The Nazis were NOT left wing.

http://bit.ly/2y1w2Cg (link promised to work by your friendly neighborhood web slinger)

Language is a bit coarse, but the author does have a point.

Soz...

OP wrote:Tuckered
Oops! That page can’t be found.

I think when this site changes the word cunt to geranium, the link goes astray.

"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism." - Hitler

Ben Reilly wrote:"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism." - Hitler

And, fittingly, Nazism was never an economic theory. The element of anarchy in socialist evolution, is the total antithesis of authoritarian Nazism.

yeah because the socialist part is what the RW are known for

Ben Reilly wrote:"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism." - Hitler

Full quote...


"...'Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false...”

Here we go again

What was the Night of the Long Knives?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism." - Hitler

Full quote...

"...'Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false...”

Hitler places his total commitment to individualist values.  Tommy, it's called "Socialism"...because the movement adheres to the social, as opposed to individualist perspective.  So you blow up the full passage, and it makes the opposite point that you make.

Really, all it proves is that Hitler didn't know shit about economics, nor any intellectual theory.  Hence, he could never have been committed to any doctrine.  He was a blatant totalitarianist...pure authority.  No ideas, no creed, no commitment to anything.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Full quote...

"...'Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false...”

Total commitment to individualist values.  Tommy, it's called "Socialism"...because the movement adheres to the social, as opposed to individualist perspective.  So you blow up the full passage, and it makes the opposite point that you make.

Really, all it proves is that Hitler didn't know shit about economics, nor any intellectual theory.  Hence, he could never have been committed to any doctrine.  He was a blatant totalitarianist...pure authority.  No ideas, no creed, no commitment to anything.

Intellectual theory?

So why is it that socialism in practice has always failed within civilization?

Well not quite, as i can give you some examples where it has done okay, but this has never been formed around civilization.

Socialism has neverreally worked and has many times proven to be always had Totalitarianism try to impliment it and run this.

It fails to understand the human  psyche.

Hitler was never socialist. He used socialists to gain power.

Then murdered them.

'...Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community...'


This is exactly the same belief held by the vast majority of lefty/socialists here today in the UK...!!!


Being that vast number are university graduates who think they should be rewarded more (financially) for their efforts/abilities/qualifications, than others in society, who didn't make the same efforts that they did to gain the abilities/qualifications etc...


I have never heard a lefty uni grad saying that they are only worth being paid the same wage as any other unskilled/unqualified person in any other unskilled/ unqualified position etc...


In fact... all uni grads fully subscribe to the beliefs of Hitler, in that individuals with higher efficiency etc being encouraged and rewarded... while also happily recognising/accepting that they will also be subject to the requirement of making financial contributions towards the good of the wider community...!!!


Ask any lefty student if they think it would be right/fair/just for them to do 2 years extra at school for A levels, and then an extra 3-7 years at uni etc... just to then do a highly skilled/qualified job, but only get paid the same as a supermarket shelf stacker or a toilet cleaner...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:'...Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community...'


This is exactly the same belief held by the vast majority of lefty/socialists here today in the UK...!!!


Being that vast number are university graduates who think they should be rewarded more (financially) for their efforts/abilities/qualifications, than others in society, who didn't make the same efforts that they did to gain the abilities/qualifications etc...


I have never heard a lefty uni grad saying that they are only worth being paid the same wage as any other unskilled/unqualified person in any other unskilled/ unqualified position etc...


In fact... all uni grads fully subscribe to the beliefs of Hitler, in that individuals with higher efficiency etc being encouraged and rewarded... while also happily recognising/accepting that they will also be subject to the requirement of making financial contributions towards the good of the wider community...!!!


Ask any lefty student if they think it would be right/fair/just for them to do 2 years extra at school for A levels, and then an extra 3-7 years at uni etc... just to then do a highly skilled/qualified job, but only get paid the same as a supermarket shelf stacker or a toilet cleaner...!!!???

You raise a solid point.  You don't have the answer, but you raise it.

One issue with socialism is the relative values, within the labor theory of value.  It seems that the same market theory prevails: whatever the market will bear.  If a physician is more valuable than a lamp maker, so be it.

But that is not the real issue with socialism.  The real issue is that the labor theory of value, regardless of relative worth, is not maintained consistently in the transition to industrialism.  Capital intervenes and separates the producer (worker) from the tools.  Thus, socialist principles must be invoked to return the tools to the worker.  When that is done, capital is unnecessary.  Profit is eliminated.  The market returns to a labor theory of value.

Hitler could not have gotten through that thought, let alone embraced its teaching.  When capital intervenes, the producer (worker) goes from craftsman to employee, and is alienated from the process.  S/he is no longer an artisan, but becomes a commodity him or herself (and how do we talk about employment, but in percentages and statistics--like so many bushels of corn).  This loss of self-identity is synonymous with lack of fulfillment, if you will.  That's the true issue of socialism.

