No, the Nazis Were NOT Socialists. (Israel, premium, revolution, military)

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by EastwardBound

Actually what the Nazis, the Communists and all leftists, including our Democrats have in common is that they all believe that the state or the communal or the group is more important than the individual. So, yes, the Nazis and the socialists of AOC have a lot more in common than you think. They all believe that we should give up our individuality for the sake of the greater good.

Standing on the vanguard is the Republican party, protecting individual rights from you collective hoards. We will never allow you people to destroy the promise of America.

Oh Puleeze. Republicans are confusing individualism with something barely this side of anarchy - at least in strict economic and private property rights terms. On the cultural side, they are anything but for the individual. They want to allow (sometimes support) ostracism of anybody who's not Judeo-Christian, straight, cisgendered, and sometimes non-WASP. It's the Democrats who support individualism in this regard, not Republicans.

Even the Rep economic arguments are very selective - applying mainly to the billionaire donor class. Not to mention Republicans currently are the most anti-science political party in the world today aside from the Islamist political parties.

Ironically, the current crop of Republicans make the same mistake the Communists make: assuming that if we just leave people alone, get the state out of the way, they'll do the right thing - but first, we gotta reform the way they behave. In radically different directions to be sure (Communists: "people will work together if we reform society enough". Republicans "people will do the right thing if we just get government out of the way").

[TwoByFour]

To be accurate, the Nazi party's roots were socialism. It started out as a pro-worker party to try to offer an alternative to communism which was being exported by the USSR after WW I and was gaining a foothold in Germany. It is the pro-worker aspect of Nazism that put "socialism" into the formal name (National Socialist German Worker's Party). But when Hitler got control of it, he pivoted to racism, antisemitism and nationalism and away from socialism. He eventually kowtowed to industrialists and suppressed workers' rights in order to win the support of the wealthy. In the end it was just old fashioned fascism. Basically, Hitler got into power and turned on his base who got him there. In more ways than one - he also ruthlessly wiped out the old brown shirt paramilitary wing of the Nazi party as he saw it as threat to himself.

[EastwardBound]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Oh Puleeze. Republicans are confusing individualism with something barely this side of anarchy - at least in strict economic and private property rights terms. On the cultural side, they are anything but for the individual. They want to allow (sometimes support) ostracism of anybody who's not Judeo-Christian, straight, cisgendered, and sometimes non-WASP. It's the Democrats who support individualism in this regard, not Republicans.

Even the Rep economic arguments are very selective - applying mainly to the billionaire donor class. Not to mention Republicans currently are the most anti-science political party in the world today aside from the Islamist political parties.

Ironically, the current crop of Republicans make the same mistake the Communists make: assuming that if we just leave people alone, get the state out of the way, they'll do the right thing - but first, we gotta reform the way they behave.

You're welcome to your input, even when it's wrong. The fact is that the Democrat party is becoming socialist and is putting the group ahead of the individual and becoming socialist.

Only the Republican party can stand as a bulkward against the Democrats and their attempts to socialize and remake this country in their image.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Isn't Nazi short for the National Socialist German Workers' Party?

You can give anecdotal instances here and there... they defined themselves that way.

What they did resulted in totalitarian government. That was their goal. People can label it left or right or however to try and steer public opinion... the result is still totalitarian government which is terrible.

Just because you call yourself something doesn't mean you are something.

By that standard, you should believe North Korea is an American-style constitutional republic. It's official title is Democratic People's Republic of Korea. BTW, using your post, North Korea is an even more free country than the USA. If the USA really were free, it would have the title Democratic People's Republic of the United States of America.

See how that works?

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

To be accurate, the Nazi party's roots were socialism. It started out as a pro-worker party to try to offer an alternative to communism which was being exported by the USSR after WW I and was gaining a foothold in Germany. It is the pro-worker aspect of Nazism that put "socialism" into the formal name (National Socialist German Worker's Party). But when Hitler got control of it, he pivoted to racism, antisemitism and nationalism and away from socialism. He eventually kowtowed to industrialists and suppressed workers' rights in order to win the support of the wealthy. In the end it was just old fashioned fascism. Basically, Hitler got into power and turned on his base who got him there. In more ways than one - he also ruthlessly wiped out the old brown shirt paramilitary wing of the Nazi party as he saw it as threat to himself.

