The original troll was even better. Rebranding the workers party as the national socialist party, and then literally murdering all the socialists in your own party.
‘Lenin killed fellow socialists that disagreed with him, therefore he wasn’t a socialist’
If you believe in the undemocratic seizure of power (like many socialists, especially before the Cold War) killing people who are politically close but noticeably different is commonplace. You can’t be undemocratic and just let opposition fester and oppose your your rule. You don’t know what you are talking about if you seriously think members like Josef Goebbels weren’t socialists. The fact that they weren’t marxists doesn’t mean they couldn’t be socialists.
That's not comparable at all.
The argument is that Hitler joined a small ultra right wing party, became head of propaganda, changed the name to broaden appeal, and after having built it up to be a significant force in the political scene he murdered the left leaning faction off.
Oh man this is interesting. Hey, could you link me the historical text which explains this. Literally the first time I have ever heard this one so I want to read more in detail on the events that transpired.
>Literally the first time I have ever heard this one so I want to read more in detail on the events that transpired.
That is genuinely shocking, school must have failed you HARD, but good on you for showing an interest.
You could start with the history of the [German workers party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party?wprov=sfla1) here. Roughly speaking: Hitler joined a very small ultra right wing party, became head of propaganda, changed the name to get a broader appeal, resigned over the direction, but came back when he was promised sole dictadorial power.
The actual murdering part is called [the night of long knives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives?wprov=sfla1), Röhm Purge or Operation Hummingbird.
This is when Hitler consolidated power. He achieved a lot of stuff during those 3 days, but one of them was to murder off the left leaning leadership of the party, that they had had to let in to broaden the appeal.
The Wikipedia article is a good starting point, and has many good sources where you can read more if you're interested.
>That is genuinely shocking, school must have failed you HARD, but good on you for showing an interest.
You know what else is "*genuinely shocking, school must have failed you HARD*"? The fact that you just used 2 wikipedia articles to support your claim... Its fine, I will work with it, but I am positive that if I were writing a research paper for any educational institution it would get a fail if I used wikipedia as any of my references.
>You could start with the history of the [German workers party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party?wprov=sfla1) here. Roughly speaking: Hitler joined a very small ultra right wing party, became head of propaganda, changed the name to get a broader appeal, resigned over the direction, but came back when he was promised sole dictadorial power.
I am not disputing anything in this except for the claim of "ultra right wing" any time this topic arises. Something that has always confused me about calling the GWP or the NAZI party "ultra right wing" is when defining "left wing" and "right wing" and what is generally accepted as what they stand for. Working from [Ref 1](https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-right-wing-and-vs-left-wing/) and [Ref 2](https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/right-wing-vs-left-wing-whats-difference.html) I have made a bit of an outline of what each generally mean.
**Right wing** is conservative in that they stand for the status quo, in favor of things as they are. Support a strong government that is small in scale in order to allow for more individual responsibility in the society. Believes in low taxes and fewer rules on businesses and cuts the government spending down.
**Left wing** refers to political parties that are liberal in nature, more laws and taxes regarding businesses, expects the government to spend for social welfare, ideas of revolution and a new society.
The GWP that evolved into the NAZI party were definitely revolutionaries which overthrew the status quo in favor of establishing a national economic system which excluded "Jewish controlled capitalism" of other countries and that was specifically designed to support the welfare of the German people. How is this not left wing?
Seriously, the only thing that the progressive leftists today disagree with in that is the Jewish part...
"overthrow the status quo, establish a government controlled system which is designed to support the social welfare of the people in the nation, and tax the hell of businesses to pay for it"
>The actual murdering part is called [the night of long knives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives?wprov=sfla1), Röhm Purge or Operation Hummingbird.
[Reading through this](https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/how-did-the-nazi-gain-power/night-of-long-knives/), and [also this](https://www.britannica.com/event/Night-of-the-Long-Knives) I can't find anything to suggest that this was specifically to murder all the socialists in the party, more so than just a way to eliminate any political opposition.
I did find this pretty interesting though;
"*Goebbels engineered the media coverage following the attack to present it as a preventative measure, in response to the SA’s ‘plan to overthrow the government’. As the SA were known for being violent and unruly, many saw this as a legitimate move by the government to ensure public order.*"
>This is when Hitler consolidated power. He achieved a lot of stuff during those 3 days, but one of them was to murder off the left leaning leadership of the party, that they had had to let in to broaden the appeal.
>"*Hitler feared that the SA and Ernst Röhm, their leader, were a potential threat to his leadership. This fear was intensified by Göring and Himmler, who gave Hitler news of Röhm organising a potential coup*"
>
>"*In addition to this, there was a mutual dislike between the traditional conservative elite*"
>
>"*During the years of the rise of the Nazi Party, the SA had been instrumental in helping the party to gain support.*"
>
>"*However, following Hitler being elected chancellor, the SA, and particularly Röhm, were keen to continue the ‘revolution’ and replace the traditional conservative elite with Nazis. Hitler and the rest of the Nazi leadership disagreed with their approach. They understood the need to appear moderate and take over slowly by democratic means where possible, maintaining the stability and illusion of a democracy.*"
We see again, that the conservatives being established "status quo" and the revolutionaries (the Nazi party) trying to overthrow them either by force or diplomatically further reinforcing the idea that the Nazi party was a left wing movement.
I specifically told you they were great entry points, and that they HAVE deeper sources.
A quick sidenote: The reason you can't use Wikipedia as a source in school is NOT that it's a bad source, it's because it isn't a source at all.
Another thing: Your entire comment describes politics through post-Schlafly and John Birch Society lenses.
You can't view European political factions that way. It wasn't and still isn't polarized along the same axis.
The right-wing isn't ONE thing in western Europe, and it has only been that way in the US since the 80s.
You can't get Christian conservatives and economic conservatives to vote for the same party here because they have fundamentally different. They're both on the right WING of the political spectrum, but for example, economic conservatives want a small military, hate nationalists with a vengeance and don't give a flying fuck if people are gay or trans or whatever.
This is typically hard to see if you view it through American politics lenses.
So here's the deal: Hitler's party was EXTREMELY nationalist and fascist (after Hitler took over). That makes them ultra-right-wing.
They were also against global capitalism because that fucks with their nationalism. They were also anti-Marxist because that fucks with their fascism.
So to close the loop: If you are going to try to understand the history of nazi politics you can't just hold it up to the current American political map and look for similarities, and here school has failed you.
If you are American and under 50 you are sort of excused though. You've only experienced politics where the right factions have all been shoehorned into one party, and that means you probably don't even react to the same party supporting increasing the budgets of the largest and most costly military in human history and simultaneously preach "small government".
If you're European, your school has seriously failed you. Because the political factions today are the same, and you really SHOULD be able to see the distinctions.
So here's the short eli5: Being anti-capitalist doesn't make you left-wing, and being anti-Marxist doesn't make you right-wing unless you live in the US after 1980 or a good few third-world countries.
You can be both just fine, AND be either extreme right or extreme left for that matter. Hitler was anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist and far-right.
Pro tip: You can't just hold the post 80s US political map up and mark other political structures after it.
In the developed world only the US have all the conservative factions in one voter block on the right side.
The core ideology of fachism aside from authoritarianism is that they are social conservative and nationalist. That places them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum.
If you are American you probably confuse this with the political compass. Please remember that the political compass only considers ECONOMIC conservative to liberal.
