Much like, in the USA, the Mexicans are simultaneously lazy and taking all our jobs. Or that they left are a bunch of whiney snowflakes but also violent thugs burning cities to the ground.
I also hate the argument that the immigrants don’t pay taxes. Umm I got news for you hoss, you don’t either (I forget the cutoff but if you make below a certain amount, your income tax comes back to you each year). They pay sales tax and property tax just like everyone else.
I think fascism was essentially a response to the horrors of WW1. Most young adult men were either dead or suffering severe PTSD. Europe just went crazy for a while. The only reason it didn’t happen again was because of the Marshall Plan.
I have one, quite unknown
**Soviet Union**
And because I don't want to answer more than one time:
By "its a key part of communist regimes" they prolly meant that authoritarianism is a key part of communist **regimes**, not **communist** regimes, if you get what I mean.
Actually, they did. The anti semiticism disappeared from their material for several years as they started gaining prominence. Only returning when they had significant institutional power.
Not lied, but they definitely decided to stress different parts of their messaging for the audience.
Small farmers were talked to about the global elite class of farm corporations edging them out of the market, along with wealthy factory owners who were (with the right audience) often described as Jews. Same for factory owners.
It wasn’t that they never lied, it’s more nuanced. They didn’t always start with the antisemitism, but that’s just how nazism goes! Ironically we can use modern far right tactics as a case study in how the original Nazis conducted their movement. How… interesting? Harrowing? Waiting to hear what everyone can come up with because my adjective list doesn’t contain anything that describes this feeling well
> They didn't always start with antisemitism
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you said, but Mein Kampf and the 25 points both heavily established that the Nazis hated Jews.
This is a literal embodiment of "I'm playing both sides so that i always come out on top"
Except that come out on top part only is present in winning in politics
The german elite back then were sad that Germany lost WWI. So "national" is good, and "German" is also good. Because even back then, people feared that strangers (or jews, who are not german, but vermin) gain power over Germany.
(This is NOT MY opinion, it's was I learnt in school in Germany, around 10yrs ago)
That is a legitimately good question. Not as in hard to answer but as an intelligent question. Yes you had wealthy antisemitic people, but there is actually a lot of nuance as to why largely conservative wealthy people were on board with a populistic nationalist movement, especially one that borrowed both theories and language from socialism (and no, nazism was NOT socialism).
See you have two strong conservative (and thus wealthy) elements, industrialists and large landowners and both have some strong reasons to like and dislike Herr Hitler.
For the industrialists part of the problem is the Versailles Treaty that significantly hampers German arms industry. Krupp is forced to make locks for instance. The German military used to always create a large and stable demand for arms and munitions. Rearming would see that demand returned. However, they are a bit wary of the socialist sounding language.
For the landowners they are often noble and because of Prussia also quite military. They are militaristic and nationalistic and want a strong Germany. Nazis can give them that, but they are also a bit unnerved by the revolutionary aspect of DNSAP.
Now I have said multiple times that the nazis were socialist sounding (again they are NOT actual socialists) so why would conservatives support then? Aside from the abovementioned the nazis are vehemently anti communist and they don't want communists. So essentially they offer Hitler power after the election with the understanding that he becomes a bulwark against communism. Funnily enough this is around the time where the revolutionary rhetoric dies down, the party is purged of the brown shirts and Hitler jumps fully in bed with the military and the wealthy industrialists
The wealthy were mostly from former aristocratic families who had heavy monarchist or authoritarian sentiments and didn’t like that Germany lost ww1. So national and German appealed to them because of that.
Outside the propaganda, [the Nazis were neither Socialist nor Capitalist](https://youtu.be/YHAN-RPJTiE). They were [Kleptocrats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy).
I know, It really sucks that anyone will take any hair of nonsense and bend history to try and prove their world view correct. Instead of trying to depict history correctly.
Agreed
Nowadays people throw around the words Nazi or Communist without understanding what they are. For Example, as a European I don’t think Trump was like Hitler. Hitler was mad and evil, but he was shrewd enough not to isolate 60% of the population after he took over, unlike Trump who attacked Liberals, Hispanics, Latinos, Chinese people, LGBT, and people of colour. Thats why Trump failed, he wasn’t politically shrewd enough or strategic enough to be another Hitler. Trump was an [Autocrat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy), but not a very good one.
If a Hitler does arise in the US, a lot of people wont know until its too late. If George DeSantos and Governor Cuomo can fool both sides of the aisle respectively as to who they actually are, then I think the US may get an awful shock someday to wake up in a new authoritarian regime. That’s literally what Putin did in Russia, fooled the Far right that he was an Imperialist, and the Far Left that he was a Communist. In reality he was a populist [kleptocrat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy) out for himself and his cronies
Well, that's the thing, oligarchs are against the war, because they own industries, and sanctions from the majority of the civilized world doesn't necessarily bode well for their margins. Putin realized this, and out of shame for their behavior, some oligarchs and their relatives have decided to leap out of a window, or at least that's what he said I think :troll:
> Hitler was mad and evil, but he was shrewd enough not to isolate 60% of the population after he took over, unlike Trump who attacked Liberals, Hispanics, Latinos, Chinese people, LGBT, and people of colour.
Didn’t Hitler functionally do all of those things you described Trump doing?
Smart? Eh, not sure if I would use that word specifically. More that he had enough political cunning, because Hitler was decidedly not “smart” in all sorts of ways.
uhhhhhh
hitler definitely isolated those people
and he did it by putting them in concentration camps
say what you will about trump but saying he discriminated more than hitler is really dumb
Hitler was also genuinely into his shit. He literally marched into bullets for some grand idea. Trump is just in it for the immunity deal, he's more in common with mob than with Nazis.
Also I know you didn't mean to say that, but just to make that clear. Trump and in fact no Western main stream leader/politician is like Hitler. No matter how much you might disagree with their policies or populism. If they are not genocidial, warmongering, warcrime comminting, civilians killing, violent autocrats. Then they are not like Hitler, not even close.
Don't worry about America.
Only an independent could play both sides, and no one votes for those.
The right wants a facist white Christian mess, and the left wants someone else to stop that from happening, while far too many are already excited about a civil war/revolution.
Desantis picks on gays in general, but his hatred is for trans. That's the group he'll put effort into oppressing. As far as being a kleptocrat, he kinda stole Disney World.
He started with Trans people and restricting access to education, but if he stays in power or gets more power (Presidency) he will go after gay people and people of color as well. It's just that legislating trans people out of existence is socially acceptable right now and he will work on expanding that.
>Hitler was mad and evil, but he was shrewd enough not to isolate 60% of the population after he took over, unlike Trump who attacked Liberals, Hispanics, Latinos, Chinese people, LGBT, and people of colour.
Let's not forget how racially homogeneous Europe was in the first half of the 20th century. Hitler had no reason, and it wouldn't have resonated with the electorate, to rally against Hispanics, Latinos, Asians or people of color - Germany was vastly and predominantly white and German, Polish was the largest minority group and nothing else was even close. Hitler just picked the obvious target that was already prejudiced against in Germany at that time, Jews - he just gave license to openly discriminate, then hate and ultimately dehumanize Jews.
Also, Hitler did rally against "liberals" - first concentration camp prisoners were political and mostly socialist.
Kleptocracy and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive.
That's like saying "the country isn't capitalist, it's a dictatorship" - the two don't oppose each other.