The video addresses that part too...early on, in fact.

Summary

The Nazi Party had two factions (pre-1932).
Before Hitler assumed party leadership, it had an anti-capitalist wing led by Gregor Strasser and a “folkish” (racist-nationalist) wing led by Hitler. Hitler used vague language to elevate himself to personal power, regardless of the party’s stated goals. He did this to attract more people into the Nazi Party.

Still, it’s misleading to call Strasser “leftist” despite his anti-capitalism. He differed from the present Social Democratic Party of Germany (and today’s Bernie / AOC wing of the modern US Democrats) by strongly disaffirming the equality of people. In fact, he not only said (classical) liberalism and “false democracy” (representative republics) destroy people, nations, and cultures; he said that they are unequal and should be treated as such. Sure doesn’t sound like the Bernie / AOC / ”socialist” wing of the modern US Democratic Party to me; same for the modern German Social Democrats. In fact, after coming to power, many Social Democrats were sent to camps.

Strasser left it in 1932, the year before Hitler became Chancellor. His brother Otto, also a former party member, had already left it years ago. In fact, the brother published a pamphlet accusing Hitler of putting tactics over politics and even said the party should stand for anti-imperalism and not seek to dominate other peoples and nations. Two years later, he was killed in “The Night of the Long Knives”

As for Hitler's supposed socialism, addressed in the OP and the video.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Jimmyp25

Democrats hate the jews , Nazis hate Jews... do you see the resemblance yet?

What did logic do to you to deserve this sort of mistreatment?

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Isn't Nazi short for the National Socialist German Workers' Party?

You can give anecdotal instances here and there... they defined themselves that way.

What they did resulted in totalitarian government. That was their goal. People can label it left or right or however to try and steer public opinion... the result is still totalitarian government which is terrible.

In this case socialist means to set aside personal interest for the good of the country. It was not international socialism as an economic system. They were fascists.

It's common knowledge to anyone who studied history the German fascists hated the true socialists such as that found in the USSR. Unlike the socialists, the Nazi fully supported private business and private property.

[Beach Sportsfan]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Isn't Nazi short for the National Socialist German Workers' Party?

You can give anecdotal instances here and there... they defined themselves that way.

What they did resulted in totalitarian government. That was their goal. People can label it left or right or however to try and steer public opinion... the result is still totalitarian government which is terrible.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is NOT Democratic don’t get fooled by a title.

[No_Recess]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

No need to conflate, both ideologies are terrible enough in their own right. Feel better?

Authoritarians holding guns to heads. Doesn't make a difference to me.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

Basically, Hitler got into power and turned on his base who got him there. In more ways than one - he also ruthlessly wiped out the old brown shirt paramilitary wing of the Nazi party as he saw it as threat to himself.

It's the classical pivot for pulling off a successful coup. To gain and hold power, there are two essential steps:

1. Before you take control, you must convince people that their lives are so bad, the tumult will be worth it.
2. After you take control, you need to convince people that their lives are now becoming way better and that dissent is a betrayal of the ideals they fought for.

There aren't a lot of people who can successfully do both.

Socialist agitators have traditionally been very useful for point 1, and life in the Weimar Republic was empirically pretty bad for a lot of people, particularly working class people. But once the Nazis held power, they'd much prefer for the workers to not be agitated, thankyouverymuch. So they murdered a few hundred socialists, which put a damper on the pro-worker debate in the Nazi party. And then Hitler could seal the deal with the industrialists: He'd shut up the workers if they'd back him politically.

Or as Krupp put it in Nuremberg:

The economy needed a steady or growing development. Because of the rivalries between the many political parties in Germany and the general disorder there was no opportunity for prosperity. ... We thought that Hitler would give us such a healthy environment. Indeed he did do that. ... We Krupps never cared much about [political] ideas. We only wanted a system that worked well and allowed us to work unhindered. Politics is not our business.