation of offices in a referendum on the head of state of the German Reich, so that the election of 1932 remained the last presidential election in the German Reich.

[Catfish]

Hitler used the fire of the Reichstag to decree emergency laws against what he called the "communist uprising". In the following weeks his SA killed or subdued anyone who dared to protest, all critics were incriminated as "communists".
In the wake of escalating Nazi excesses, Hindenburg threatened to declare martial law unless Hitler took immediate steps to end the tension, so Hitler responded by ordering the "night of the long knives", in which several SA leaders, most notably Ernst Röhm, were murdered along with several of Hitler's other past rivals.

Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler did not command a majority in the Reichstag voting on the Enabling Act. The majority of Germans did not vote for the Nazi party, as Hitler's total vote was less than 45%. In order for the enabling act to be passed the Nazis implemented a strategy of coercion, bribery, and manipulation. When Hindenburg died Hitler just declared himself the new head of the state, the "election" was really a referendum, and of course a fraud.

[Jimbuna]

Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler did not command a majority in the Reichstag voting on the Enabling Act. The majority of Germans did not vote for the Nazi party, as Hitler's total vote was less than 45%. In order for the enabling act to be passed the Nazis implemented a strategy of coercion, bribery, and manipulation. When Hindenburg died Hitler just declared himself the new head of the state, the "election" was really a referendum, and of course a fraud.

That is more or less my understanding :yep:

[BrucePartington]

If I may, just to add some more insight into the Nazi party, I would like to share an interesting link I came accross the other day. It's a bit long, but worth it IMHO.



Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal (https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-and-writing/opening-statement-before-the-international-military-tribunal/)

On November 21, 1945, in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, Germany, Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal.



May it please Your Honors:


https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-and-writing/opening-statement-before-the-international-military-tribunal/

[Rockstar]

If I may, just to add some more insight into the Nazi party, I would like to share an interesting link I came accross the other day. It's a bit long, but worth it IMHO.



Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal (https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-and-writing/opening-statement-before-the-international-military-tribunal/)

On November 21, 1945, in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, Germany, Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal.



May it please Your Honors:


https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-and-writing/opening-statement-before-the-international-military-tribunal/

Interesting perspective, but imagine a few here would argue even ROBERT H. JACKSON must have been tricked into thinking Nazis we’re socialists in name only.

The Party also avowed, even in those early days, an authoritarian and totalitarian program for Germany. It demanded creation of a strong central power with unconditional authority, nationalization of all businesses which had been “amalgamated,” and a “reconstruction” of the national system of education white “must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State (state sociology).” Its hostility to civil liberties and freedom of the press was distinctly announced in these words:…