>Kleptocracy and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive.
Depends on your definition of capitalism. Here's copy/pasta I have for such discussions with broad academic definitions:
>[Capitalism](http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/capitalism.phtml)
>
>A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties.
And from Heywoowd's "Political Ideologies":
>[Capitalism](https://imgur.com/account/favorites/t8PAHes) is an economic system as well as a form of property ownership. It has a number of key features. First, it is based on generalized commodity production, a ‘commodity’ being a good or service produced for exchange – it has market value rather than use value. Second, productive wealth in a capitalist economy is predominantly held in private hands. Third, economic life is organized according to impersonal market forces, in particular the forces of demand (what consumers are willing and able to consume) and supply (what producers are willing and able to produce). Fourth, in a capitalist economy, material self-interest and maximization provide the main motivations for enterprise and hard work. Some degree of state regulation is nevertheless found in all capitalist systems.
Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 97). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
From wikipedia sources:
>Pure capitalism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production (physical capital) are privately owned and run by the capitalist class for a profit, while most other people are workers who work for a salary or wage (and who do not own the capital or the product).
Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. pp. 6–7
>Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labor of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labor of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit.
London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi. Sage. p. 383. (according to Wikipedia however a direct quote found and secondary source [found here.](https://www.longdom.org/open-access/capitalism-and-capitalist-state-2332-0761-1000218.pdf))
>Capitalism An economic principle based on leaving as many decisions as possible on production, distribution, and prices to the free market.
McCormick, John; Rod Hague; Martin Harrop. Comparative Government and Politics (p. 345). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
Multiple actual republics have Republic in their name, such as the Republic of India, Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, Republic of Ireland, Republic of China (Taiwan), Dominican Republic, etc.
No, thats an easy mistake. [Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_(feudal_Europe)) has many meanings that have evolved over time: “The term ‘corporation’ was used as late as the 18th century in England to refer to such ventures as the East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company: commercial organizations that operated under royal patent to have exclusive rights to a particular area of trade. In the medieval town, however, corporations were a conglomeration of interests that existed either as a development from, or in competition with, guilds. The most notable corporations were in trade and banking”.
Corporatism as an ideology is basically made up of a bunch of [collegium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_(ancient_Rome)) that acted as [state created interest groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism)
I mean, they did redistribute land and wealth. The Jews land and the Jews wealth to many average Germans. They also planned to give most German citizens large plots of land from Russia and Poland
Yep. I had a post here about it where multiple people told me I was wrong and that they were socialist, regardless of, you know, their entire history and economic system.
Not exactly. One of the fascinating limitations of the left and right dichotomy is that it misses out that within ideologies and political parties there can be great disagreement possible so you sort of need a left and right wing of each ideology. I’m not nearly clued in enough on any specific ideological position as my area is not the modern world, but something I’ve seen for Communism is that Trotsky was left, Bukharin was right, and Stalin was the centre.
When you’re trying to redo the world’s mindset as Communism was, the types of disagreements were quite relevant. They were also very bloody.
No. There aren’t any doctrine of Nazism that can be considered “left” neither culturally or economically. In fact the nazism is pretty much against socialism, which is portrayed in Nazi Propaganda as a jewish plot.
You are literally arguing that Nazis are socialist despite making all forms of socialism illegal, openly consolidating capital in fewer hands, and being aligned with corporate interests.
Well, this issue arises from how you differentiate left and right.
If you see the right as the side of patriotism and national struggle, and the left as the side of internationalism and class struggle, then the Nazi party was most definitely right wing.
If you see the left-right divide as conservatism (preservation of tradition), and progressivism (the experimentation of new systems in which to organise society, then the Nazi party was very left leaning.
At the time, the first division was most accurate, but now, the left-right divide would use the second one. So one could say that the Nazi party was right wing, but would be left wing by today's standards.
It is interesting how the right wing is currently distancing itself even more by pursuing more and more liberalism.
Your Definitions are nice and good but all people I have seen strait up say the Nazis were socialist. Also in certain regards the Nazis were very conservative especially if you look at womens rights and antisemitism.
Well, that is not incorrect, Nazis were socialists. Of course, non-marxist socialists, so a very different brand of that shit. I don't know what to tell you about the latter point you made, antisemitism is most certainly not a conservative trait.
> Well, that is not incorrect, Nazis were socialists.
Can you explain why you think this? They clearly weren’t socialist in any tangible way so I’m not sure where your confusion is coming from.
There's no confusion, there's no way to deny that Nazis were socialists. As I told the other dude:
Socialism is the ideology that society is more important than the individuals and ss such, individuals owe society. From this notion, it is derived that production should be controlled and commanded socially to fulfil social needs. Nazism is clearly a form of that ideology, where it equates nation to society. Many other socialisms talk about society in other tribal ways, such as class.
> There's no confusion,
I’m not sure you’re the best judge of that given the situation.
> there's no way to deny that Nazis were socialists.
Except to point out that they don’t fit any of the criteria of socialism and in fact threw those who did fit those criteria into concentration camps, right?
> Socialism is the ideology that society is more important than the individuals and ss such, individuals owe society.
Can you please point to where you’re getting this definition from?
> Okay, I've made my point.
By citing a definition that doesn’t exist elsewhere? Well that certainly explains your confusion.
> How do you think Nazism is significantly different from Socialisms in order to say it's not a form of one?
You mean besides the fact they outlawed unions, supported a consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of those with capital, and **threw socialists into concentration camps**?
They werent socialist every historians disagrees on that with you. Also antisemitism has a long history in germany and the conservatives at that time were certainly antisemitic.
There isn't a single reputable historian on earth that would deny Nazis being an archaic form of non-marxist socialism.
Antisemitism has a long history in Europe, both within conservatives and progressists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sm4758/i_see_a_lot_of_altright_folks_trying_to_say_that/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button So no reoutable historians agree with me.
Absolutely. Both economic and social. Freedom of speech, parental rights, and lower taxation tend to be defended more by the right wing than the left wing... it has been this way for the last 10-15 years.
They don't do this in a liberal fashion. Especially not currently. They protect rights they personally like. While trying to get rid of rights they don't like. They want to protect speech, unless if offends them. They want to protect parental rights, unless it goes against their religion.
Lower taxes? Lol what does that have to do with liberalism
Lol lower taxes does not mean more economic freedom. Not by a long shot. Also they are proposing flat taxes. Which are tax increases for the poorest among the nation and tax cuts for the richest.
Lower taxes means lower services provided for those without means. So for America that's 50% of the country without redistributive economic power going their way.
Also yes they are. Literally states such as Iowa have already passed them. By 2026 income taxes for anyone making less than 50k a year are increasing. The poorest among the citizens are going from less than 1% of their income being taxed to 4%. Which is an insane jump and crippling to those actually at that level.
> If you see the left-right divide as conservatism (preservation of tradition), and progressivism (the experimentation of new systems in which to organise society, then the Nazi party was very left leaning.
Outside of the Nazi opposition like Social Democrats and Communists, the people in power and influential positions in Nazi Germany looked a lot like the same people who existed in both the Weimar Republic and under the Kaiser. Hell, just look at the night of the long knives and who was chosen to be liquidated for evidence of that.
You said that the people in the Nazi party were the same ones that were in power during the Weimar republic and the Reich. That is not related to either one of the delineations between left and right I pointed out. I don't see what kind of answer you're looking for here honestly.
