More evidence that nazism was left wing

First topic message reminder :



"...Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight..."

Joseph Goebbels

nicko wrote:Facebook and Google are a case in point, Millions in profits, very little to the Tax man !

Perhaps they're government controlled. It's a great way to keep a check on the masses.

eddie wrote:

nicko wrote:Facebook and Google are a case in point, Millions in profits, very little to the Tax man !

Perhaps they're government controlled. It's a great way to keep a check on the masses.

Google, Apple, Twitter, Microsoft, Instagram, Amazon, Facebook...

The new face of "The One World Guvm'nt"  !!!

Dom, dom, dom,  DOM !        * Cue sinister/conspiratorial soundtrack *

Eilzel wrote:I fully agree on targetting major companies as a priority and we should be closing tax loopholes. You are starting to sound like a red blooded socialist yourself there Lord Ed

Not at all, Lez...and I'm not a far Right wing Tory either. But I do believe in fairness when it comes to taxation.

The 40 per cent tax rate is hitting far, far too many people who should not, and in many cases, cannot, pay it. I have to confess that I pay it myself, and I'm just a pensioner (albeit a bloody fortunate one who made all the right choices over pension provision many years ago), but I don't now have a mortgage and family, household and other essential expenses hanging round my neck and I don't feel I can complain about it. Well, not too much perhaps.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:

Perhaps they're government controlled. It's a great way to keep a check on the masses.

Google, Apple, Twitter, Microsoft, Instagram, Amazon, Facebook...

The new face of "The One World Guvm'nt"  !!!

Dom, dom, dom,  DOM !        * Cue sinister/conspiratorial soundtrack *

Diminutive of the Latin for master, conqueror or lord? There surely must be a coded message in there somewhere.

nicko wrote:Facebook and Google are a case in point, Millions in profits, very little to the Tax man !

Perhaps they're government controlled. It's a great way to keep a check on the masses.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The SNP seem to be putting nation above all else, at least at the moment, so does that not make them right wing?

I think the Nazis did care about treating people equally, as long as they were "German". That is the difference IMO, and it's why I think they're labelled as right wing. As for the left wing treating everyone equally, do they really? If they want to tax richer people a higher percentage than others, they're not treating them the same.

Did the Nazis really want people to profit from big business?

Again, this is why the REASON for taxing the rich higher and having regulations is important. If you can't understand that then defing the key differences that make an ideology Left or Right is impossible.

The Nazis are labelled RW because of their nationalism, which went as far as declaring nationalist wars, a slight factor you seem to be forgetting. The were also major social conservatives- encouraging women's roles as simple house wives, persecuting gays and gypsies, and being massively xenophobic as well as anti-Semitic. They even persecuted the disabled. All of that makes them as opposed to equality as it is possible to be.

You tell me what the reason is then.

I agree that nationalism is the reason the Nazis are labelled as right wing - I said that myself.

Nationalist wars? An interesting theme. On the face of it, they seemed expansionist, and in the end they were, but at first they wanted back land which they considered had been stolen from them. They were particularly pissed off about Prussia.

Did the Nazis raise taxes? Yes they did - especially for richer people and corporations.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The SNP seem to be putting nation above all else, at least at the moment, so does that not make them right wing?

I think the Nazis did care about treating people equally, as long as they were "German". That is the difference IMO, and it's why I think they're labelled as right wing. As for the left wing treating everyone equally, do they really? If they want to tax richer people more than others, they're not treating them the same.

Did the Nazis really want people to profit from big business?

That is not treating people equally but selectively. He also never treated Germans equally.
Tax is based proportionally based fairly on what people can afford to the state. Both right wing and left have their own views on what this proportion should be.
Many of the business vastly profited under the Nazi's.
What gets me is you ignore that the Nazis championed individualism over collectivism, Eugenics, over freedom of reproduction and this was not just with the disabled for example.

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

Then we have Merit over equality, Gun ownership over gun control, Capitalism over Marxism, Militarism over pacifism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, pragmatism over principle, nationalism over internationalism, Competition over cooperation etc

The list is endless, but again you are only looking for a very narrow looking glass over what you consider left and right wing.