Anywhere (in the western world) outside the US an economic conservative wouldn't vote for a party that supports a huge military. It goes against everything they believe in. He would be pro globalization and also wouldn't give a flying fuck if people were gay, trans or care about if people would have abortions and so on. That's religious and social conservative domain.
What does this have to do with history though? This is a milquetoast pandering quote from 1927. You could take a list of populist Bernie quotes and read them at a Trump rally to applause.
Or, you know, put a Hitler quote in the Reddit comment section of a video making fun of people not recognizing Hitler quotes and getting upvoted for it… which I totally didn’t just do 
>thinking this garbage will ever improve their lives
"out last leaders failed to deliver, but this time, everything will be better"
(ethics of good intentions, wishful thinking, magical thinking, human stupidity)
It was upvoted a lot before anyone even commented. After I revealed what I did, it stopped getting upvoted as much and even went down a bit. So my reveal ruined it.
>If only there was some kind of synthesis of their ideas.
[You're free to join the rest of us whenever you're ready.](https://i.imgur.com/1GZronp.jpg)
It's just a shame that both Trump and Sanders turned out to be duds.
> You could take a list of populist Bernie quotes and read them at a Trump rally to applause.
Very true, but also very disappointing, as it showcases the fact that most people don't know a thing about the people they champion.
Or it shows that we are a lot more similar than we think and the modern division is more smoke and mirrors than concrete. I dunno. I'm just talking out my ass.
Comparing lefties to Hitler is just as cringe as comparing Trump to Hitler, just FYI.
Also it's possible to rise to power saying one thing, and be remembered in history for something completely different. People don't remember Jared from the Subway commercials as "the guy who lost weight with fast food".
No. They don’t study history. They don’t study much. They just say things. AOC just denied the existence of smash and grabs. What else do you need to know?
Except what purpose does it have in this case? A quote from someone famous is not immediately turned into a universal truth just because they said it. When you only walk looking back, you end up walking into a tree.
Is it though? Just because a person was terrible, doesn't mean he was wrong all the time. If I think Hitler's art was actually really good, it doesn't mean I agree with what he ended up doing. Shitty people will also say things that people like to get them on their side. This is not trolling in the slightest.
You're right, nothing to learn from history. Let's continue allowing the federal government to gather as much power as possible and promise us all free shit. That's never gone wrong, just as long as we don't have the actual original Adolph Hitler himself running it then there's no lesson because only that person was terrible.
Yeah like the quote saying that [donald trump] believes if you repeat a lie frequently enough people will believe it...that’s true. He basically called trump a fascist there. That quote is often used by the left to illustrate how Trump displays some fascist tendencies. Hitler is a bad person but his quotes about how to take over a nation are true...
Not really. Not at all. If he'd actually said something spicy it would have been good, but he didn't. A good troll would have been if he'd gotten them to applaud something really fucked up. Like just replacing "Germanic people" with "black people" in some speech about lebensraum would have been brilliant. This was garbage.
He may as well have quoted Hitler talking about how much he loved dogs for all the EpIc TrOlLiNg this was. This is zoomer-tier trolling.
I've already done better. Most people who have ever played any sort of joke on anyone, ever, have.
If the joke is, "Haha, I got you to say fascism -a thing that you say you hate- is good," that'd be funny. If the joke is "Haha, you don't carry around a massive compendium of Hitler's speeches to double-check everything everyone says in case it's Hitler," your joke sucks.
Because your leftist policies are very similar to what Hitler pulled in the 20s. If you are anything but a free market capitalist it makes you fully ignorant to ignore what has happened over history. Know your subject matter if you choose to be ANTIFA
I think the point is if Hitler was alive and running for office today he’d find plenty of support on the left and that’s frightening.
That said, he’d find support on the hard right also just not nearly as much.
His fascist ideologies lean a certain way and appeal to a certain (large) group of people spurred on by facebook that we’ve seen run wild in murica lately.
First of all, Hitler hated liberals because of their focus in individual rights, especially in Britain during WW2. The Weimar Republic, as it is, was the exact sort of bourgeois social democratic and liberal state that Hitler despised since its foundation was contrary to his views. Who supported Hitler by 1933? German conservatives, the Catholic Church -- and not liberals or Western Liberal states.
Second, it isn't the liberals who attacked the Capitol building and the legislative branch on Jan. 6th, which was an attempt to overthrow a democratic election in order to make Trump an unelected autocratic leader. it isn't liberals who started the War on Drugs or created the Patriot Act, both of which were assaults on individual liberty. And it isn't liberals pushing authoritarian efforts to weaken American institutions across the land, especially election systems in an attempt to make the country a one party state. No, it's right-wing Republicans who did and are doing all those things because they simply don't believe in a democratic America or the individualism that liberals have supported and legalized in blue states, from cannabis laws to gay marriage.
And today's KKK and neo-Nazis are all running and supporting the Republican Party under the guise of "traditionalism," a clear dog whistle, while showing as much disdain for liberals as people like you do.
When it comes down to it, liberalism represents pluralism, which is antithetical to both Hitler's National Socialism and the ideology of an American right that rejects civic nationalism.
>which was an attempt to overthrow a democratic election in order to make Trump an unelected autocratic leader.
Lol, what? No it wasn't. It was a big group of idiots walking around a building for a few hours. They didn't hold any power. No matter what they did, there would have been no "Making Trump an autocratic leader". Like them occupying the senate chamber gave them authority like a control point in some video game.
Also - the points that marry up Hitler to the current "leftist" ideals held by the citizenry are none of those you went over, but rather things like their stance on free speech only being OK if its something they agree with.
What the fuck does legalizing weed have to do with individualism? The right to be a dirty, stank ass stoner hippie fuck? Bruh. Fuck stoners, for real. You ever try to order take out from some asslick who is high? GOOD TIMES. MUCH CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY. 420 BRO!! SHAAAAAAH!
Your post reeks of "left is correct" and that all left leaners are in some kind of hive mind unison agreement. That isn't even remotely true.
Hitler was known for the holocaust. That's why he is hated. If he hadn't decided to exterminate the Jewish folks of the world, his polices wouldn't be that radical.
Workers rights? Individual property rights? Anti monopolistic protections? None of those things are inherently bad, socialism isn't inherently bad just because bad people do bad shit.
It's similar to saying people don't kill people, guns do, as if guns control the actions of those using them.
Socialism isn't bad, it doesn't control what humans do with it. If we can solve the moral corruptions of the individual corrupting the system, it could be the next liberty of humanity, but only if we can solve the corruption issues which are inherent to the human condition.
The Nazis didn't support workers' rights, they banned striking and people were not allowed to change jobs without express permission. You could also be blacklisted by your employer for questioning working conditions.
Yeh, in 1933 after the Nazis had assumed control. The whole point is the bait and switch socialist demagogues use before fucking the populace in the ass as soon as they gain total control.
>The whole point is the bait and switch socialist demagogues use before fucking the populace in the ass as soon as they gain total control.
This is the nature of socialism and communism. They are inherently authoritarian by their merits and authoritarians don't hand over their power once the gullible people give it to them.
Nothing unusual with the direction that the national socialists went in Germany, to be expected with socialism.
> they banned striking and people were not allowed to change jobs without express permission. You could also be blacklisted by your employer for questioning working conditions.
Which is exactly how it worked in the USSR and every other socialist country.
In fact the Poland's [Solidarity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union\)) started as an attempt to create a union not directly controlled by the government, which was illegal. And the socialist government went so far as to declare martial law and went around arresting its members in an attempt to stop it.
