More evidence that nazism was left wing

Tommy Monk wrote: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

Thorin wrote:So again we know the privatization of national assets in the Public sector is not anything remotely left wing.

Why did the Nazi's allow the privatization of the railways, banks and steel works etc?



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

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:So again we know the privatization of national assets in the Public sector is not anything remotely left wing.

Why did the Nazi's allow the privatization of the railways, banks and steel works etc?



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

The nazis (like every left wing/socialist govt) were in favour of nationalising major industries, as stated... but just like the rest, were spending far too much and borrowing far too much to pay for all the infrastructure projects they ordered... so they had to sell off a few things to help towards paying for it all...


And (in case you didnt notice the other bit i highlighted) they set the banks up with being liable for covering the costs of much of any future investments/borrowing too!!!

Eilzel wrote:He knows how to underline the parts that support Hitler being a socialist, while ignoring all the parts that suggest otherwise. With no sense of irony implied either.

Seriously tommy do you just not read anything contrary to your view?

Hitler did not believe in equality of peoole or opportunities. Therefore, he was not a socialist. It is as simple as that. Any policy he enacted that might have resembled socialism was not done to create an equal society but to strengthen the nationalist militarist regime.

Hitler expressed regret at ever using the word socialism even in the passage you pasted earlier. He was not a socialist.

If a few socialistic policies make a party LW then you could call the Conservatives LW. Likewise if any support for capitaliam makes a party RW then Labour can be called RW.

The Nazis were overwhelmingly defined by their nationalism and were a RW party.

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The nazis (like every left wing/socialist govt) were in favour of nationalising major industries, as stated... but just like the rest, were spending far too much and borrowing far too much to pay for all the infrastructure projects they ordered... so they had to sell off a few things to help towards paying for it all...


And (in case you didnt notice the other bit i highlighted) they set the banks up with being liable for covering the costs of much of any future investments/borrowing too!!!

You are just repeating yourself Tommy.
Again you ignore the blatant fact they allowed the privatization of the Public sector.
Hitler even backed Free Markets, which is capitalism
You simple do not even understand Politics or history

Eilzel wrote:He knows how to underline the parts that support Hitler being a socialist, while ignoring all the parts that suggest otherwise. With no sense of irony implied either.

Seriously tommy do you just not read anything contrary to your view?

Hitler did not believe in equality of peoole or opportunities. Therefore, he was not a socialist. It is as simple as that. Any policy he enacted that might have resembled socialism was not done to create an equal society but to strengthen the nationalist militarist regime.

Hitler expressed regret at ever using the word socialism even in the passage you pasted earlier. He was not a socialist.

If a few socialistic policies make a party LW then you could call the Conservatives LW. Likewise if any support for capitaliam makes a party RW then Labour can be called RW.

The Nazis were overwhelmingly defined by their nationalism and were a RW party.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:He knows how to underline the parts that support Hitler being a socialist, while ignoring all the parts that suggest otherwise. With no sense of irony implied either.

Seriously tommy do you just not read anything contrary to your view?

Hitler did not believe in equality of peoole or opportunities. Therefore, he was not a socialist. It is as simple as that. Any policy he enacted that might have resembled socialism was not done to create an equal society but to strengthen the nationalist militarist regime.

Hitler expressed regret at ever using the word socialism even in the passage you pasted earlier. He was not a socialist.

If a few socialistic policies make a party LW then you could call the Conservatives LW. Likewise if any support for capitaliam makes a party RW then Labour can be called RW.

The Nazis were overwhelmingly defined by their nationalism and were a RW party.

Clearly showing that you have no idea what you are talking about!!!

Thorin wrote:Yes i am well aware that Germany was bankrupt by 1939 as I already stated, based on his keynesian economics. He ploughed countless money into trying to gain employment  for the German people on state projects and military spending. Of which he out spent the wealth of the Capitalist economy he backed.

Who now who is simply copying and pasting and showing they have no comprehension of what they are talking about?

As seen the Nazi's backed Capitalism and were pioneers in the privatization of the public sector something very much a right wing policy.

So your argument is sunk on the economics of the Nazi's Tommy.