Also the SNP are not truly nationalistic, as they want to join the EU.

The Nazis certainly did not champion individualism, Hitler was more interested in the "common good" of the German State.

Raggamuffin wrote:The Nazis certainly did not champion individualism, Hitler was more interested in the "common good" of the German State.

No he never was

How can he have been more interested when it was for his own needs and not that of the people.
He allowed Germany to be totally destroyed

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The Nazis certainly did not champion individualism, Hitler was more interested in the "common good" of the German State.

No he never was

How can he have been more interested when it was for his own needs and not that of the people.
He allowed Germany to be totally destroyed

He didn't know he was allowing it to be destroyed though. He had every faith that the German army and the people would succeed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No he never was

How can he have been more interested when it was for his own needs and not that of the people.
He allowed Germany to be totally destroyed

He didn't know he was allowing it to be destroyed though. He had every faith that the German army and the people would succeed.

I think gearing up a for a war with not only the west and Russia was taking the lives of Germans in his hands

That is individualism, placing this on his bleiefs

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't know he was allowing it to be destroyed though. He had every faith that the German army and the people would succeed.

I think gearing up a for a war with not only the west and Russia was taking the lives of Germans in his hands

That is individualism, placing this on his bleiefs

It's not individualism at all. I'm talking about his view of individual members of society versus the collective good of the State, and he certainly wasn't individualistic.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I think gearing up a for a war with not only the west and Russia was taking the lives of Germans in his hands

That is individualism, placing this on his bleiefs

It's not individualism at all. I'm talking about his view of individual members of society versus the collective good of the State, and he certainly wasn't individualistic.

What collective good of the state?

He took only his own views over everyone else

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not individualism at all. I'm talking about his view of individual members of society versus the collective good of the State, and he certainly wasn't individualistic.

What collective good of the state?

He took only his own views over everyone else

Because he thought he knew what was best for everyone. He wanted the people to work for the collective benefit of the State of Germany, not to satisfy themselves.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What collective good of the state?

He took only his own views over everyone else

Because he thought he knew what was best for everyone. He wanted the people to work for the collective benefit of the State of Germany, not to satisfy themselves.

So that is individualism

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't think that nationalism is necessarily a right wing ideology after all then? The SNP want self-determination for Scots, and Hitler wanted self-determination for Germans, so it could be said that Hitler's nationalism didn't necessarily make him right wing.

I very clearly said nothing is black and white Raggs, read everything.

Socialism is LW. But the Nazis took aspects of socialism that worked for them and used what is known as RW socialism. Indistinguishable from the socialism of Corbyn and Sanders.

Nationalism is RW. But the SNP and Mao's communists (2 very different parties) use nationalism too. That doesn't make those parties RW though.

Again nothing is black and white. You'd struggle to find a party that only followed 100% pure RW or LW politics.

It is most amusing to watch both you and didge desperately stretch the boundaries of definitions/meanings and bend them in a way that a contortionist could only dream of being able to do with their body...!!!



You even add some mind bending 'quantum thinking' into the 'bend over backwards' routine...!!!

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Because he thought he knew what was best for everyone. He wanted the people to work for the collective benefit of the State of Germany, not to satisfy themselves.

So that is individualism

No it's not. I disagree with your definition of individualism - it's very narrow.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So that is individualism

No it's not. I disagree with your definition of individualism - it's very narrow.

If its based on his beliefs, that is individualism

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it's not. I disagree with your definition of individualism - it's very narrow.

If its based on his beliefs, that is individualism

Do you consider that Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were individualists then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


If its based on his beliefs, that is individualism

Do you consider that Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were individualists then?

The later two definately

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I very clearly said nothing is black and white Raggs, read everything.

Socialism is LW. But the Nazis took aspects of socialism that worked for them and used what is known as RW socialism. Indistinguishable from the socialism of Corbyn and Sanders.

Nationalism is RW. But the SNP and Mao's communists (2 very different parties) use nationalism too. That doesn't make those parties RW though.