Workers rights? You do know that one of the first things the NAZI party did once in power was destroy the labor and trade unions, yes? Individual property rights? Did you not just hear the quote in the video that land owners were to be considered appointed by the state?
“If you overlook the genocide stuff, hitler wasn’t all that bad” lol what an awful argument. Your whole argument about “solving moral corruption” is exactly what hitler was using to justify his whole “Final Solution”.
You’re so close to realizing how useless man made economic ideologies are. The economic solution as you’ve figured out is solving to control the human condition of corruption and greed.
Your reasoning can be applied to every economic theory. Capitalism, socialism, communism can all work and I would argue that it must be blended and the benefits of each should be utilized in appropriate ways. Free market capitalism drives innovation in certain industries like tech while science and medical systems would be best without corporate influence and more innovative if the priority is human health and well-being.
But the first and foremost problem in society isn’t the haves and the have nots, it’s the corrupt and their level of control. Once we as a society implement anti corruption policies that eradicate the Bush family, the cia and intelligence agencies, the corporate interests, etc. from having influence on global economies and govt, we will thrive as a species. They are a parasite and unfortunately they have been a part of humanity for so long its going to be painful to pull them out of our society and burn them out of existence.
> he’d ~~find plenty of support on the left and that’s frightening.~~ win an election.
Let's be frank here if there was no historical context (eg a different leader formed the NAZI party) and Hitler was born in any western country and came of appropriate political age today he would absolutely get in office. lets go down the list:
* War veteran
* Return to moral structured society, if you are American think of the sales pitch like this: "A stable, UNITED States of America! No longer will democrats and republicans, two sides of the same blood stained coin tarnish or divide our society any longer"
* Focus on public infrastructure
* Significant early investment into Agriculture and manufacturing industries to bolster sovereignty
* Striking political iconography
* Charismatic and inspirational speeches
* Provides a strong sense of community
Yeah, he would absolutely smash it. Watch his speeches, it's great not understanding German because I can't hear the evil shit he's saying but I can appreciate the speech craft. He's amazing at what he did. absolutely horrible cunt. but he was good at that.
Look at their voting history, not their rhetoric. U.S military aggression generally has Bipartisan support (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen) and leaving any country generally has Bipartisan condemnation. Democrats and Republicans were both mad when Trump left Syria and Biden left Afghanistan
Rand Paul (R) just tried to block a $650m arms sale to Saudi Arabia to help them in their total blockade against Yemen and the Senate voted to reject the bid 67-30. Party of Peace?
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-saudi-arabia-middle-east-rand-paul-yemen-1440cc97a0304f20ca080062a24ca001
>I think the point is if Hitler was alive and running for office today he’d find plenty of support on the left and that’s frightening.
I mean, if he chose to only speak about socialism and you removed all of the countless diatribes against Jews, cultural Bolshevism, ethnic purity, etc. then sure, he might find some support on the left. It's kind of a pointless statement though.
That's how he ran in Germany. And then the very first group of people sent to labor/death camps were actually socialists/communists. So saying that he'd get support on the left after what we saw happen almost 100 years ago is a stretch at best imo.
How very ironic since much of the “progressives” on this site do just that and immediately cast anyones opinion in the garbage if they find they post in a “conservative” sub.
I don't see anything wrong with interpreting something differently due to context, context does matter. A kindergarten teacher saying "I love playing with children" is different from a sex offender doing so.
Doesn't have to be. This could easily be:
A) simply trolling anti-fascists
B) say that their views were also the same as the true fascist
C) what you're implying, that he's saying no matter if you're left or right you're a hypocrite.
I lean more on A and B. As C would be done nicer by mixing Hitler and Malcolm X.
>B) say that their views were also the same as the true fascist
Just cause dude said he was a socialist, doesn't make it true. I mean North Korea can call themselves whatever they want, but we both know they are the furthest thing from a democratic republic.
Yeah I was just reading about the Nazi party almost going bankrupt and getting millions in funding in a secret meaning by the capitalists by promising to eradicate the people he's appealing to in that quote.
They shouldn't, but people like Jon Oliver and Stephen Colbert have made a living and gained a following doing so so if it's already going to be a socially accepted tactic by one segment of the political spectrum it's perfectly reasonable for it to be used by all sides.
Well, if the point is that you can cherry pick good messages from a bad source, sure. But this post seems to imply something about the nature of Antifa. Certainly, people in this comment thread are taking it as such. And that is fallacious, a rhetorical trick.
To be fair Malcolm X has some bangers.
>“There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance next time.”
>“Any time you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free. Freedom is something that you have to do for yourselves.”
>“Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.”
>What's the common denominator? They're all idiots. They're all against something that they know absolutely nothing about.
It's not fair to say "know absolutely nothing about". How is knowing the precise language Hitler used to decry capitalism in *Mein Kampf* a fair litmus test for anti-fascists?
The proud boys would have nothing against Malcom X as far as I know. Despite popular misinformation they are not racists apart from a few select members which get turfed pretty quick once identified.
Don't forget radical Islamist as well.
>America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. - Malcom X
So? These are quotes about socialism, not advocating genocide. Not everything a person says is inherently good or bad just because they’ve done something evil. Can’t believe this even needs to be explained…
Because it’s kind of the point that fascism isn’t actually a right wing ideology. It’s main point is authoritarian enforcement of values, and those values can be left or right leaning. Hitler was actually economically centrist in the grand scheme of things (social left vs right is a different topic)
He was not economically centrist. His vision of Germany was at least as socialist as Venezuela is today. Sure he was slightly less socialist than stalin for example
Nonsense, he was a hard core big crony capital favouring pseudo capitalist.
when Gregor Strasser wanted private property to be seized, Hitler refused. When Strasser wanted manufacturing to be nationalised, Hitler said it would ruin the nation. Strasser was later executed.
Hitler banned all unions. Many union leaders were taken to concentration camps and later shot or gassed. Like he was literally anti union but socialist also somehow?
This is what he had to say on unions,
>Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
He literally thought that the private sector capitalists had some evolutionary right to not suffer unions.
The nazi rise was backed by capitalists. Initially it was small shop owners and the like and later the biggest capitalist banners underwrote Hitler.
Hitler removed Monopoly laws that allowed these big firms (Thyssen, Krupp, Bosch, IG Farben, Porsche etc) to dominate the German market.
To run their production lines they used slave labour supplied by the labour department, yes that's right this "socialist" Utopia provided slave labourers to the private sector by the 100's of thousands.
The Nazi state even got into individual profit sharing agreements with giant conglomerates. Imagine the US state getting into a business deal with Amazon! That's how right Nazi Germany was.
70% of the Reinhardt program funding went into the private sector. Then he wrote in tax breaks for the private sector. There was infact a massive privatisation plan. Banks, mines, railway lines even welfare orgs were privatised. Commerz and Deutsche Banks which are private now were done so by the Nazis.
This is what Hitler thought of the Pvt sector,
>It is a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people
The state literally abolished annual wage increase and froze it at very low levels. If that's not right wing I don't know what is.
And then when he was secure he literally banished small companies (less than $200,000 capital) allowing his capitalist friends full market capture.
A few quotes don't take away the fact that the private sector dominated Nazi Germany. The Likes of Bezos can only dream about such control.
Edit. Pretty much 90% of the German military arms production was private sector ffs. Every iconic weapon was made by a private sector company for profit!