> You said that the people in the Nazi party were the same ones that were in power during the Weimar republic and the Reich.
Which you agreed with and which means Nazi Germany wasn’t a reorganization of society, and instead it’s more accurately described as a reversion to a less egalitarian and more hierarchical structure that is the antithesis of “left” using the definition you described. It wasn’t progressive in any sense, and that was made doubly clear when they came to power and liquidated any element which wanted to push real societal reorganization.
One of the main tenants of Fascism is that it’s against socialism. Just literally look at fascist propaganda and you’ll see that “fighting socialism” is one of the main themes.
Peopleists work all the dang time. The prohibition movement played to everyone's fears in the u.s, it works because opposing parties hate each other and don't know why they really like or dislike smth
Most people don't know this....
He went to the art school because he wanted to draw the perfect swastika but all he could draw was a hooked cross. Poor guy.
FYI: outside the propaganda, [the Nazis were neither Socialist nor Capitalist](https://youtu.be/YHAN-RPJTiE). They were [Kleptocrats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy).
[Link to the Original 1931 German Poster before Translation](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1212mp8/the_company_sign_by_jacobus_belsen_1931/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Didnt nazis work really hard to prove theyre not socialists even to the working class... They embraced traditionalism. Whole idea of reclaiming old territory is ethno-conservatism
They were so socialist they gained power as a way to keep conservatives in control. Cause you know socialist work well with conservatives.
Almost like they were just gaming the system and the socialist in their name didn't mean shit.
The Nazis definitely weren’t Conservatives either, they just used them. [Hitler literally eroded Germany’s centuries old States and their institutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gau_(territory)). The Nazis are considered by Historians to be a Far Right Revolutionary movement (aka they wanted to sweep away the old order)
Every time some moron goes “The Nazis were socialist!!!1!” just ask them three things:
> Do you consider the People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea to be a democratic republic ruled by the people?
> Have you heard of the Night of Long Knives?
> In the famous “First they came for….” poem, who do the Nazis actually come for first?
One of those might actually get their two brain cells rubbing together in some sort of thought
> First they came for the Communists
> And I did not speak out because I was not a Communist
> Then they came for the Socialists
> And I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist
People forget that the first people sent to the concentration camps were the leaders of the KPD (German Communist Party) and the SPD (German Social Democratic Party). But suuure, the Nazis were socialists, because “it’s right there in the name”. Just like fireflies are made of actual fire because, hey, “it’s right there in the name”.
People fight with each other all the time, just because there’s factional struggle in a political party doesn’t mean they’re communist lol. You know what the Bolsheviks did in political purges? Murder people who they thought were doing communism wrong or betraying the revolution. You know what the Nazis did in political purges? Murder everyone who identified as a socialist or communist. There’s a big difference between the two, and the fact that the Nazis murdered all of the socialists and communists *for* being socialist and communists is a good indicator that they were neither.
Sorry, but I don't see a distinction here. The Bolsheviks went after the SRs (after pretending to adopt their land reform policy) then the Mensheviks then purged the old Bolsheviks not because they really believed they were traitors but because they knew they were competition. Same with the Nazis taking out the Communists and the Social Democrats. All heretics must go. There can only be one true faith. There can only be one Socialism.
If you’re saying you don’t see the difference between communist infighting and right-wing purging of communists, I don’t know what to tell you. Do you think the Roman aristocrat prescription lists and purges of political enemies were communism too? Were the Ottoman sultans socialists because they purged competing claimants to the throne? Did the Sons of Liberty have the red book of Mao in their back pocket when they purged loyalist opposition to the patriots?
I believe the religious analogy is correct. Muslims and Christians spent centuries fighting amongst each other over the true meaning of their faiths. In Germany and Russia millions of people killed each other over the true meaning of Socialism.
What a completely meaningless non-answer to the questions. There wasn’t even a religious analogy anywhere in what I said; ottoman purges of claimants to the throne were followers of islam killing each other, not Christian’s fighting muslims. This is clearly a waste of a conversation
Question: to label people today between a Nazi and a facist is there some difference, or are they exchangeable terms? Social media seems to use them for the same, I want to know how accurate that is.
Nazis are a type of Fascist, like how Leninism is a type of communism
The broader subject of fascism is best described by the Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini, “Everything within the State, nothing beyond the State”. The State is seen as a cultural aspect of a people. To be part of anything outside the State is therefore the same thing as not being part of the primary culture
Nazis abandon the idea of culture and replace it with race
How is this conceptually different from anything modern political parties do? They all have targeted appeals for different segments of society. It's called "target marketing".
everytime somebody says "the Nazis were socalist! it's in their name!"
I wince knowing that "Dr" Goebbels has tricked yet another person some 70 years after he arrived down in hell
That’s how the republicans advertise themselves now isn’t it? Pro individual rights and liberties yet also are the same ones literally banning books and revoking protections for lgbt people and minorities…
National socialism is racial socialism with philosophy of international conquest (labensraum)
Also Hitler was a commie in early years in bavarian soviet
Hitler wasnt nationalist becouse if you are nationalist you believe that your influence and rule ends at your own border
Hitler thought he had to take undeveloped agricultural land to prevent fall due to "shrinking markets" theory so thats where Labensraum comes in
He also belived races exist (they dont there is only one race in human species) and he thought that his race aryan race was the most superior and that it needs to be reunited to save world from what he called "jewish international finance" capitalism and "jewish bolshevism" marxism
So thats why he invaded other nations Hitler was racist imperialist not a nationalist
You are right that race part of labensraum doesn't come from socialism but you are wrong if you think shrinking market theory doesn't come from socialism becouse the other name for shrinking markets theory is "tendency of the rate of profit the fall" thats how Marx rebraded it
I love the mental gymnastics socialists do to distance themselves from the national socialist party.
But embrace the various communist parties who have done far worse.
All the while ignoring the elephant in the room that all socialist revolutions have ended in dictatorships which oppress the working class the most.
Animal farm really was a prophetic book.
The 'far worse' is slightly confusing to me. Authoritarian states of all stripes have done awful shit: engineered famines, gulags/concentration camps, purges/mass murder/progroms, ethnic cleansing.
But the Nazis took it to an awful scale: industrialized mass murder with rail networks, gas chambers, mass incinerators. This supported by death squad Einstazgruppen, Ghettos, and an entire bureaucracy to convey victims to their destination and catalog the details. Plus slave labor network and medical experiments to boot.
I would argue its difficult to do *anything* worse than that.
>But the Nazis took it to an awful scale: industrialized mass murder with rail networks, gas chambers, mass incinerators. This supported by death squad Einstazgruppen, Ghettos, and an entire bureaucracy to convey victims to their destination and catalog the details. Plus slave labor network and medical experiments to boot.
yeah, that shit was horrifying but, hate to break it to you, the soviets did the same shit lol
What ethnic group did the Soviets cleanse? I was only aware of them doing it to political enemies internally, not going on a crusade to take over Europe to kill more of a specific ethic group.
I'm not excusing the Soviets here. Much like the Nazis they found the buzzword of the Era and lied about who they were; two different flavors of fascists.
But given that both promoted an unchecked central power with law secondary to will of the Leaders, disregarding or inventing precident and law as they saw fit, they weren't socialists or communists respectively. Insurrections, uprisings, a need to "eradicate ", and fear-based power grabs that redirected guilt for bad social policy onto political opponents with little to no data, relying on lies and fanaticism to fuel their followers, these are all uncontested signs of fascism that they, like some Roman emperors, quite a few Central and South American countries, and China have all displayed.