Again nothing is black and white. You'd struggle to find a party that only followed 100% pure RW or LW politics.

It is most amusing to watch both you and didge desperately stretch the boundaries of definitions/meanings and bend them in a way that a contortionist could only dream of being able to do with their body...!!!



You even add some mind bending 'quantum thinking' into the 'bend over backwards' routine...!!!

Les has said that the Nazis' socialism was indistinguishable from that of Corbyn's though Tommy.

Eilzel wrote:I think the problem arises from trying to define political ideology by the parties that adopt them (or forms of them).

When we say KW nationalism and RW socialism we use the RW/LW tags to differentiate them to tradional socialism and nationalism.

Nationalism isn't LW just because the SNP have a single nationalist aspiration.

Parties aren't totally representitive of their adopted political ideologies.

But socialism is rooted in LW principles and nationalism in RW.

I asked tommy earlier if he could tell me why LW/socialist govts often used high taxes on the rich and heavy regulation. He couldn't answer me. I'd appreciate of you could.

What are you waffling about...!!!???

Nationalism has 'traditionally' always been at the heart of any/every national govt or governing/authoritative type monarch/body/group... as that would be the fundamental core justifying reason for its very existence in the first place, and they would need to be seen to be acting in the best interests of the national people they purport to be there to look after, to ensure their own survival!!!

Left wing is rooted in anti monarchy and anti capitalism and in communism/socialism... but always national peoples revolution based...

When would it have ever been possible for any national political party/movement to exist/survive, or be able to gain any sort of support/power etc, if it said it did not have the best interests of the national people and the nation at heart...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I think the problem arises from trying to define political ideology by the parties that adopt them (or forms of them).

When we say KW nationalism and RW socialism we use the RW/LW tags to differentiate them to tradional socialism and nationalism.

Nationalism isn't LW just because the SNP have a single nationalist aspiration.

Parties aren't totally representitive of their adopted political ideologies.

But socialism is rooted in LW principles and nationalism in RW.

I asked tommy earlier if he could tell me why LW/socialist govts often used high taxes on the rich and heavy regulation. He couldn't answer me. I'd appreciate of you could.

What are you waffling about...!!!???

Nationalism has 'traditionally' always been at the heart of any/every national govt or governing/authoritative type monarch/body/group... as that would be the fundamental core justifying reason for its very existence in the first place, and they would need to be seen to be acting in the best interests of the national people they purport to be there to look after, to ensure their own survival!!!

Left wing is rooted in anti monarchy and anti capitalism and in communism/socialism... but always national peoples revolution based...

When would it have ever been possible for any national political party/movement to exist/survive, or be able to gain any sort of support/power etc, if it said it did not have the best interests of the national people and the nation at heart...!?

Good points there Tommy. You're right - no party is going to say that they don't give a toss about the citizens of the country they want to govern.

The trouble is that nationalism has become associated with racism, and that's certainly true of the Nazis.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

What are you waffling about...!!!???

Nationalism has 'traditionally' always been at the heart of any/every national govt or governing/authoritative type monarch/body/group... as that would be the fundamental core justifying reason for its very existence in the first place, and they would need to be seen to be acting in the best interests of the national people they purport to be there to look after, to ensure their own survival!!!

Left wing is rooted in anti monarchy and anti capitalism and in communism/socialism... but always national peoples revolution based...

When would it have ever been possible for any national political party/movement to exist/survive, or be able to gain any sort of support/power etc, if it said it did not have the best interests of the national people and the nation at heart...!?

Good points there Tommy. You're right - no party is going to say that they don't give a toss about the citizens of the country they want to govern.

The trouble is that nationalism has become associated with racism, and that's certainly true of the Nazis.

No it has not

Why do you think I gave you the many forms of nationalism?

This nationalism was based on racism though

Of course it has - National Front, British National Party, etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course it has - National Front, British National Party, etc.

They are racist forms of nationalism

Do you want me to supply you again with the many forms

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course it has - National Front, British National Party, etc.