Notice in your Hitler quote, it says: "...at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community."  Or, in other words, his self-identity is lost.  Whereas socialism was trying to return control to the individual, Hitler wants it to go to the state ("...the community").  Like capitalism, Hitler didn't care about worker fulfillment.  He was trying to subsume the individual to the state, in his totalitarian scheme.  He had no interest in the aims of socialism...he just wanted his totalitarian machine.

smelly-bandit wrote:
yeah because the socialist part is what the RW are known for

Trolling again, I see, you smelly dimwit...

Now, proceed to demonstrate that you don't actually know what socialism is, numbnuts..

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:'...Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community...'


This is exactly the same belief held by the vast majority of lefty/socialists here today in the UK...!!!


Being that vast number are university graduates who think they should be rewarded more (financially) for their efforts/abilities/qualifications, than others in society, who didn't make the same efforts that they did to gain the abilities/qualifications etc...


I have never heard a lefty uni grad saying that they are only worth being paid the same wage as any other unskilled/unqualified person in any other unskilled/ unqualified position etc...


In fact... all uni grads fully subscribe to the beliefs of Hitler, in that individuals with higher efficiency etc being encouraged and rewarded... while also happily recognising/accepting that they will also be subject to the requirement of making financial contributions towards the good of the wider community...!!!


Ask any lefty student if they think it would be right/fair/just for them to do 2 years extra at school for A levels, and then an extra 3-7 years at uni etc... just to then do a highly skilled/qualified job, but only get paid the same as a supermarket shelf stacker or a toilet cleaner...!!!???

You raise a solid point.  You don't have the answer, but you raise it.

One issue with socialism is the relative values, within the labor theory of value.  It seems that the same market theory prevails: whatever the market will bear.  If a physician is more valuable than a lamp maker, so be it.

But that is not the real issue with socialism.  The real issue is that the labor theory of value, regardless of relative worth, is not maintained consistently in the transition to industrialism.  Capital intervenes and separates the producer (worker) from the tools.  Thus, socialist principles must be invoked to return the tools to the worker.  When that is done, capital is unnecessary.  Profit is eliminated.  The market returns to a labor theory of value.

Hitler could not have gotten through that thought, let alone embraced its teaching.  When capital intervenes, the producer (worker) goes from craftsman to employee, and is alienated from the process.  S/he is no longer an artisan, but becomes a commodity him or herself (and how do we talk about employment, but in percentages and statistics--like so many bushels of corn).  This loss of self-identity is synonymous with lack of fulfillment, if you will.  That's the true issue of socialism.

Notice in your Hitler quote, it says: "...at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community."  Or, in other words, his self-identity is lost.  Whereas socialism was trying to return control to the individual, Hitler wants it to go to the state ("...the community").  Like capitalism, Hitler didn't care about worker fulfillment.  He was trying to subsume the individual to the state, in his totalitarian scheme.  He had no interest in the aims of socialism...he just wanted his totalitarian machine.

You make a lot of noise there... but sounds very much like you are saying/agreeing that left wing socialists believe that more efficient/productive/skilled workers should be paid more than others... as well as that they accept they are required to pay taxes towards the assistance of wider community in provision of public services and that being for the common good etc... which is exactly what Hitler was saying in his quote...!


The only alternative version of left wing socialism at the time was that of communism, as seen in action in Russia, and bringing ruin to Russia...


It is true that Hitlers version of left wing socialism was not the same as communism... and that he was fiercely against many aspects of communism and the danger/threat/failings it posed... but it is also true that Hitlers version was one that WAS A VERSION of left wing socialism back then, and even now, we can see huge similarities and agreement in the beliefs of current left wing socialists...!!!

And Quill... I think you missed this bit of the Hitler quote above...


'...Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency....'


Which renders the rest of your above post as nonsense...!

They were statists. Extreme statism from the left and the right has killed hundreds of millions of people. I doubt the victims gave a rat's ass if their killer were from the right or the left.

Maddog wrote:They were statists. Extreme statism from the left and the right has killed hundreds of millions of people. I doubt the victims gave a rat's ass if their killer were from the right or the left.  

I'm saying that the Nazis were nationalist in their intention to represent the national interest, and they used socialist policies to bring about improved conditions/public services for the nations people... of which there are many examples of them doing, and with much success...!



Can you expand on what you are saying in your post...?


And give some examples please...?


Thanks.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:They were statists. Extreme statism from the left and the right has killed hundreds of millions of people. I doubt the victims gave a rat's ass if their killer were from the right or the left.  

I'm saying that the Nazis were nationalist in their intention to represent the national interest, and they used socialist policies to bring about improved conditions/public services for the nations people... of which there are many examples of them doing, and with much success...!