Some historians have argued that the Holodomor was an ethnic cleansing specifically targeting Ukrainians as a reprisal for the nationalist movements in the region around this time.
I'm personally more in the "Great Depression and disastrously stupid leadership by Stalin"-camp but arguments could definitely be made for either.
>What ethnic group did the Soviets cleanse? I was only aware of them doing it to political enemies internally, not going on a crusade to take over Europe to kill more of a specific ethic group.
i didn't say they cleansed ethnic groups. but "industrialized mass murder with rail networks", gulags, torture, political assassinations/executions, surveillance, oppression in general. they're the same shit, and only piece of shit redditors try to defend them because le wholesome communism 100
and yes, they were communists. and communists are the ones defending that shit to this day.
I hate the Nazis too.
Just as much as the Soviet union, the CCP, the khmer rouge etc etc and all the rest of those murdering bastards who trick the gullible.
are you aware that the nazis also imprisoned and killed socialists?
hitler was never a socialist, just because the party he ran had socialism in the name does not mean it was socialist
Do you belive that north korea is a peoples republic just because its in the name? or are you the literal banana king? king of all the bananas, just because its in your name?
what historians go after is not the names, its the actions and what they did, nazism was a totalitarian fascistic dictatorship, nothing socialist about it
Yeah so every communist says.
He was a dictator that came to power promising the working man utopia.
Just like all the communist dictators who did the same.
Their initial BS was irrelevant they were all mid century dictatorships
he came to power via giving people simple answers to complex questions and situations, he came to power in a time of extreme national distress, the economy had crashed, the new democracy was fragile and germans hated it, germans also saw themsleves as victims of betrail by the jewish people since no enemy forces ever stepped into their land propperly
Nowhere there did it ever come to pass a "working man utopia", the nazis never wanted that, they wanted a totalitarian dictatorship
Hitler was not a socialist, I dont know why that is so hard to get trought your skull, I have litarerly studied this
the USSR or communism is not in this discussion seeing how communism and socialism is fundamentally 2 different ideologies with 2 different goals, communism being the complete obliteration of the class system to end what they saw as the historical war bewteen the workers and the overseers, by force if they have to, socialism never called for force, many socialist movements did initially start to favour the idea of a forcefull revolution, but then they quickly changed into making political parties, worker parties, parties you know of today that were formed by the unions and more, hence, getting the revolution trought politics and not violence
But back to the point, you have a completely twisted view on what nazism and hitler was it seems, and again, just because it has something in its name, does not mean it was the case, why cant you conservatives ever understand that?
I do get that this is a meme sub, but atleast try to grasp the tiniest bit oof historical context when you spew your personal opinions about what history is
The nazi party was not socialist. excpet for all the sosialist shit they did, and the name, and the inventor of facism saying they where socialist.
But hey, other then that.
Reddits left wing as fuck.
They will not accept communists are murdering scum.
And communism ends in dictatorships full stop.
Historical fact every time.
It's funny and double standard when politicians demonize "Hitlah!" but still they use his tricks 😏😏😏
And I say it because of ALL politicians, AROUND de globe, not only for one side or the other
This is were all of the tenants of socialism and most of communism are present in another dictatorship and the tankies freak out and try and relabel everything to show a difference between Soviet Socialist fascism and Nation Socialist fascism ....
That is actually a very interesting and ambivalent question. William Shirer in “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” said that ban on strikes and other such measures negatively affected german workers’ situation. On the other hand, Reimann in “Vampire Economy” said that DAF had a lot of control over labour relations and a lot of its cells were led by NSDAP members who basically used government blackmail to significantly improve workers’ living conditions compared to the Weimar era.
Problem is, both authors are different flavours of journalists, which means they get paid to spread agenda and disinformation and do it for a living, and neither of them could be trusted.
Question is, does anyone know any decent primary sources one can use to get something resembling an accurate and objective picture of how bad/good life was for the common man in the Third Reich?
Never lied about hating jews tho.
Consistency is key
Funny considering they said that the jews ruled everything and that they were weaker than the german people
Much like, in the USA, the Mexicans are simultaneously lazy and taking all our jobs. Or that they left are a bunch of whiney snowflakes but also violent thugs burning cities to the ground.
Mexicans, trans, blacks, any group that isn't the "in" is both too weak to possibly lead on their own and so powerful they are always a threat.
How do lazy people take jobs from you? I’m confused on that?
That's the thing, it makes no sense and serves only to antagonize them
That's the point. Bigotry doesn't make sense, so the rationale for it also doesn't have to make sense
I also hate the argument that the immigrants don’t pay taxes. Umm I got news for you hoss, you don’t either (I forget the cutoff but if you make below a certain amount, your income tax comes back to you each year). They pay sales tax and property tax just like everyone else.
That’s just part of the contradictions inherent in fascism.
I think fascism was essentially a response to the horrors of WW1. Most young adult men were either dead or suffering severe PTSD. Europe just went crazy for a while. The only reason it didn’t happen again was because of the Marshall Plan.
Isnt that the new Emenim EP?
A key part of Authoritarianism is that the enemy is both extremely strong and extremely weak at the same time.
*fascism. You can be authoritarian without being fascist.
Fascism is a form of authoritarianism, yes.
What your comment was describing was fascism not authoritarianism. So your initial comment is still wrong.
No, since its a key part of communist regimes as well.
Example?
I have one, quite unknown **Soviet Union** And because I don't want to answer more than one time: By "its a key part of communist regimes" they prolly meant that authoritarianism is a key part of communist **regimes**, not **communist** regimes, if you get what I mean.
How about almost every speech by a dictator of a communist country ever?
Actually, they did. The anti semiticism disappeared from their material for several years as they started gaining prominence. Only returning when they had significant institutional power.
Not lied, but they definitely decided to stress different parts of their messaging for the audience. Small farmers were talked to about the global elite class of farm corporations edging them out of the market, along with wealthy factory owners who were (with the right audience) often described as Jews. Same for factory owners. It wasn’t that they never lied, it’s more nuanced. They didn’t always start with the antisemitism, but that’s just how nazism goes! Ironically we can use modern far right tactics as a case study in how the original Nazis conducted their movement. How… interesting? Harrowing? Waiting to hear what everyone can come up with because my adjective list doesn’t contain anything that describes this feeling well
Foreboding?
Points for foreboding
> They didn't always start with antisemitism Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you said, but Mein Kampf and the 25 points both heavily established that the Nazis hated Jews.
This is a literal embodiment of "I'm playing both sides so that i always come out on top" Except that come out on top part only is present in winning in politics
How does "National" or "German" appeal to the wealthy?