They are racist forms of nationalism

Do you want me to supply you again with the many forms

No thank you. I'm talking about the common understanding of "nationalism".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They are racist forms of nationalism

Do you want me to supply you again with the many forms

No thank you. I'm talking about the common understanding of "nationalism".

There is no common understanding

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No thank you. I'm talking about the common understanding of "nationalism".

There is no common understanding

Yes there is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


There is no common understanding

Yes there is.

No that is your perception

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes there is.

No that is your perception

Yes, and the perception of many other people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No that is your perception

Yes, and the perception of many other people.

Really?

So you know the views of at least 4- 8 billion people? To be classed as many?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, and the perception of many other people.

Really?

So you know the views of at least 4- 8 billion people? To be classed as many?

Of course. You need to live in the real world Didge.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

So you know the views of at least 4- 8 billion people? To be classed as many?

Of course. You need to live in the real world Didge.

So the answer to that is no you don't

You base this on a minuscule amount of people you know, to then form a poor perception

There is no common form of nationalism, as there has been many varied forms in history

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Re your question about tax and heavy regulation, I'm not really sure what you're getting at, so I'll leave that one for now.

But this is crucial to establishing the core of RW and LW ideologies.

Again, nationalism IS RW even if adopted by the SNP. N

Nationalism puts nation and nationality above all else, and so is NOT in keeping with real LW (or even real socialist) ideology. LW ideology is about treating all as equals regardless of class, wealth, differences and nationalities. Which makes REAL socialism incompatible with nationalism.

Nazism did NOT care about treating people equally. The rich stayed rich and even profitted big time, minorities were persecuted, equal opportunities did not exist, nationalist invasions occured. None of that fits with socialism.

Sounds morelike communist dreamland ideology...

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The SNP seem to be putting nation above all else, at least at the moment, so does that not make them right wing?

I think the Nazis did care about treating people equally, as long as they were "German". That is the difference IMO, and it's why I think they're labelled as right wing. As for the left wing treating everyone equally, do they really? If they want to tax richer people a higher percentage than others, they're not treating them the same.

Did the Nazis really want people to profit from big business?

Again, this is why the REASON for taxing the rich higher and having regulations is important. If you can't understand that then defing the key differences that make an ideology Left or Right is impossible.

The Nazis are labelled RW because of their nationalism, which went as far as declaring nationalist wars, a slight factor you seem to be forgetting. The were also major social conservatives- encouraging women's roles as simple house wives, persecuting gays and gypsies, and being massively xenophobic as well as anti-Semitic. They even persecuted the disabled. All of that makes them as opposed to equality as it is possible to be.

Sounds like you are describing Muslims as far right/nazis...?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I think the problem arises from trying to define political ideology by the parties that adopt them (or forms of them).

When we say KW nationalism and RW socialism we use the RW/LW tags to differentiate them to tradional socialism and nationalism.

Nationalism isn't LW just because the SNP have a single nationalist aspiration.

Parties aren't totally representitive of their adopted political ideologies.

But socialism is rooted in LW principles and nationalism in RW.

I asked tommy earlier if he could tell me why LW/socialist govts often used high taxes on the rich and heavy regulation. He couldn't answer me. I'd appreciate of you could.

What are you waffling about...!!!???

Nationalism has 'traditionally' always been at the heart of any/every national govt or governing/authoritative type monarch/body/group... as that would be the fundamental core justifying reason for its very existence in the first place, and they would need to be seen to be acting in the best interests of the national people they purport to be there to look after, to ensure their own survival!!!

Left wing is rooted in anti monarchy and anti capitalism and in communism/socialism... but always national peoples revolution based...

When would it have ever been possible for any national political party/movement to exist/survive, or be able to gain any sort of support/power etc, if it said it did not have the best interests of the national people and the nation at heart...!?

Good points there Tommy. You're right - no party is going to say that they don't give a toss about the citizens of the country they want to govern.

The trouble is that nationalism has become associated with racism, and that's certainly true of the Nazis.

There you again, trying to define an ideology by political parties- it does not work that way. The Conservatives, the Nazis and the Republicans are all RW but totally different. Mao's communists, the Labour party and the Greens are all LW but totally different. Parties do not define ideologies.