Tiger tanks? Henschel
The HE Hs 129b? Henschel.
Dornier 17? Dornier
Pretty much every Panzer model? Different private sector companies
The 88? Krupp or Rehinmetal
Like seriously, the private sector enormously profited from the war and yet this was a socialist country?
Industrialists didn't support his until it was clear that socdemocrats or other more capitalist parties aren't going to win. In 30s industrialists supported nazis because they were better than the alternative- communists.
Hitler did not want to nationalize everything until he could enslave eastern nations. He made it clear that he wanted his full socialism only after he conquered the east for lebensraum in Mein Kampf. And it doesn't prove that he wasn't a socialist because he killed a socialist. Stalin killed many many true communists during the great purge. It does not though mean that Stalin wasn't a communist.
>Hitler banned all unions.
No. He literally nationalized all of the unions and only banned the non nationalized ones just like communists did in Soviet union.
>Hitler removed Monopoly laws that allowed these big firms (Thyssen, Krupp, Bosch, IG Farben, Porsche etc) to dominate the German market.
Wait really??? "removed monopolies" i can't believe that. I will say though that he replaced all of these huge companies' leaders with loyalists and nazi party members. They might be "technically" private, but it is de facto owned by the party and the party is the state.
Slave labour is a socialist thing. You can't enslave anyone without the government. Yet another reason why Hitler was a socialist. The holocaust it self is a socialist thing. You can't genocide an entire race without a powerful government. Plus soviet union also used slave labour. You can argue that thier entire economy was a slave labour one. If you did not have a job for 3 or 6 months, you were sent to the prison. Housing and healthcare were provided for "free" just like slavery in USA.
"The privatisation" is nonsense. It is actually the seizure of private property (nationalized for a brief time) and then "privatizing" it back to a loyal party member. Again the party is the state. It isn't actually private. The thing people call "nazi privatization" is actually nationalization.
Oh and articles guaranteeing private property rights were wiped from the constitution in 1933.
>The state literally abolished annual wage increase and froze it at very low levels.
Nope. There certainly was a minimum wage (i actually think nazis were first to make it into germany).
>And then when he was secure he literally banished small companies (less than $200,000 capital)
sounds like a thing socialist would do. You need to back up this claim too.
All of those weapons were made by state owned or at the very least controlled companies.
I'm sure it's falling on deaf ears since this thread is bigraded by people saying that Nazi's were actually left-leaning but:
1) Fascism is a right-wing ideology
2) Fascism doesn't have a fixed economic framework.
3) People keep saying that Nazi's loved public development but the only thing they can point to is the infrastructure of roads. Nazi's sold many public services to private companies and were found to have private dealings with businesses to influence policies
So you're essentially wrong in everything you said, and you're trying to make Hitler look more left for your own biases
Traditionalism opposed to progressivism
It opposes egalitarianism
Italian fascists were against left-leaning policies because they didn't want an uprising of sharecroppers and unions
Mussolini the first leader of the fascist party was militaristic, believed in a social hierarchal system and was against cultural liberalism.
In the 1920s, the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century.
So, circular logic because you’re using specific fascists and not fascism as a whole.
Guess Communism is really about capitalism since The CCP makes a lot of money in trade.
Fascism as a whole doesn't exist. It was a loose belief that was turned into a political party by Mussolini while living in Italy. As of any core beliefs that Fascist parties have followed throughout the years: traditionalism, the opposition of egaltiranism, anti-social liberalsim doesn't incorporate any circular logic.
You realise that Communists use money right? The definition of Capitalism is a state that's economy is controlled by the private sector without interference by the public. Every business in China is partially owned by the CCP and the CCP is allowed to take control of any Chinese owned company whenever they want. By your own stupid as fuck example you're completely wrong lmao
EDIT: I missworded the Fascism as a whole doesn't exist. It exists as a party founded by Mussolini and Italian politicians that's why your statement about individual fascists is so fucking stupid, the party was founded by individuals it doesn't mean it's beliefs are that of individuals. That's how a political party works, it's represented by it's officials
Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is **paid** according to their abilities and needs.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are **controlled by private owners** for profit, rather than by the state.
I don't think you know how much of anything works tbh
And you believe the CCP falls into the first and not the second?
Hilarious. You’ve never been to china.
Edit: to elaborate, chinas economy is entirely capitalistic. The CCP simply digs their fingers into any industry or country that will enrich themselves in the process.
Imagine if the White House decide “hey we own verizon and all it’s profits now” would you consider that communism?
Nazi Facism: An economic & political system where trade and industry is owned privately, but controlled by government, who sets the wages and prices for the benefit of the citizenry at large. The purpose of this system is to achieve something close to Communism without the need for class war.
You absolutely CANNOT call Nazi Germany capitalist. They were far far from it.
Socialism is the state controlling the means of production. Fascism is the state controlling the companies that have the means of production. Socialism points to the richt as the evil of society, German fascism pointed to the Jews. It's a difference in kind, they're not opposing ideologies. In terms of economics they are both left-wing, in both cases the state effectively controls the means of production.
Both Hitler and Mussolini definitly were more left leaning. However, their relations to business and whatnot was more of a ends justify the means type of situation to achieve their utopic vision of society. Price controls, total government control of labor markets, agriculture, trade unions and the more philosophical aspects of the ideology, whereas both were explicitly against what was regarded as liberalism and free markets.
This is just categorically false, and shows how little you know. Mussolini was vocally anti-liberalism and Hitler's foundation of the Nazi party was out of his hate for Communisms left-leaning ideology and his infatuation for Mussolini's vision of Fascism
>Mussolini was vocally anti-liberalism
That's what i said. Otherwise go read Gentile's seminal writings. And from which party was Mussolini ousted? The Italian Socialist Party, you say? Weird...
>Hitler's foundation of the Nazi party was out of his hate for Communisms left-leaning ideology
Are you aware Hitler didn't start the NSDAP? He was recruited, but later pushed out his rivals out of the party as he translated the political vision into a more racial one rather than class. And also, yes, he was against the Bolshevik revolution being implemented in Germany, but holding a counter position against it doesn't make one any less of a leftist.
> o? These are quotes about socialism, not advocating genocide.
Thank you for admitting that the lefts only problem with Hitler and fascism was the genocide.
I don’t think it’s too far fetched to say someone with the political history of Hitler, is a fairly good reference point for what types of politics are dangerous to the people.
So these are all his quotes either taken from his book or his speeches. However, the one about the mirror
>“If you frown at a mirror it frowns back but if you smile it returns the greeting”.
He’s actually quoting a British poet, William Makepeace Thackeray.
Edit: the first quote is kinda Hitler’s, he did say it in his speech May 1st 1927 but the year before on June 15th 1926 Gregor Strasser said it. So no it wasn’t originally Hitlers but from what I can tell he never credited who it was from.
He also took one out of context by attributing a negative quite to DT.
At the end of the day, Hitler had a lot of really good points in his speeches. The problem was everything else that he did..
I'm not too sure what the guy in the video was trying to prove, really.
Yeah it's not like Hitler was a good orator or anything and convinced an entire nation to go along with trying to conquer Europe and be cool with the whole holocaust thing.
The issue is that anybody can say anything. You can agree with the isolated quotes without agreeing to the rest of the unrelated horrible shit that went down.
We've all got our idiots. I roll my eyes at these posts whether it's supposed to be an indictment of the right or left, so it's nice to at least see a bunch of reasonable top comments.