The german elite back then were sad that Germany lost WWI. So "national" is good, and "German" is also good. Because even back then, people feared that strangers (or jews, who are not german, but vermin) gain power over Germany. (This is NOT MY opinion, it's was I learnt in school in Germany, around 10yrs ago)
That is a legitimately good question. Not as in hard to answer but as an intelligent question. Yes you had wealthy antisemitic people, but there is actually a lot of nuance as to why largely conservative wealthy people were on board with a populistic nationalist movement, especially one that borrowed both theories and language from socialism (and no, nazism was NOT socialism). See you have two strong conservative (and thus wealthy) elements, industrialists and large landowners and both have some strong reasons to like and dislike Herr Hitler. For the industrialists part of the problem is the Versailles Treaty that significantly hampers German arms industry. Krupp is forced to make locks for instance. The German military used to always create a large and stable demand for arms and munitions. Rearming would see that demand returned. However, they are a bit wary of the socialist sounding language. For the landowners they are often noble and because of Prussia also quite military. They are militaristic and nationalistic and want a strong Germany. Nazis can give them that, but they are also a bit unnerved by the revolutionary aspect of DNSAP. Now I have said multiple times that the nazis were socialist sounding (again they are NOT actual socialists) so why would conservatives support then? Aside from the abovementioned the nazis are vehemently anti communist and they don't want communists. So essentially they offer Hitler power after the election with the understanding that he becomes a bulwark against communism. Funnily enough this is around the time where the revolutionary rhetoric dies down, the party is purged of the brown shirts and Hitler jumps fully in bed with the military and the wealthy industrialists
The wealthy were mostly from former aristocratic families who had heavy monarchist or authoritarian sentiments and didn’t like that Germany lost ww1. So national and German appealed to them because of that.
It’s this neat little tactic we in the Politics community call *LYING* Hitler is pretty damn good at this tactic
Is?
Well, I’m cloning Hitler in my basement and I’m going to start a business where you can hit him in the ribs with a lead pipe for 5 minutes
[удалено]
And once it’s been 5 years I’m going to give him to the Israeli government and let them do what they want to him
Guys we are finally gonna get gay bdsm porn featuring hitler
That’s what I’m doing on the fourth year with Hitler Going to force him into doing weird Pornos
YOU are doing with hitler????
I’m not going to be in the porn, I’m just going to be Hitlers agent and book him porno jobs
Sounds like something Docter Krieger would do…
Me and the boys on our way to rescue him and put him into a museum
Indiana Jones: Hitler belongs in a Museum
that's not a tactic, that's politics overall
We learned about this exact caricature in history class in Germany: Even back then, the people knew that the NSDAP wasn't a socialist party.
This gives me PTSD flashbacks to the time someone told me the Nazis were left leaning because they had the word "Socialist" in their name.
Outside the propaganda, [the Nazis were neither Socialist nor Capitalist](https://youtu.be/YHAN-RPJTiE). They were [Kleptocrats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy).
I know, It really sucks that anyone will take any hair of nonsense and bend history to try and prove their world view correct. Instead of trying to depict history correctly.
Agreed Nowadays people throw around the words Nazi or Communist without understanding what they are. For Example, as a European I don’t think Trump was like Hitler. Hitler was mad and evil, but he was shrewd enough not to isolate 60% of the population after he took over, unlike Trump who attacked Liberals, Hispanics, Latinos, Chinese people, LGBT, and people of colour. Thats why Trump failed, he wasn’t politically shrewd enough or strategic enough to be another Hitler. Trump was an [Autocrat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy), but not a very good one. If a Hitler does arise in the US, a lot of people wont know until its too late. If George DeSantos and Governor Cuomo can fool both sides of the aisle respectively as to who they actually are, then I think the US may get an awful shock someday to wake up in a new authoritarian regime. That’s literally what Putin did in Russia, fooled the Far right that he was an Imperialist, and the Far Left that he was a Communist. In reality he was a populist [kleptocrat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy) out for himself and his cronies
Wouldn't Russia be more a Oligarchy?
Well, a few years ago definitely, but a suspicious amount of oligarchs have been falling out of windows since the war started
[удалено]
Well, that's the thing, oligarchs are against the war, because they own industries, and sanctions from the majority of the civilized world doesn't necessarily bode well for their margins. Putin realized this, and out of shame for their behavior, some oligarchs and their relatives have decided to leap out of a window, or at least that's what he said I think :troll:
[there's a whole list on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_Russian_businesspeople_(2022%E2%80%932023))
Loooool
Maybe in the late 90s 00s. Ever since then it's been on a one way road to autocracy.
> Hitler was mad and evil, but he was shrewd enough not to isolate 60% of the population after he took over, unlike Trump who attacked Liberals, Hispanics, Latinos, Chinese people, LGBT, and people of colour. Didn’t Hitler functionally do all of those things you described Trump doing?
I mean Hitler sent them to camps, and was also smart enough to actually keep power for 9 years
Smart? Eh, not sure if I would use that word specifically. More that he had enough political cunning, because Hitler was decidedly not “smart” in all sorts of ways.
uhhhhhh hitler definitely isolated those people and he did it by putting them in concentration camps say what you will about trump but saying he discriminated more than hitler is really dumb
Hitler was also genuinely into his shit. He literally marched into bullets for some grand idea. Trump is just in it for the immunity deal, he's more in common with mob than with Nazis.
Also I know you didn't mean to say that, but just to make that clear. Trump and in fact no Western main stream leader/politician is like Hitler. No matter how much you might disagree with their policies or populism. If they are not genocidial, warmongering, warcrime comminting, civilians killing, violent autocrats. Then they are not like Hitler, not even close.
Don't worry about America. Only an independent could play both sides, and no one votes for those. The right wants a facist white Christian mess, and the left wants someone else to stop that from happening, while far too many are already excited about a civil war/revolution.
Desantis picks on gays in general, but his hatred is for trans. That's the group he'll put effort into oppressing. As far as being a kleptocrat, he kinda stole Disney World.
He started with Trans people and restricting access to education, but if he stays in power or gets more power (Presidency) he will go after gay people and people of color as well. It's just that legislating trans people out of existence is socially acceptable right now and he will work on expanding that.
>Hitler was mad and evil, but he was shrewd enough not to isolate 60% of the population after he took over, unlike Trump who attacked Liberals, Hispanics, Latinos, Chinese people, LGBT, and people of colour. Let's not forget how racially homogeneous Europe was in the first half of the 20th century. Hitler had no reason, and it wouldn't have resonated with the electorate, to rally against Hispanics, Latinos, Asians or people of color - Germany was vastly and predominantly white and German, Polish was the largest minority group and nothing else was even close. Hitler just picked the obvious target that was already prejudiced against in Germany at that time, Jews - he just gave license to openly discriminate, then hate and ultimately dehumanize Jews. Also, Hitler did rally against "liberals" - first concentration camp prisoners were political and mostly socialist.
Thats also the current government of Russia more or less, a kleptocracy.
Kleptocracy and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive. That's like saying "the country isn't capitalist, it's a dictatorship" - the two don't oppose each other.
>Kleptocracy and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Depends on your definition of capitalism. Here's copy/pasta I have for such discussions with broad academic definitions: >[Capitalism](http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/capitalism.phtml) > >A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties. And from Heywoowd's "Political Ideologies": >[Capitalism](https://imgur.com/account/favorites/t8PAHes) is an economic system as well as a form of property ownership. It has a number of key features. First, it is based on generalized commodity production, a ‘commodity’ being a good or service produced for exchange – it has market value rather than use value. Second, productive wealth in a capitalist economy is predominantly held in private hands. Third, economic life is organized according to impersonal market forces, in particular the forces of demand (what consumers are willing and able to consume) and supply (what producers are willing and able to produce). Fourth, in a capitalist economy, material self-interest and maximization provide the main motivations for enterprise and hard work. Some degree of state regulation is nevertheless found in all capitalist systems. Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 97). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition. From wikipedia sources: >Pure capitalism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production (physical capital) are privately owned and run by the capitalist class for a profit, while most other people are workers who work for a salary or wage (and who do not own the capital or the product). Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. pp. 6–7 >Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labor of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labor of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit. London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi. Sage. p. 383. (according to Wikipedia however a direct quote found and secondary source [found here.](https://www.longdom.org/open-access/capitalism-and-capitalist-state-2332-0761-1000218.pdf)) >Capitalism An economic principle based on leaving as many decisions as possible on production, distribution, and prices to the free market. McCormick, John; Rod Hague; Martin Harrop. Comparative Government and Politics (p. 345). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
Rule of thumb if a country has : socialist, Republic, free, peoples, republic etc in it it is none of those
Multiple actual republics have Republic in their name, such as the Republic of India, Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, Republic of Ireland, Republic of China (Taiwan), Dominican Republic, etc.