Can you expand on what you are saying in your post...?


And give some examples please...?


Thanks.

Statism is simply the concentration of power in the state, while the rights of individuals is secondary or ignored.

Hitler and Stalin killed millions and are both statists. The whole left right paradigm is sorta silly to me. Both of them want to take away my liberty.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I'm saying that the Nazis were nationalist in their intention to represent the national interest, and they used socialist policies to bring about improved conditions/public services for the nations people... of which there are many examples of them doing, and with much success...!



Can you expand on what you are saying in your post...?


And give some examples please...?


Thanks.

Statism is simply the concentration of power in the state, while the rights of individuals is secondary or ignored.

Hitler and Stalin killed millions and are both statists. The whole left right paradigm is sorta silly to me. Both of them want to take away my liberty.

And your earlier post...

Maddog wrote:
They were statists. Extreme statism from the left and the right has killed hundreds of millions of people. I doubt the victims gave a rat's ass if their killer were from the right or the left.  




Can you name any country/nation/state where none (of these) has 'concentration of power'... and/or where 'no individuals rights are secondary or ignored'...!?


And... without citing Nazism/fascism as any example... can you list some of these other left and right 'statist regimes' responsible for some of these hundreds of millions of deaths that you are claiming...?



Thanks.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Statism is simply the concentration of power in the state, while the rights of individuals is secondary or ignored.

Hitler and Stalin killed millions and are both statists. The whole left right paradigm is sorta silly to me. Both of them want to take away my liberty.

And your earlier post...

Maddog wrote:
They were statists. Extreme statism from the left and the right has killed hundreds of millions of people. I doubt the victims gave a rat's ass if their killer were from the right or the left.  




Can you name any country/nation/state where none (of these) has 'concentration of power'... and/or where 'no individuals rights are secondary or ignored'...!?


And... without citing Nazism/fascism as any example... can you list some of these other left and right 'statist regimes' responsible for some of these hundreds of millions of deaths that you are claiming...?



Thanks.

What is this a test? I added the deaths from Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro. Those right there are in the hundreds of millions.

Most Western countries don't have the same concentration of power in the their central government as fascist and communist countries, but the trend is towards that situation. The price of living in a civilized society or the social contract has replaced the right of the individual to say, think and do what he likes as long as he doesn't restrict the right of another individual to do the same.

Tommy Monk wrote:And Quill... I think you missed this bit of the Hitler quote above...


'...Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency....'

Which renders the rest of your above post as nonsense...!

Tommy read again: Hitler was full of contradictions like this. Individuals, who must nonetheless subsume themselves to the state? He was building a totalitarian nation. It's all Prussians had known.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


And your earlier post...

Maddog wrote:
They were statists. Extreme statism from the left and the right has killed hundreds of millions of people. I doubt the victims gave a rat's ass if their killer were from the right or the left.  




Can you name any country/nation/state where none (of these) has 'concentration of power'... and/or where 'no individuals rights are secondary or ignored'...!?


And... without citing Nazism/fascism as any example... can you list some of these other left and right 'statist regimes' responsible for some of these hundreds of millions of deaths that you are claiming...?



Thanks.

What is this a test? I added the deaths from Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro. Those right there are in the hundreds of millions.

Most Western countries don't have the same concentration of power in the their central government as fascist and communist countries, but the trend is towards that situation. The price of living in a civilized society or the social contract has replaced the right of the individual to say, think and do what he likes as long as he doesn't restrict the right of another individual to do the same.

So you can't name a single country/nation/state where the state doesn't have a 'concentration of power' and where no 'individuals rights are secondary or ignored'...!?


But you caimed that...

'Statism is simply the concentration of power in the state, while the rights of individuals is secondary or ignored.'

And that...

'Hitler and Stalin killed millions and are both statists...'


As you were suggesting that 'statism' was the reason for deaths of millions...!



If this were true then we would see all countries/nations/states killing millions of people, as they are all 'statist' by your definition...!?


But we don't see that... so something else must be behind it...!?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And Quill... I think you missed this bit of the Hitler quote above...


'...Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency....'

Which renders the rest of your above post as nonsense...!

Tommy read again: Hitler was full of contradictions like this.  Individuals, who must nonetheless subsume themselves to the state?  He was building a totalitarian nation.  It's all Prussians had known.

A big left wing socialist state... yes...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What is this a test? I added the deaths from Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro. Those right there are in the hundreds of millions.

Most Western countries don't have the same concentration of power in the their central government as fascist and communist countries, but the trend is towards that situation. The price of living in a civilized society or the social contract has replaced the right of the individual to say, think and do what he likes as long as he doesn't restrict the right of another individual to do the same.