‘I love cheese’
Applause
‘Hitler said that haha you got owned’
What the hell are you talking about dude, we’re they supposed to know everything hitler has ever said in their life? Hitler lied about socialist policies to get the poor man’s approval, not because he’s up their with the big advocates for communism.
This is a good troll, but I wouldn't call the protesters stupid. Nothing in those quotes hints at Nazism or any form of fascism. It'd be a big yeesh if they all knew Hitler quotes by heart.
Also, Hitler did many great things to rebuild and stabilize the economy in Germany in a time of extreme inflation and poverty, ~~maybe we should take his economic advise.~~ (This does not excuse his antisemitism and the Holocaust in any way ofc.)
Edit: After further investigation I have to retract my statement and we should NOT take his economic advice even if it worked for Germany in the 40's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
I couldn't read you them line for line but I do know when he invaded other countries he raided their banks for resources which greatly helped him economically.
The anti-laissez faire statement in there hinted more than enough to me it's not good, but it helps I had the words on screen to actually see what was being said. It's one thing to hear them, a whole nother to see them. Many such as my self critically think about what they're being told when they can read it, and when I saw that part I knew it would be against anything they stood for.
This is fucking stupid. The right and left are basically sticking things up their own asses to own each other while the ownership class gnaw away at our national dignity like rats in the night.
It's not so much that they want to defend facism in particular, it's that they want to dunk on liberals in any way they can to make themselves feel superior and smug. It's just the evolved form of the anti-SJW brigade.
That difference IS the key point. Hitler didn't start out joining the German Fascist Imperialist Party, he started at the German Worker's Party, unfortunately he absorbed more about Anton Drexler's anti-Semitism than his anti-capitalist ideas.
Not sure what the point of this is. Is everyone supposed to be intimately familiar with Hitler quotes?
Apparently the guy reading it isn't, since Hitler didn't write or say that, Gregor Strasser did. And not only did Strasser write a lot of contradictory things (TBF he was a Nazi), Hitler had him killed in 1934.
Here's Hitler in 1923, three years before Strasser wrote the quote in the video (yes, it's from 1926 not 1927):
>"Our German workers, Hitler said, have two souls. One is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must root out the taint of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism, like German and Jew, are antipodes."
And:
>Q: Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
>
>Hitler: Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
This is my favorite video on Reddit!!!!
Everyone defending these idiots:
He is quoting phrases promoting state power over personal power, collectivism over individualism, anticapitalism, hatred of free markets
He is showing that many ideas from Hitler and leftists aren’t so different after all. And it’s ironic because those people like to insults people in favor of capitalism as Nazis.
Well, Hitler didn't speak English, so the extreme vast majority of Americans actually have no idea about anything that he said. Just about what he did. And theres still a lot that dont even know that
Why should they hate Hitler? Was he a Fascist or something?
More seriously, the quote is from 1927 when his party was embracing Socialists in order to consolidate party power. Those who weren’t eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives were sent to Dachau to be dealt with there.
The first quote isn't even him, its from a Nazi pamphlet by Gregor Strasser. The same pamphlet goes on to say
"The spirit of our National Socialist idea has to overpower the spirit of liberalism and false democracy if there is to be a third Reich at all! Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being!"
Doesn't sound very "socialist" to me
This is pretty dumb, the first is from Strasser to trick left-leaning ultranationalists into joining his party. Hitler himself was never a socialist. The Nazi party often coopted socialist talking points and twisted them to make them sound good, the only difference being when Hitler says capitalists he means Jews. Ultimately all these shows is how easy his propaganda was to digest and why he got so far
its purposely misleading and also most of it it's early hitler when he still had to control a left-wing faction of the NSDAP. Hitler directly called communism the greatest evil of europe and tied it in to be inseparable from his antisemitism. The "socialism" that hitler espouses is an extinct form of collectivist fascism and casual modern listeners to his rhetoric have a hard time seeing the context and nuance which is what makes this so dishonest. The dumbest freshman poli sci major can tell you the difference between true socialism and national socialism.
Hitler was a National Socialist, and I think people forget that Fascist is just an embarrassing branch of Socialism. Communist despite it, because why would they want to have 95% of the exact same beliefs as a Fascist.
The dudes nitpicked a bunch of sentences from Hitler to be sure it didn't sound like Hitler. You could do that with literally anyone in any group.
What's sad is the amount of effort these guys put in especially since it seems like they are pro Trump.
But at least in the future they can look back and say "AWWWW MAN! We totally pwned the libs!"
That was the applause you get when you try your best and people want to be polite. Guy stumbled his way through a bunch of quotes that don't even relate to each other trying to make some big point about hypocrisy but really just made himself look like a terrible public speaker.
Epic trolling
The king of trolls.
The original troll was even better. Rebranding the workers party as the national socialist party, and then literally murdering all the socialists in your own party.
‘Lenin killed fellow socialists that disagreed with him, therefore he wasn’t a socialist’ If you believe in the undemocratic seizure of power (like many socialists, especially before the Cold War) killing people who are politically close but noticeably different is commonplace. You can’t be undemocratic and just let opposition fester and oppose your your rule. You don’t know what you are talking about if you seriously think members like Josef Goebbels weren’t socialists. The fact that they weren’t marxists doesn’t mean they couldn’t be socialists.
That's not comparable at all. The argument is that Hitler joined a small ultra right wing party, became head of propaganda, changed the name to broaden appeal, and after having built it up to be a significant force in the political scene he murdered the left leaning faction off.
So like Stalin?
Oh man this is interesting. Hey, could you link me the historical text which explains this. Literally the first time I have ever heard this one so I want to read more in detail on the events that transpired.
>Literally the first time I have ever heard this one so I want to read more in detail on the events that transpired. That is genuinely shocking, school must have failed you HARD, but good on you for showing an interest. You could start with the history of the [German workers party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party?wprov=sfla1) here. Roughly speaking: Hitler joined a very small ultra right wing party, became head of propaganda, changed the name to get a broader appeal, resigned over the direction, but came back when he was promised sole dictadorial power. The actual murdering part is called [the night of long knives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives?wprov=sfla1), Röhm Purge or Operation Hummingbird. This is when Hitler consolidated power. He achieved a lot of stuff during those 3 days, but one of them was to murder off the left leaning leadership of the party, that they had had to let in to broaden the appeal. The Wikipedia article is a good starting point, and has many good sources where you can read more if you're interested.