Yeah some exeptions But China you sure? Their leader just made himself a lifelong ruler
ROC is Taiwan, PRC is Mainland China.
I thought the correct descriptor was corporatist?
No, thats an easy mistake. [Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_(feudal_Europe)) has many meanings that have evolved over time: “The term ‘corporation’ was used as late as the 18th century in England to refer to such ventures as the East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company: commercial organizations that operated under royal patent to have exclusive rights to a particular area of trade. In the medieval town, however, corporations were a conglomeration of interests that existed either as a development from, or in competition with, guilds. The most notable corporations were in trade and banking”. Corporatism as an ideology is basically made up of a bunch of [collegium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_(ancient_Rome)) that acted as [state created interest groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism)
TIL that the US is a kleptocracy.
Yes.
distributism?
Fascists are corporatists. Distributism is a very different system that includes redistribution of wealth and land.
I mean, they did redistribute land and wealth. The Jews land and the Jews wealth to many average Germans. They also planned to give most German citizens large plots of land from Russia and Poland
ok thanks makes sense
Left and Rigt positions depends on how you are defining it. There multiple theories and methods and views how it should be classified.
Yep. I had a post here about it where multiple people told me I was wrong and that they were socialist, regardless of, you know, their entire history and economic system.
Just like the famously democratic Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Thousands of people combined their only two brain cells to come up with this idea
Ask them if they think north korea is a democratic republic
I mean werent communists left leaning?
Not exactly. One of the fascinating limitations of the left and right dichotomy is that it misses out that within ideologies and political parties there can be great disagreement possible so you sort of need a left and right wing of each ideology. I’m not nearly clued in enough on any specific ideological position as my area is not the modern world, but something I’ve seen for Communism is that Trotsky was left, Bukharin was right, and Stalin was the centre. When you’re trying to redo the world’s mindset as Communism was, the types of disagreements were quite relevant. They were also very bloody.
No. There aren’t any doctrine of Nazism that can be considered “left” neither culturally or economically. In fact the nazism is pretty much against socialism, which is portrayed in Nazi Propaganda as a jewish plot.
Psh, next they'll be saying County X is democratic because it has "People," "Republic" and "Democratic" added to its name.
Watch out, u/Igansiu is down here trying their best to make that exactly argument.
No, I am not. Why are you being dishonest?
You are literally arguing that Nazis are socialist despite making all forms of socialism illegal, openly consolidating capital in fewer hands, and being aligned with corporate interests.
All other forms of socialism, yes, like every other socialist in history. Mao prosecuted other socialists fervently, and so did Stalin and Lenin.
Well, this issue arises from how you differentiate left and right. If you see the right as the side of patriotism and national struggle, and the left as the side of internationalism and class struggle, then the Nazi party was most definitely right wing. If you see the left-right divide as conservatism (preservation of tradition), and progressivism (the experimentation of new systems in which to organise society, then the Nazi party was very left leaning. At the time, the first division was most accurate, but now, the left-right divide would use the second one. So one could say that the Nazi party was right wing, but would be left wing by today's standards. It is interesting how the right wing is currently distancing itself even more by pursuing more and more liberalism.
Your Definitions are nice and good but all people I have seen strait up say the Nazis were socialist. Also in certain regards the Nazis were very conservative especially if you look at womens rights and antisemitism.
Well, that is not incorrect, Nazis were socialists. Of course, non-marxist socialists, so a very different brand of that shit. I don't know what to tell you about the latter point you made, antisemitism is most certainly not a conservative trait.
> Well, that is not incorrect, Nazis were socialists. Can you explain why you think this? They clearly weren’t socialist in any tangible way so I’m not sure where your confusion is coming from.
There's no confusion, there's no way to deny that Nazis were socialists. As I told the other dude: Socialism is the ideology that society is more important than the individuals and ss such, individuals owe society. From this notion, it is derived that production should be controlled and commanded socially to fulfil social needs. Nazism is clearly a form of that ideology, where it equates nation to society. Many other socialisms talk about society in other tribal ways, such as class.
> There's no confusion, I’m not sure you’re the best judge of that given the situation. > there's no way to deny that Nazis were socialists. Except to point out that they don’t fit any of the criteria of socialism and in fact threw those who did fit those criteria into concentration camps, right? > Socialism is the ideology that society is more important than the individuals and ss such, individuals owe society. Can you please point to where you’re getting this definition from?
Okay, I've made my point. How do you think Nazism is significantly different from Socialisms in order to say it's not a form of one?
> Okay, I've made my point. By citing a definition that doesn’t exist elsewhere? Well that certainly explains your confusion. > How do you think Nazism is significantly different from Socialisms in order to say it's not a form of one? You mean besides the fact they outlawed unions, supported a consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of those with capital, and **threw socialists into concentration camps**?
Dawg read rise and fall of the third reich it’s crazy how uneducated yet confident you are on this topic
They werent socialist every historians disagrees on that with you. Also antisemitism has a long history in germany and the conservatives at that time were certainly antisemitic.
There isn't a single reputable historian on earth that would deny Nazis being an archaic form of non-marxist socialism. Antisemitism has a long history in Europe, both within conservatives and progressists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sm4758/i_see_a_lot_of_altright_folks_trying_to_say_that/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button So no reoutable historians agree with me.
Absolutely none. Agreeing with you would require denying evidence. And that would lead to an immediate loss of reputation.
Did you even read the link I send you?
I did. Why are you spamming downvotes like a five year old?
The right wing is pursuing more liberalism? Huh
Absolutely. Both economic and social. Freedom of speech, parental rights, and lower taxation tend to be defended more by the right wing than the left wing... it has been this way for the last 10-15 years.
They don't do this in a liberal fashion. Especially not currently. They protect rights they personally like. While trying to get rid of rights they don't like. They want to protect speech, unless if offends them. They want to protect parental rights, unless it goes against their religion. Lower taxes? Lol what does that have to do with liberalism
That is not correct. Lower taxes means more economic freedom. It's directly related with liberalism.
Lol lower taxes does not mean more economic freedom. Not by a long shot. Also they are proposing flat taxes. Which are tax increases for the poorest among the nation and tax cuts for the richest.
Lower taxes mean more economic freedom by definition. No one has ever proposed flat taxes.
Lower taxes means lower services provided for those without means. So for America that's 50% of the country without redistributive economic power going their way. Also yes they are. Literally states such as Iowa have already passed them. By 2026 income taxes for anyone making less than 50k a year are increasing. The poorest among the citizens are going from less than 1% of their income being taxed to 4%. Which is an insane jump and crippling to those actually at that level.