Marx and Engels, the grandfathers of communism, saw it as a worldwide revolution that would break national boundaries. Even Lenin did not see his mission as stopping at Russia. Socialism and communism are not truly nationalistic. But parties that have adopted them have been.

And you ask why LW govts often have high taxes and regulation. I thought an obvious question.

High taxes = more govt money to improve infrastructure and education opportunities and assistance to the less fortunate. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

Regulation = preventing large companies taking advantage of ordinary people or abusing local resources and the enviornment.

In both cases the measures are taken to ensure balance between powerful corporations and ordinary people. Closing the inequality gap. These and socially liberal values are defining of the overall equality based core of LW thinking and mostly absent in Nazi Germany.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good points there Tommy. You're right - no party is going to say that they don't give a toss about the citizens of the country they want to govern.

The trouble is that nationalism has become associated with racism, and that's certainly true of the Nazis.

There you again, trying to define an ideology by political parties- it does not work that way. The Conservatives, the Nazis and the Republicans are all RW but totally different. Mao's communists, the Labour party and the Greens are all LW but totally different. Parties do not define ideologies.

Marx and Engels, the grandfathers of communism, saw it as a worldwide revolution that would break national boundaries. Even Lenin did not see his mission as stopping at Russia. Socialism and communism are not truly nationalistic. But parties that have adopted them have been.

And you ask why LW govts often have high taxes and regulation. I thought an obvious question.

High taxes = more govt money to improve infrastructure and education opportunities and assistance to the less fortunate. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

Regulation = preventing large companies taking advantage of ordinary people or abusing local resources and the enviornment.

In both cases the measures are taken to ensure balance between powerful corporations and ordinary people. Closing the inequality gap. These and socially liberal values are defining of the overall equality based core of LW thinking and mostly absent in Nazi Germany.

The Nazis did raise taxes, and they did regulate large companies.

I don't know what you mean in your first sentence.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

There you again, trying to define an ideology by political parties- it does not work that way. The Conservatives, the Nazis and the Republicans are all RW but totally different. Mao's communists, the Labour party and the Greens are all LW but totally different. Parties do not define ideologies.

Marx and Engels, the grandfathers of communism, saw it as a worldwide revolution that would break national boundaries. Even Lenin did not see his mission as stopping at Russia. Socialism and communism are not truly nationalistic. But parties that have adopted them have been.

And you ask why LW govts often have high taxes and regulation. I thought an obvious question.

High taxes = more govt money to improve infrastructure and education opportunities and assistance to the less fortunate. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

Regulation = preventing large companies taking advantage of ordinary people or abusing local resources and the enviornment.

In both cases the measures are taken to ensure balance between powerful corporations and ordinary people. Closing the inequality gap. These and socially liberal values are defining of the overall equality based core of LW thinking and mostly absent in Nazi Germany.

The Nazis did raise taxes, and they did regulate large companies.

I don't know what you mean in your first sentence.

Yes he did raise taxes against the Jews

For goodness sake

The highest rate for taxes was 50% for Germans, that being 4% of the highest earners. Most Germans exempt tax hikes
Jews could suffer up to 100% with their properties confiscated.
Seriously please read some real history

Again businesses vastly profited under Nazism
That is capitalism

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Nazis did raise taxes, and they did regulate large companies.

I don't know what you mean in your first sentence.

Yes he did raise taxes against the Jews

For goodness sake

The highest rate for taxes was 50% for Germans, that being 4% of the highest earners. Most Germans exempt tax hikes
Jews could suffer up to 100% with their properties confiscated.
Seriously please read some real history

Again businesses vastly profited under Nazism
That is capitalism

I know the history better than you, and I know about the taxes. You need to stop reading biased websites.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Yes he did raise taxes against the Jews

For goodness sake

The highest rate for taxes was 50% for Germans, that being 4% of the highest earners. Most Germans exempt tax hikes
Jews could suffer up to 100% with their properties confiscated.
Seriously please read some real history

Again businesses vastly profited under Nazism
That is capitalism

I know the history better than you, and I know about the taxes. You need to stop reading biased websites.