Do you have anything left to back your view they were Far Left?

Because no Far Left system would allow for the privatization of any of the public sector. I mean you want to look at similarities to Stalin. Well private ownership was outlawed in Stalin's Russia. The Nazi's had no objection to private ownership, except that of Jews.

How does that equate to your view they were Far Left Tommy?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:Yes i am well aware that Germany was bankrupt by 1939 as I already stated, based on his keynesian economics. He ploughed countless money into trying to gain employment  for the German people on state projects and military spending. Of which he out spent the wealth of the Capitalist economy he backed.

Who now who is simply copying and pasting and showing they have no comprehension of what they are talking about?

As seen the Nazi's backed Capitalism and were pioneers in the privatization of the public sector something very much a right wing policy.

So your argument is sunk on the economics of the Nazi's Tommy.

Do you have anything left to back your view they were Far Left?

Because no Far Left system would allow for the privatization of any of the public sector. I mean you want to look at similarities to Stalin. Well private ownership was outlawed in Stalin's Russia. The Nazi's had no objection to private ownership, except that of Jews.

How does that equate to your view they were Far Left Tommy?

Germany was financially ruined before the nazis took over in 1933... and if you read the article above, it explains how they quickly turned things around, and all for the benefit of the german people... socialist style!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You are just repeating yourself Tommy.
Again you ignore the blatant fact they allowed the privatization of the Public sector.
Hitler even backed Free Markets, which is capitalism
You simple do not even understand Politics or history

I'm not repeating myself... just trying to help you to see the bigger picture...

You simply do not know as much about politics or history as you like to think that you do... and you dont understand anything about economics...!!!

Maybe this might help...



"We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency [backed by] gold of which we had none, but for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced. . . .we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank."
- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Monetary System," www.rense.com, citing C. C. Veith, Citadels of
   Chaos (Meador, 1949)
Guernsey wasn't the only government to solve its infrastructure problems by issuing its own money. (See E. Brown, "Waking Up on a Minnesota Bridge," www.webofdebt.com/articles/infrastructure-crisis.php, August 4, 2007.) A more notorious model is found in post-World War I Germany. When Hitler came to power, the country was completely, hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations payments on the German people, who were expected to reimburse the costs of the war for all participants — costs totaling three times the value of all the property in the country. Speculation in the German mark had caused it to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. At its peak, a wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty, and huge numbers of homes and farms had been lost to the banks and speculators. People were living in hovels and starving. Nothing quite like it had ever happened before - the total destruction of the national currency, wiping out people's savings, their businesses, and the economy generally. Making matters worse, at the end of the decade global depression hit. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery to international lenders.


Or so it seemed. Hitler and the National Socialists, who came to power in 1933, thwarted the international banking cartel by issuing their own money. In this they took their cue from Abraham Lincoln, who funded the American Civil War with government-issued paper money called "Greenbacks." Hitler began his national credit program by devising a plan of public works. Projects earmarked for funding included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new buildings, roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. The projected cost of the various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. One billion non-inflationary bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates, were then issued against this cost. Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. This government-issued money wasn't backed by gold, but it was backed by something of real value. It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, "for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced." The workers then spent the Certificates on other goods and services, creating more jobs for more people.

Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, although it was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic boycott abroad. It did this by using a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged directly with other countries, circumventing the international banks. This system of direct exchange occurred without debt and without trade deficits. Germany's economic experiment, like Lincoln's, was short-lived; but it left some lasting monuments to its success, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive superhighway.1

Hjalmar Schacht, who was then head of the German central bank, is quoted in a bit of wit that sums up the German version of the "Greenback" miracle. An American banker had commented, "Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We've lots of money and that's real banking." Schacht replied, "You should come to Berlin. We don't have money. That's real banking."2

Although Hitler has rightfully gone down in infamy in the history books, he was quite popular with the German people, at least for a time. Stephen Zarlenga suggests in The Lost Science of Money that this was because he temporarily rescued Germany from English economic theory — the theory that money must be borrowed against the gold reserves of a private banking cartel rather than issued outright by the government.3 According to Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow, this may have been a chief reason Hitler had to be stopped: he had sidestepped the international bankers and created his own money. Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolsevism and a Trotsky intimate, who was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky, Hitler had actually been funded by the international bankers, through their agent Hjalmar Schacht, in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. But Hitler had become an even bigger threat than Stalin when he had taken the bold step of printing his own money. Rakovsky said:

[Hitler] took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the state . . . . Are you capable of imagining what would have come . . . if it had infected a number of other states . . . . If you can, then imagine its counterrevolutionary functions.4
Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany's remarkable transformation:

The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.5
In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of public (government) schools today.