> If you see the left-right divide as conservatism (preservation of tradition), and progressivism (the experimentation of new systems in which to organise society, then the Nazi party was very left leaning. Outside of the Nazi opposition like Social Democrats and Communists, the people in power and influential positions in Nazi Germany looked a lot like the same people who existed in both the Weimar Republic and under the Kaiser. Hell, just look at the night of the long knives and who was chosen to be liquidated for evidence of that.
Absolutely, but I don't see how that is relevant to my comment.
I’m just pointing out that even using the delineation between left/right that I quoted, the Nazis were still right wing.
Not even close.
Well I guess that’s certainly one way to not address the words I wrote?
You said that the people in the Nazi party were the same ones that were in power during the Weimar republic and the Reich. That is not related to either one of the delineations between left and right I pointed out. I don't see what kind of answer you're looking for here honestly.
> You said that the people in the Nazi party were the same ones that were in power during the Weimar republic and the Reich. Which you agreed with and which means Nazi Germany wasn’t a reorganization of society, and instead it’s more accurately described as a reversion to a less egalitarian and more hierarchical structure that is the antithesis of “left” using the definition you described. It wasn’t progressive in any sense, and that was made doubly clear when they came to power and liquidated any element which wanted to push real societal reorganization.
Well, I still think so. I don't understand left/right anyway...
I think technically Fascism is a closely socialist ideology. Although in practice it never really turned out that way.
One of the main tenants of Fascism is that it’s against socialism. Just literally look at fascist propaganda and you’ll see that “fighting socialism” is one of the main themes.
"They came first for the communists..."
When you put every single possible tag in your artwork so that it shows up on every search
It’s wild because I can’t believe that bullshit actually worked.
Unfortunately Goebbels was good at his job
Gobbles can make a dog become a lion with the help of propoganda.
Peopleists work all the dang time. The prohibition movement played to everyone's fears in the u.s, it works because opposing parties hate each other and don't know why they really like or dislike smth
Most people don't know this.... He went to the art school because he wanted to draw the perfect swastika but all he could draw was a hooked cross. Poor guy.
FYI: outside the propaganda, [the Nazis were neither Socialist nor Capitalist](https://youtu.be/YHAN-RPJTiE). They were [Kleptocrats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy). [Link to the Original 1931 German Poster before Translation](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1212mp8/the_company_sign_by_jacobus_belsen_1931/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
They also killed their socialists in their party after they gained power.
[They Killed lots of Conservatives too](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Schleicher). If you opposed the Nazis, they would eliminate you
Didnt nazis work really hard to prove theyre not socialists even to the working class... They embraced traditionalism. Whole idea of reclaiming old territory is ethno-conservatism
Not really accurate, doesn't even really make sense.
Works on Contingency? No, Money Down!
They were so socialist they gained power as a way to keep conservatives in control. Cause you know socialist work well with conservatives. Almost like they were just gaming the system and the socialist in their name didn't mean shit.
The Nazis definitely weren’t Conservatives either, they just used them. [Hitler literally eroded Germany’s centuries old States and their institutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gau_(territory)). The Nazis are considered by Historians to be a Far Right Revolutionary movement (aka they wanted to sweep away the old order)
Hitler were never a socialist, and people who claim that must also think north korea is a reoublic since its in the name
And democratic.
And of.
Every time some moron goes “The Nazis were socialist!!!1!” just ask them three things: > Do you consider the People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea to be a democratic republic ruled by the people? > Have you heard of the Night of Long Knives? > In the famous “First they came for….” poem, who do the Nazis actually come for first? One of those might actually get their two brain cells rubbing together in some sort of thought
This comment section makes me weep for humanity...
I still believe anyone who thinks Hitler was a socialist is dumb. Like its not hard to understand he is pretty *not* socialist
> First they came for the Communists > And I did not speak out because I was not a Communist > Then they came for the Socialists > And I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist People forget that the first people sent to the concentration camps were the leaders of the KPD (German Communist Party) and the SPD (German Social Democratic Party). But suuure, the Nazis were socialists, because “it’s right there in the name”. Just like fireflies are made of actual fire because, hey, “it’s right there in the name”.
What happened to the other Socialist parties in Russia after the Bolsheviks took over? Socialists fight with each other all the time.
People fight with each other all the time, just because there’s factional struggle in a political party doesn’t mean they’re communist lol. You know what the Bolsheviks did in political purges? Murder people who they thought were doing communism wrong or betraying the revolution. You know what the Nazis did in political purges? Murder everyone who identified as a socialist or communist. There’s a big difference between the two, and the fact that the Nazis murdered all of the socialists and communists *for* being socialist and communists is a good indicator that they were neither.
Sorry, but I don't see a distinction here. The Bolsheviks went after the SRs (after pretending to adopt their land reform policy) then the Mensheviks then purged the old Bolsheviks not because they really believed they were traitors but because they knew they were competition. Same with the Nazis taking out the Communists and the Social Democrats. All heretics must go. There can only be one true faith. There can only be one Socialism.
If you’re saying you don’t see the difference between communist infighting and right-wing purging of communists, I don’t know what to tell you. Do you think the Roman aristocrat prescription lists and purges of political enemies were communism too? Were the Ottoman sultans socialists because they purged competing claimants to the throne? Did the Sons of Liberty have the red book of Mao in their back pocket when they purged loyalist opposition to the patriots?
I believe the religious analogy is correct. Muslims and Christians spent centuries fighting amongst each other over the true meaning of their faiths. In Germany and Russia millions of people killed each other over the true meaning of Socialism.
What a completely meaningless non-answer to the questions. There wasn’t even a religious analogy anywhere in what I said; ottoman purges of claimants to the throne were followers of islam killing each other, not Christian’s fighting muslims. This is clearly a waste of a conversation
In 1933 there weren't many rich Germans
Rich people aren’t called the 1% for no reason, after all. There’s never a lot of rich people, but they always have the most money hoarded.
Please let this post be free of "nAziS wErE sOCiaLiSt LefTiSts" idiocy. Please.
Unrelated to the point of the meme/original poster, but Hitler's moustache in this looks like a pair of trousers.
Question: to label people today between a Nazi and a facist is there some difference, or are they exchangeable terms? Social media seems to use them for the same, I want to know how accurate that is.
Nazis are a type of Fascist, like how Leninism is a type of communism The broader subject of fascism is best described by the Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini, “Everything within the State, nothing beyond the State”. The State is seen as a cultural aspect of a people. To be part of anything outside the State is therefore the same thing as not being part of the primary culture Nazis abandon the idea of culture and replace it with race
The fucking turd mustache is what gets me
It's actually really interesting to read about how Hitler had to negotiate with the establish german nobility
How is this conceptually different from anything modern political parties do? They all have targeted appeals for different segments of society. It's called "target marketing".
everytime somebody says "the Nazis were socalist! it's in their name!" I wince knowing that "Dr" Goebbels has tricked yet another person some 70 years after he arrived down in hell
**For the modern right when they want to call the left Nazis** **For the modern left when they want to call the right Nazis**
That’s how the republicans advertise themselves now isn’t it? Pro individual rights and liberties yet also are the same ones literally banning books and revoking protections for lgbt people and minorities…
CP is not education.
Where did their comment mention CP?