Is that why you could not counter my points

How about Hitler allowed the Privatization of Banks, the railways and the steel industries etc.? Why was the car industry booming?

Show me where Hitler raised taxes on the Middle class and working class?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good points there Tommy. You're right - no party is going to say that they don't give a toss about the citizens of the country they want to govern.

The trouble is that nationalism has become associated with racism, and that's certainly true of the Nazis.

There you again, trying to define an ideology by political parties- it does not work that way. The Conservatives, the Nazis and the Republicans are all RW but totally different. Mao's communists, the Labour party and the Greens are all LW but totally different. Parties do not define ideologies.

Marx and Engels, the grandfathers of communism, saw it as a worldwide revolution that would break national boundaries. Even Lenin did not see his mission as stopping at Russia. Socialism and communism are not truly nationalistic. But parties that have adopted them have been.

And you ask why LW govts often have high taxes and regulation. I thought an obvious question.

High taxes = more govt money to improve infrastructure and education opportunities and assistance to the less fortunate. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

Regulation = preventing large companies taking advantage of ordinary people or abusing local resources and the enviornment.

In both cases the measures are taken to ensure balance between powerful corporations and ordinary people. Closing the inequality gap. These and socially liberal values are defining of the overall equality based core of LW thinking and mostly absent in Nazi Germany.

The difference was only the nationalism and the belief that it was better to leave most businesses in private ownership but to then impose big state regulation over it all so the state still got control over all the means of production... while there was also a form of national healthcare system, food/shelter and jobs made available for the poor and needy, and huge investment in infrastucture (mainly road building)...!!!

This = left wing national socialism!!!

Hitler's views on economics
Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",[14] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[15] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[13] The term that Hitler later wished he had used for his political party name was “social revolutionary.”[16] In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[17] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[18] Shortly after coming to power, Hitler told a confidant: "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can't escape...What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings".[19] He clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[20] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism ("Jewish Bolsheviks") and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[21][22]


wikipedia

Selective again

Although the Nazi Party election programs supported nationalization of major industries, the Nazi government included a few actual policies of privatization in the 1930s.^[52] Between the fiscal years 1934/35 and 1937/38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues.^[53] Among companies that were privatized, were the four major commercial banks in Germany that had all come under public ownership during the prior years; Commerz– und Privatbank, Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank. Instead of making important investment decisions, and determining the use to which their funds were to be put, the private banks merely had to provide the technical facilities for covering government expenditure or financing new investment—the volume and composition of which had been previously settled by the government.^{[54][clarification needed]} Also privatized were 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 a number of shipbuilding companies, and enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned utilities company

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

What's your point?

Under our last labour govt there was privatisation... as well as massive borrowing...

And the piece says the banks had only been nationalised in recent years... probably because of the wider financial problems at the time... bit like labour bailing out the banks here and nationasing them in 2008/9... but where the intent was always to sell off again once conditions allowed...!

Tommy you do realise that your last quote basically detaches Hitler from actual socialism right? He repeatedly denounces traditional socialism and goes on to redefine it in his own way. That is not socialism as we know it at all.

No... I dont agree.

Tommy Monk wrote:What's your point?

Under our last labour govt there was privatisation... as well as massive borrowing...

And the piece says the banks had only been nationalised in recent years... probably because of the wider financial problems at the time... bit like labour bailing out the banks here and nationasing them in 2008/9... but where the intent was always to sell off again once conditions allowed...!

So under recent Labour who more centre right, that is your claim to call Nazism Far Left?

Seriously

Labour under Tony Blair was not left wing

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:What's your point?

Under our last labour govt there was privatisation... as well as massive borrowing...

And the piece says the banks had only been nationalised in recent years... probably because of the wider financial problems at the time... bit like labour bailing out the banks here and nationasing them in 2008/9... but where the intent was always to sell off again once conditions allowed...!

So under recent Labour who more centre right, that is your claim to call Nazism Far Left?

Seriously

Labour under Tony Blair was not left wing

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/12/tony-blair-right-wing-says-john-major_n_1589295.html