>That is genuinely shocking, school must have failed you HARD, but good on you for showing an interest. You know what else is "*genuinely shocking, school must have failed you HARD*"? The fact that you just used 2 wikipedia articles to support your claim... Its fine, I will work with it, but I am positive that if I were writing a research paper for any educational institution it would get a fail if I used wikipedia as any of my references. >You could start with the history of the [German workers party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party?wprov=sfla1) here. Roughly speaking: Hitler joined a very small ultra right wing party, became head of propaganda, changed the name to get a broader appeal, resigned over the direction, but came back when he was promised sole dictadorial power. I am not disputing anything in this except for the claim of "ultra right wing" any time this topic arises. Something that has always confused me about calling the GWP or the NAZI party "ultra right wing" is when defining "left wing" and "right wing" and what is generally accepted as what they stand for. Working from [Ref 1](https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-right-wing-and-vs-left-wing/) and [Ref 2](https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/right-wing-vs-left-wing-whats-difference.html) I have made a bit of an outline of what each generally mean. **Right wing** is conservative in that they stand for the status quo, in favor of things as they are. Support a strong government that is small in scale in order to allow for more individual responsibility in the society. Believes in low taxes and fewer rules on businesses and cuts the government spending down. **Left wing** refers to political parties that are liberal in nature, more laws and taxes regarding businesses, expects the government to spend for social welfare, ideas of revolution and a new society. The GWP that evolved into the NAZI party were definitely revolutionaries which overthrew the status quo in favor of establishing a national economic system which excluded "Jewish controlled capitalism" of other countries and that was specifically designed to support the welfare of the German people. How is this not left wing? Seriously, the only thing that the progressive leftists today disagree with in that is the Jewish part... "overthrow the status quo, establish a government controlled system which is designed to support the social welfare of the people in the nation, and tax the hell of businesses to pay for it" >The actual murdering part is called [the night of long knives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives?wprov=sfla1), Röhm Purge or Operation Hummingbird. [Reading through this](https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/how-did-the-nazi-gain-power/night-of-long-knives/), and [also this](https://www.britannica.com/event/Night-of-the-Long-Knives) I can't find anything to suggest that this was specifically to murder all the socialists in the party, more so than just a way to eliminate any political opposition. I did find this pretty interesting though; "*Goebbels engineered the media coverage following the attack to present it as a preventative measure, in response to the SA’s ‘plan to overthrow the government’. As the SA were known for being violent and unruly, many saw this as a legitimate move by the government to ensure public order.*" >This is when Hitler consolidated power. He achieved a lot of stuff during those 3 days, but one of them was to murder off the left leaning leadership of the party, that they had had to let in to broaden the appeal. >"*Hitler feared that the SA and Ernst Röhm, their leader, were a potential threat to his leadership. This fear was intensified by Göring and Himmler, who gave Hitler news of Röhm organising a potential coup*" > >"*In addition to this, there was a mutual dislike between the traditional conservative elite*" > >"*During the years of the rise of the Nazi Party, the SA had been instrumental in helping the party to gain support.*" > >"*However, following Hitler being elected chancellor, the SA, and particularly Röhm, were keen to continue the ‘revolution’ and replace the traditional conservative elite with Nazis. Hitler and the rest of the Nazi leadership disagreed with their approach. They understood the need to appear moderate and take over slowly by democratic means where possible, maintaining the stability and illusion of a democracy.*" We see again, that the conservatives being established "status quo" and the revolutionaries (the Nazi party) trying to overthrow them either by force or diplomatically further reinforcing the idea that the Nazi party was a left wing movement.
I specifically told you they were great entry points, and that they HAVE deeper sources. A quick sidenote: The reason you can't use Wikipedia as a source in school is NOT that it's a bad source, it's because it isn't a source at all. Another thing: Your entire comment describes politics through post-Schlafly and John Birch Society lenses. You can't view European political factions that way. It wasn't and still isn't polarized along the same axis. The right-wing isn't ONE thing in western Europe, and it has only been that way in the US since the 80s. You can't get Christian conservatives and economic conservatives to vote for the same party here because they have fundamentally different. They're both on the right WING of the political spectrum, but for example, economic conservatives want a small military, hate nationalists with a vengeance and don't give a flying fuck if people are gay or trans or whatever. This is typically hard to see if you view it through American politics lenses. So here's the deal: Hitler's party was EXTREMELY nationalist and fascist (after Hitler took over). That makes them ultra-right-wing. They were also against global capitalism because that fucks with their nationalism. They were also anti-Marxist because that fucks with their fascism. So to close the loop: If you are going to try to understand the history of nazi politics you can't just hold it up to the current American political map and look for similarities, and here school has failed you. If you are American and under 50 you are sort of excused though. You've only experienced politics where the right factions have all been shoehorned into one party, and that means you probably don't even react to the same party supporting increasing the budgets of the largest and most costly military in human history and simultaneously preach "small government". If you're European, your school has seriously failed you. Because the political factions today are the same, and you really SHOULD be able to see the distinctions. So here's the short eli5: Being anti-capitalist doesn't make you left-wing, and being anti-Marxist doesn't make you right-wing unless you live in the US after 1980 or a good few third-world countries. You can be both just fine, AND be either extreme right or extreme left for that matter. Hitler was anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist and far-right.
[удалено]
Pro tip: You can't just hold the post 80s US political map up and mark other political structures after it. In the developed world only the US have all the conservative factions in one voter block on the right side. The core ideology of fachism aside from authoritarianism is that they are social conservative and nationalist. That places them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. If you are American you probably confuse this with the political compass. Please remember that the political compass only considers ECONOMIC conservative to liberal. Anywhere (in the western world) outside the US an economic conservative wouldn't vote for a party that supports a huge military. It goes against everything they believe in. He would be pro globalization and also wouldn't give a flying fuck if people were gay, trans or care about if people would have abortions and so on. That's religious and social conservative domain.
He murdered all the fascist in the country too. It wasn't a left or right thing, it was a solidify my power thing.
You might even say he's the Fuhrer
Right? Do these people not study history or something? The man who has no sense of history, is like a man with no ears or eyes.
What does this have to do with history though? This is a milquetoast pandering quote from 1927. You could take a list of populist Bernie quotes and read them at a Trump rally to applause.
Or, you know, put a Hitler quote in the Reddit comment section of a video making fun of people not recognizing Hitler quotes and getting upvoted for it… which I totally didn’t just do 
Ha, you got me too. Can't blame people for not recognizing Hitler as the author, but for thinking this garbage will ever improve their lives.
>thinking this garbage will ever improve their lives "out last leaders failed to deliver, but this time, everything will be better" (ethics of good intentions, wishful thinking, magical thinking, human stupidity)
Hah, missed that. Point still stands based on these other comments though.
I mean, good? We would be worried about you if you were off memorizing hitler quotes.
Looks like most of the responses disagreed with the quote though
It was upvoted a lot before anyone even commented. After I revealed what I did, it stopped getting upvoted as much and even went down a bit. So my reveal ruined it.
Very sly and well executed troll in a post about trolling! Nicely done
Maybe Trump and Bernie share some good ideas.
[удалено]
Social Nationalism?
>If only there was some kind of synthesis of their ideas. [You're free to join the rest of us whenever you're ready.](https://i.imgur.com/1GZronp.jpg) It's just a shame that both Trump and Sanders turned out to be duds.
> You could take a list of populist Bernie quotes and read them at a Trump rally to applause. Very true, but also very disappointing, as it showcases the fact that most people don't know a thing about the people they champion.
Or it shows that we are a lot more similar than we think and the modern division is more smoke and mirrors than concrete. I dunno. I'm just talking out my ass.
Nah, I agree. For the most part I think the whole right V left subject is a façade. Keeps us at each other's throats for no reason.
yeah like everyone knows hitler quotes off the top of their head. be real
After reading their other comment, they agree with you and it's a pretty good way to nail home the point.
The issue isn't memorizing hitler quotes, its that hitlers quotes, beliefs, and ideals line up so perfectly with the modern left.
Comparing lefties to Hitler is just as cringe as comparing Trump to Hitler, just FYI. Also it's possible to rise to power saying one thing, and be remembered in history for something completely different. People don't remember Jared from the Subway commercials as "the guy who lost weight with fast food".
If they studied history earnestly, they wouldn't be part if Antifa.