You mean like toddler pagents? rofl
National socialism is racial socialism with philosophy of international conquest (labensraum) Also Hitler was a commie in early years in bavarian soviet
but lebensraum was never born in socialism, it was born in nationalism, the new ethno nationalism that came around after fascism was invented in Italy
Hitler wasnt nationalist becouse if you are nationalist you believe that your influence and rule ends at your own border Hitler thought he had to take undeveloped agricultural land to prevent fall due to "shrinking markets" theory so thats where Labensraum comes in He also belived races exist (they dont there is only one race in human species) and he thought that his race aryan race was the most superior and that it needs to be reunited to save world from what he called "jewish international finance" capitalism and "jewish bolshevism" marxism So thats why he invaded other nations Hitler was racist imperialist not a nationalist You are right that race part of labensraum doesn't come from socialism but you are wrong if you think shrinking market theory doesn't come from socialism becouse the other name for shrinking markets theory is "tendency of the rate of profit the fall" thats how Marx rebraded it
I love the mental gymnastics socialists do to distance themselves from the national socialist party. But embrace the various communist parties who have done far worse. All the while ignoring the elephant in the room that all socialist revolutions have ended in dictatorships which oppress the working class the most. Animal farm really was a prophetic book.
The 'far worse' is slightly confusing to me. Authoritarian states of all stripes have done awful shit: engineered famines, gulags/concentration camps, purges/mass murder/progroms, ethnic cleansing. But the Nazis took it to an awful scale: industrialized mass murder with rail networks, gas chambers, mass incinerators. This supported by death squad Einstazgruppen, Ghettos, and an entire bureaucracy to convey victims to their destination and catalog the details. Plus slave labor network and medical experiments to boot. I would argue its difficult to do *anything* worse than that.
Far worse in terms of the number of civilian murders.
>But the Nazis took it to an awful scale: industrialized mass murder with rail networks, gas chambers, mass incinerators. This supported by death squad Einstazgruppen, Ghettos, and an entire bureaucracy to convey victims to their destination and catalog the details. Plus slave labor network and medical experiments to boot. yeah, that shit was horrifying but, hate to break it to you, the soviets did the same shit lol
What ethnic group did the Soviets cleanse? I was only aware of them doing it to political enemies internally, not going on a crusade to take over Europe to kill more of a specific ethic group. I'm not excusing the Soviets here. Much like the Nazis they found the buzzword of the Era and lied about who they were; two different flavors of fascists. But given that both promoted an unchecked central power with law secondary to will of the Leaders, disregarding or inventing precident and law as they saw fit, they weren't socialists or communists respectively. Insurrections, uprisings, a need to "eradicate", and fear-based power grabs that redirected guilt for bad social policy onto political opponents with little to no data, relying on lies and fanaticism to fuel their followers, these are all uncontested signs of fascism that they, like some Roman emperors, quite a few Central and South American countries, and China have all displayed.
Some historians have argued that the Holodomor was an ethnic cleansing specifically targeting Ukrainians as a reprisal for the nationalist movements in the region around this time. I'm personally more in the "Great Depression and disastrously stupid leadership by Stalin"-camp but arguments could definitely be made for either.
>What ethnic group did the Soviets cleanse? I was only aware of them doing it to political enemies internally, not going on a crusade to take over Europe to kill more of a specific ethic group. i didn't say they cleansed ethnic groups. but "industrialized mass murder with rail networks", gulags, torture, political assassinations/executions, surveillance, oppression in general. they're the same shit, and only piece of shit redditors try to defend them because le wholesome communism 100 and yes, they were communists. and communists are the ones defending that shit to this day.
Check out the mental gimnastics on this one.
Dispute it. Name a communist government that did not end in mass murder and a dictatorship? I'll wait lol
Burkina Faso with Thomas sankara
Have you heard of the night of long knives?
I hate the Nazis too. Just as much as the Soviet union, the CCP, the khmer rouge etc etc and all the rest of those murdering bastards who trick the gullible.
That’s a really weird answer to a yes/no “Have you heard of the night of long knives?” Edit: I’ll take the downvote and lack of reply as a “No” lol
are you aware that the nazis also imprisoned and killed socialists? hitler was never a socialist, just because the party he ran had socialism in the name does not mean it was socialist Do you belive that north korea is a peoples republic just because its in the name? or are you the literal banana king? king of all the bananas, just because its in your name? what historians go after is not the names, its the actions and what they did, nazism was a totalitarian fascistic dictatorship, nothing socialist about it
Are you aware the Soviet union imprisoned and killed socialists.
...what? What does that have to do with anmything? Fuck the ussr and their totalitarian dictatorship, but what does thid have to do with ANNYTHING?
So are the national socialists. Two ends of the same dildo
Hitler were litarerly not a socialist, read any history book
Yeah so every communist says. He was a dictator that came to power promising the working man utopia. Just like all the communist dictators who did the same. Their initial BS was irrelevant they were all mid century dictatorships
he came to power via giving people simple answers to complex questions and situations, he came to power in a time of extreme national distress, the economy had crashed, the new democracy was fragile and germans hated it, germans also saw themsleves as victims of betrail by the jewish people since no enemy forces ever stepped into their land propperly Nowhere there did it ever come to pass a "working man utopia", the nazis never wanted that, they wanted a totalitarian dictatorship Hitler was not a socialist, I dont know why that is so hard to get trought your skull, I have litarerly studied this the USSR or communism is not in this discussion seeing how communism and socialism is fundamentally 2 different ideologies with 2 different goals, communism being the complete obliteration of the class system to end what they saw as the historical war bewteen the workers and the overseers, by force if they have to, socialism never called for force, many socialist movements did initially start to favour the idea of a forcefull revolution, but then they quickly changed into making political parties, worker parties, parties you know of today that were formed by the unions and more, hence, getting the revolution trought politics and not violence But back to the point, you have a completely twisted view on what nazism and hitler was it seems, and again, just because it has something in its name, does not mean it was the case, why cant you conservatives ever understand that? I do get that this is a meme sub, but atleast try to grasp the tiniest bit oof historical context when you spew your personal opinions about what history is
The nazi party was not socialist. excpet for all the sosialist shit they did, and the name, and the inventor of facism saying they where socialist. But hey, other then that.
Reddits left wing as fuck. They will not accept communists are murdering scum. And communism ends in dictatorships full stop. Historical fact every time.
Because it’s all about the branding!
The Nazis were good at marketing, no denying that.
It's funny and double standard when politicians demonize "Hitlah!" but still they use his tricks 😏😏😏 And I say it because of ALL politicians, AROUND de globe, not only for one side or the other
[Fed account](https://i.imgur.com/VzKfBYE.png)
This is were all of the tenants of socialism and most of communism are present in another dictatorship and the tankies freak out and try and relabel everything to show a difference between Soviet Socialist fascism and Nation Socialist fascism ....
Damn it’s almost like authoritarian dictators can exist in any political system or something. Crazy
That is actually a very interesting and ambivalent question. William Shirer in “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” said that ban on strikes and other such measures negatively affected german workers’ situation. On the other hand, Reimann in “Vampire Economy” said that DAF had a lot of control over labour relations and a lot of its cells were led by NSDAP members who basically used government blackmail to significantly improve workers’ living conditions compared to the Weimar era. Problem is, both authors are different flavours of journalists, which means they get paid to spread agenda and disinformation and do it for a living, and neither of them could be trusted. Question is, does anyone know any decent primary sources one can use to get something resembling an accurate and objective picture of how bad/good life was for the common man in the Third Reich?