So you can't name a single country/nation/state where the state doesn't have a 'concentration of power' and where no 'individuals rights are secondary or ignored'...!?


But you caimed that...

'Statism is simply the concentration of power in the state, while the rights of individuals is secondary or ignored.'

And that...

'Hitler and Stalin killed millions and are both statists...'


As you were suggesting that 'statism' was the reason for deaths of millions...!



If this were true then we would see all countries/nations/states killing millions of people, as they are all 'statist' by your definition...!?


But we don't see that... so something else must be behind it...!?

Statism has degrees.

Hitler and Franco were similar, but varied in their degrees of control.

Same as Castro and Stalin. Two systems can suck, while one is worse at the same time.

Big state and big state control that also effectively takes total control over the whole economy as well as the businesses operating within it through huge state regulation and nationalisation etc, is something that can only ever be described as being a form of 'left wing socialism'...!!!


It may well be the case that one could make a perfectly reasonable argument that this was a form of 'far left authoritatarian socialism' etc... but never that it was in any way an example of anything 'right wing'... as RW is about small state, small state control, small regulations on business etc, and free markets etc...


The Nazis imposed big state and big state control on the economy and businesses through heavy regulations... they controled every aspect of businesses and their operations, controled their 'means of production' and even controled prices...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Big state and big state control that also effectively takes total control over the whole economy as well as the businesses operating within it through huge state regulation and nationalisation etc, is something that can only ever be described as being a form of 'left wing socialism'...!!!


It may well be the case that one could make a perfectly reasonable argument that this was a form of 'far left authoritatarian socialism' etc... but never that it was in any way an example of anything 'right wing'... as RW is about small state, small state control, small regulations on business etc, and free markets etc...


The Nazis imposed big state and big state control on the economy and businesses through heavy regulations... they controled every aspect of businesses and their operations, controled their 'means of production' and even controled prices...!

That would not be what is generally called right wing. Libertarian might be a better description, but you didn't mention less regulations on peoples behavior, so I's hard to say.

Big state and big state control will always mean big control over individuals too... and typical of 'left wing socialism'...!



'...The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the government. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount, and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized...'

Interesting read...


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

http://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-white-supremacists-history-twitter-mikestuchbery-7900001

https://www.thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And Quill... I think you missed this bit of the Hitler quote above...


'...Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency....'

Which renders the rest of your above post as nonsense...!

Tommy read again: Hitler was full of contradictions like this.  Individuals, who must nonetheless subsume themselves to the state?  He was building a totalitarian nation.  It's all Prussians had known.

I have done this debate so many times with Tommy and every single time he fails to under Nazism in history.

Mainly as he has never read the history of Nazism and all he ever does is post up the views of some poor revisionists. Who nobody takes seriously


Now I am center right in my views and as you know constantly bash socialism and yet I know very well from my studies that Nazism through Hitler was nothing like Socialism

Its boring going around in circles with Tommy on this

So now I will just post 3 links to show up his failings here.

No doubt he will jump in again, but who cares.

I have posted the facts and if he wants to remain ignorant on history. Then let him.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-white-supremacists-history-twitter-mikestuchbery-7900001

https://www.thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367

Have a good evening everyone.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Big state and big state control that also effectively takes total control over the whole economy as well as the businesses operating within it through huge state regulation and nationalisation etc, is something that can only ever be described as being a form of 'left wing socialism'...!!!


It may well be the case that one could make a perfectly reasonable argument that this was a form of 'far left authoritatarian socialism' etc... but never that it was in any way an example of anything 'right wing'... as RW is about small state, small state control, small regulations on business etc, and free markets etc...


The Nazis imposed big state and big state control on the economy and businesses through heavy regulations... they controled every aspect of businesses and their operations, controled their 'means of production' and even controled prices...!

That would not be what is generally called right wing. Libertarian might be a better description, but you didn't mention less regulations on peoples behavior, so I's hard to say.    

I've given my description of RW...


If you disagree, then tell me your description of RW...?


But I'm more interested in your arguments against my description of Nazism as being anything other than a form of authoritarian left wing socialism...!?


Thanks.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That would not be what is generally called right wing. Libertarian might be a better description, but you didn't mention less regulations on peoples behavior, so I's hard to say.    

I've given my description of RW...


If you disagree, then tell me your description of RW...?


But I'm more interested in your arguments against my description of Nazism as being anything other than a form of authoritarian left wing socialism...!?


Thanks.

Dude. Fascism is considered a right wing style of government, but I guess you can call it anything you want. Because like said a while back, it really doesn't matter. Statist, authoritarian governments suck, regardless of if they are from the far left, or the far right.

There is nothing RW about Nazism or fascism... as I have explained, it is very much of the left...


Read the 'mises' link I posted for more in depth explanation ...!