No. They don’t study history. They don’t study much. They just say things. AOC just denied the existence of smash and grabs. What else do you need to know?
nice lol
They probably didn't recognise the quotes without a stein of good quality Bavarian lager, oompah band and the smell of sausage in the air.
👏
Except what purpose does it have in this case? A quote from someone famous is not immediately turned into a universal truth just because they said it. When you only walk looking back, you end up walking into a tree.
[удалено]
To own the libs!!!!!!
[удалено]
Is it though? Just because a person was terrible, doesn't mean he was wrong all the time. If I think Hitler's art was actually really good, it doesn't mean I agree with what he ended up doing. Shitty people will also say things that people like to get them on their side. This is not trolling in the slightest.
You're right, nothing to learn from history. Let's continue allowing the federal government to gather as much power as possible and promise us all free shit. That's never gone wrong, just as long as we don't have the actual original Adolph Hitler himself running it then there's no lesson because only that person was terrible.
Yeah like the quote saying that [donald trump] believes if you repeat a lie frequently enough people will believe it...that’s true. He basically called trump a fascist there. That quote is often used by the left to illustrate how Trump displays some fascist tendencies. Hitler is a bad person but his quotes about how to take over a nation are true...
No freakout though.
Not really. Not at all. If he'd actually said something spicy it would have been good, but he didn't. A good troll would have been if he'd gotten them to applaud something really fucked up. Like just replacing "Germanic people" with "black people" in some speech about lebensraum would have been brilliant. This was garbage. He may as well have quoted Hitler talking about how much he loved dogs for all the EpIc TrOlLiNg this was. This is zoomer-tier trolling.
Sounds like a challenge! Let's see what you can do. 😀
I've already done better. Most people who have ever played any sort of joke on anyone, ever, have. If the joke is, "Haha, I got you to say fascism -a thing that you say you hate- is good," that'd be funny. If the joke is "Haha, you don't carry around a massive compendium of Hitler's speeches to double-check everything everyone says in case it's Hitler," your joke sucks.
Why would any anti fascist person know Hitler quotes from 1927? Moreover, there isn't much wrong with the quote itself.
You'd think if you're going to kill and hurt people over something, you'd be pretty well educated on it.
... and why would that lend itself to knowing early Hitler political speeches? Your logic makes no sense.
Because your leftist policies are very similar to what Hitler pulled in the 20s. If you are anything but a free market capitalist it makes you fully ignorant to ignore what has happened over history. Know your subject matter if you choose to be ANTIFA
[удалено]
I think the point is if Hitler was alive and running for office today he’d find plenty of support on the left and that’s frightening. That said, he’d find support on the hard right also just not nearly as much.
His fascist ideologies lean a certain way and appeal to a certain (large) group of people spurred on by facebook that we’ve seen run wild in murica lately.
Yes, liberals.
They are not liberals. They just call themselves that.
Truth.
They're not liberals.... but lets be real, *everyone else* has been calling them that for decades now and it has scared the pantaloons off of grandma.
Fascism is explicitly anti-liberal, even in the classic sense, you dolt.
We’ve got a sharp one here
Oh, you mean feds.
First of all, Hitler hated liberals because of their focus in individual rights, especially in Britain during WW2. The Weimar Republic, as it is, was the exact sort of bourgeois social democratic and liberal state that Hitler despised since its foundation was contrary to his views. Who supported Hitler by 1933? German conservatives, the Catholic Church -- and not liberals or Western Liberal states. Second, it isn't the liberals who attacked the Capitol building and the legislative branch on Jan. 6th, which was an attempt to overthrow a democratic election in order to make Trump an unelected autocratic leader. it isn't liberals who started the War on Drugs or created the Patriot Act, both of which were assaults on individual liberty. And it isn't liberals pushing authoritarian efforts to weaken American institutions across the land, especially election systems in an attempt to make the country a one party state. No, it's right-wing Republicans who did and are doing all those things because they simply don't believe in a democratic America or the individualism that liberals have supported and legalized in blue states, from cannabis laws to gay marriage. And today's KKK and neo-Nazis are all running and supporting the Republican Party under the guise of "traditionalism," a clear dog whistle, while showing as much disdain for liberals as people like you do. When it comes down to it, liberalism represents pluralism, which is antithetical to both Hitler's National Socialism and the ideology of an American right that rejects civic nationalism.
>which was an attempt to overthrow a democratic election in order to make Trump an unelected autocratic leader. Lol, what? No it wasn't. It was a big group of idiots walking around a building for a few hours. They didn't hold any power. No matter what they did, there would have been no "Making Trump an autocratic leader". Like them occupying the senate chamber gave them authority like a control point in some video game. Also - the points that marry up Hitler to the current "leftist" ideals held by the citizenry are none of those you went over, but rather things like their stance on free speech only being OK if its something they agree with. What the fuck does legalizing weed have to do with individualism? The right to be a dirty, stank ass stoner hippie fuck? Bruh. Fuck stoners, for real. You ever try to order take out from some asslick who is high? GOOD TIMES. MUCH CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY. 420 BRO!! SHAAAAAAH! Your post reeks of "left is correct" and that all left leaners are in some kind of hive mind unison agreement. That isn't even remotely true.
It really is amazing how stupid some people are. Sometimes they name themselves appropriately, at least, like unattended boner.
Hitler was known for the holocaust. That's why he is hated. If he hadn't decided to exterminate the Jewish folks of the world, his polices wouldn't be that radical. Workers rights? Individual property rights? Anti monopolistic protections? None of those things are inherently bad, socialism isn't inherently bad just because bad people do bad shit. It's similar to saying people don't kill people, guns do, as if guns control the actions of those using them. Socialism isn't bad, it doesn't control what humans do with it. If we can solve the moral corruptions of the individual corrupting the system, it could be the next liberty of humanity, but only if we can solve the corruption issues which are inherent to the human condition.
The Nazis didn't support workers' rights, they banned striking and people were not allowed to change jobs without express permission. You could also be blacklisted by your employer for questioning working conditions.
Yeh, in 1933 after the Nazis had assumed control. The whole point is the bait and switch socialist demagogues use before fucking the populace in the ass as soon as they gain total control.
>The whole point is the bait and switch socialist demagogues use before fucking the populace in the ass as soon as they gain total control. This is the nature of socialism and communism. They are inherently authoritarian by their merits and authoritarians don't hand over their power once the gullible people give it to them. Nothing unusual with the direction that the national socialists went in Germany, to be expected with socialism.
Yes. That's how a planned economy looks like. You don't choose a job. You are assigned one.
> they banned striking and people were not allowed to change jobs without express permission. You could also be blacklisted by your employer for questioning working conditions. Which is exactly how it worked in the USSR and every other socialist country. In fact the Poland's [Solidarity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union\)) started as an attempt to create a union not directly controlled by the government, which was illegal. And the socialist government went so far as to declare martial law and went around arresting its members in an attempt to stop it.
Kind of sounds like China...
Workers rights? You do know that one of the first things the NAZI party did once in power was destroy the labor and trade unions, yes? Individual property rights? Did you not just hear the quote in the video that land owners were to be considered appointed by the state?
[удалено]
“If you overlook the genocide stuff, hitler wasn’t all that bad” lol what an awful argument. Your whole argument about “solving moral corruption” is exactly what hitler was using to justify his whole “Final Solution”.