Another Look at the Weimar Hyperinflation

What does appear in modern textbooks is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic (the common name for the republic that governed Germany from 1919 to 1933). The radical devaluation of the German mark is cited as the textbook example of what can go wrong when governments are given the unfettered power to print money. That is what it is cited for; but in the complex world of economics, things are not always as they seem. The Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Schacht, who was currency commissioner for the Republic, complained:

The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. . . . [T]he Reich could not find any way of holding its head above the water other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.


That is what he said at first. But Zarlenga writes that Schacht proceeded in his 1967 book The Magic of Money "to let the cat out of the bag, writing in German, with some truly remarkable admissions that shatter the 'accepted wisdom' the financial community has promulgated on the German hyperinflation."6 Schacht revealed that it was the privately-owned Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who would sell the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don't own, sell it, then "cover" by buying it back at the lower price. Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the Reichsbank made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing, marks that were created with accounting entries on the bank's books and lent at a profitable interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.7

According to Schacht, then, not only did the government not cause the Weimar hyperinflation, but it was the government that got it under control. The Reichsbank was put under strict government regulation, and prompt corrective measures were taken to eliminate foreign speculation, by eliminating easy access to loans of bank-created money. Hitler then got the country back on its feet with his Treasury Certificates issued Greenback-style by the government.


http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/bankrupt-germany.php

Thorin wrote:So we are back to Tommy spamming and not able to counter points

True Socialism is anti-Capitalism

Nazi Germany backed Capitalism

Game over

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

What we'all have learned from Tommy the Troll's idiotic posts here, so far :

* Tommy (still) believes that he's a "genius";

* Tommy doesn't understand basic English --  he obviously believes that words can mean whatever he wants them to meen;

* Tommy can't even comprehend what he posts himself;

* Tommy doesn't understand basic economics;

* Tommy doesn't undestand political systems..

* Tommy is completely incapable of conducting an intelligent and rational discussion.        

Thorin wrote:So we are back to Tommy spamming and not able to counter points

True Socialism is anti-Capitalism

Nazi Germany backed Capitalism

Game over

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:He knows how to underline the parts that support Hitler being a socialist, while ignoring all the parts that suggest otherwise. With no sense of irony implied either.

Seriously tommy do you just not read anything contrary to your view?

Hitler did not believe in equality of peoole or opportunities. Therefore, he was not a socialist. It is as simple as that. Any policy he enacted that might have resembled socialism was not done to create an equal society but to strengthen the nationalist militarist regime.

Hitler expressed regret at ever using the word socialism even in the passage you pasted earlier. He was not a socialist.

If a few socialistic policies make a party LW then you could call the Conservatives LW. Likewise if any support for capitaliam makes a party RW then Labour can be called RW.

The Nazis were overwhelmingly defined by their nationalism and were a RW party.

Clearly showing that you have no idea what you are talking about!!!

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Clearly showing that you have no idea what you are talking about!!!

That's why you have been responding so well to points made... oh wait. Shit that wasn't you.

Waste of time. Bored by you now. I'll just continue watching didge run circles around you.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Clearly showing that you have no idea what you are talking about!!!

That's why you have been responding so well to points made... oh wait. Shit that wasn't you.

Waste of time. Bored by you now. I'll just continue watching didge run circles around you.

Tommy Monk wrote:http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/frequently-asked-questions-faq-about-socialism-and-world-socialist-movement

Tommy Monk wrote:It was you 2 going on about what 'traditional socialism' and 'true socialism' was/is...

Seems you both dont have a clue what youre talking about...!!!