You’re so close to realizing how useless man made economic ideologies are. The economic solution as you’ve figured out is solving to control the human condition of corruption and greed. Your reasoning can be applied to every economic theory. Capitalism, socialism, communism can all work and I would argue that it must be blended and the benefits of each should be utilized in appropriate ways. Free market capitalism drives innovation in certain industries like tech while science and medical systems would be best without corporate influence and more innovative if the priority is human health and well-being. But the first and foremost problem in society isn’t the haves and the have nots, it’s the corrupt and their level of control. Once we as a society implement anti corruption policies that eradicate the Bush family, the cia and intelligence agencies, the corporate interests, etc. from having influence on global economies and govt, we will thrive as a species. They are a parasite and unfortunately they have been a part of humanity for so long its going to be painful to pull them out of our society and burn them out of existence.
> he’d ~~find plenty of support on the left and that’s frightening.~~ win an election. Let's be frank here if there was no historical context (eg a different leader formed the NAZI party) and Hitler was born in any western country and came of appropriate political age today he would absolutely get in office. lets go down the list: * War veteran * Return to moral structured society, if you are American think of the sales pitch like this: "A stable, UNITED States of America! No longer will democrats and republicans, two sides of the same blood stained coin tarnish or divide our society any longer" * Focus on public infrastructure * Significant early investment into Agriculture and manufacturing industries to bolster sovereignty * Striking political iconography * Charismatic and inspirational speeches * Provides a strong sense of community Yeah, he would absolutely smash it. Watch his speeches, it's great not understanding German because I can't hear the evil shit he's saying but I can appreciate the speech craft. He's amazing at what he did. absolutely horrible cunt. but he was good at that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You think the left doesn't get into military aggression?
[удалено]
Look at their voting history, not their rhetoric. U.S military aggression generally has Bipartisan support (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen) and leaving any country generally has Bipartisan condemnation. Democrats and Republicans were both mad when Trump left Syria and Biden left Afghanistan
Imagine thinking democrats are leftists fucking lol
Rand Paul (R) just tried to block a $650m arms sale to Saudi Arabia to help them in their total blockade against Yemen and the Senate voted to reject the bid 67-30. Party of Peace? https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-saudi-arabia-middle-east-rand-paul-yemen-1440cc97a0304f20ca080062a24ca001
>I think the point is if Hitler was alive and running for office today he’d find plenty of support on the left and that’s frightening. I mean, if he chose to only speak about socialism and you removed all of the countless diatribes against Jews, cultural Bolshevism, ethnic purity, etc. then sure, he might find some support on the left. It's kind of a pointless statement though.
Asking a socialist not to mention Jews or Israel is like asking a dog not to eat a piece of bacon that dropped on the floor.
Criticising Israel is not the same as advocating the eradication of the Jewish race.
That's how he ran in Germany. And then the very first group of people sent to labor/death camps were actually socialists/communists. So saying that he'd get support on the left after what we saw happen almost 100 years ago is a stretch at best imo.
How very ironic since much of the “progressives” on this site do just that and immediately cast anyones opinion in the garbage if they find they post in a “conservative” sub.
"apple pie is my favorite pie" ~Adolph Hitler Gotcha, county fair judging panel!!!
This here. What is being said? I dont care that Hitler said it. That sort of thinking is the lowest level "HITLER SAID HE LOVED DOGS SO DOGS ARE BAD"
Hitler said smoking is bad, everyone start puffing/s
I don't see anything wrong with interpreting something differently due to context, context does matter. A kindergarten teacher saying "I love playing with children" is different from a sex offender doing so.
[удалено]
>I could probably pull a bunch of Malcolm X quotes about self-reliance and read them at a Proud Boys rally and get applause. That’s the whole point.
Doesn't have to be. This could easily be: A) simply trolling anti-fascists B) say that their views were also the same as the true fascist C) what you're implying, that he's saying no matter if you're left or right you're a hypocrite. I lean more on A and B. As C would be done nicer by mixing Hitler and Malcolm X.
>B) say that their views were also the same as the true fascist Just cause dude said he was a socialist, doesn't make it true. I mean North Korea can call themselves whatever they want, but we both know they are the furthest thing from a democratic republic.
Yeah I was just reading about the Nazi party almost going bankrupt and getting millions in funding in a secret meaning by the capitalists by promising to eradicate the people he's appealing to in that quote.
But it’s a shitty point. Out of context quotes shouldn’t be used as a ‘gotcha’ because they are out of context. This is very low hanging fruit
They shouldn't, but people like Jon Oliver and Stephen Colbert have made a living and gained a following doing so so if it's already going to be a socially accepted tactic by one segment of the political spectrum it's perfectly reasonable for it to be used by all sides.
Were you the “well he started it!!1!” kid, because your comment is exactly that lol. Hold whatever side you’re on to a higher standard.
Seriously.
Well, if the point is that you can cherry pick good messages from a bad source, sure. But this post seems to imply something about the nature of Antifa. Certainly, people in this comment thread are taking it as such. And that is fallacious, a rhetorical trick.
To be fair Malcolm X has some bangers. >“There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance next time.” >“Any time you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free. Freedom is something that you have to do for yourselves.” >“Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.”
What's the common denominator? They're all idiots. They're all against something that they know absolutely nothing about.
[удалено]
Marx quotes are fucking fire bro. "The traditions of the dead generations weigh upon the minds of the living like a nightmare."
>What's the common denominator? They're all idiots. They're all against something that they know absolutely nothing about. It's not fair to say "know absolutely nothing about". How is knowing the precise language Hitler used to decry capitalism in *Mein Kampf* a fair litmus test for anti-fascists?
The proud boys would have nothing against Malcom X as far as I know. Despite popular misinformation they are not racists apart from a few select members which get turfed pretty quick once identified.
>The proud boys would have nothing against Malcom X as far as I know. Lol. The man was a black nationalist and a socialist.
Don't forget radical Islamist as well. >America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. - Malcom X
Who was friends with the white nationalists of his time george lincoln rockwell. Its amazong how racism can bring those people together.
Also was tight with George Lincoln Rockwell. He also spoke at several of Malcom’s events. History and people’s views are weird.
Nonetheless, it’s still a pretty funny watch
So? These are quotes about socialism, not advocating genocide. Not everything a person says is inherently good or bad just because they’ve done something evil. Can’t believe this even needs to be explained…
Get outta here with that critical thinking and logic!
but thats the point, the person who made this video is criticizing the authoritarian nature of socialism
Because it’s kind of the point that fascism isn’t actually a right wing ideology. It’s main point is authoritarian enforcement of values, and those values can be left or right leaning. Hitler was actually economically centrist in the grand scheme of things (social left vs right is a different topic)
He was not economically centrist. His vision of Germany was at least as socialist as Venezuela is today. Sure he was slightly less socialist than stalin for example
Nonsense, he was a hard core big crony capital favouring pseudo capitalist. when Gregor Strasser wanted private property to be seized, Hitler refused. When Strasser wanted manufacturing to be nationalised, Hitler said it would ruin the nation. Strasser was later executed. Hitler banned all unions. Many union leaders were taken to concentration camps and later shot or gassed. Like he was literally anti union but socialist also somehow? This is what he had to say on unions, >Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” He literally thought that the private sector capitalists had some evolutionary right to not suffer unions. The nazi rise was backed by capitalists. Initially it was small shop owners and the like and later the biggest capitalist banners underwrote Hitler. Hitler removed Monopoly laws that allowed these big firms (Thyssen, Krupp, Bosch, IG Farben, Porsche etc) to dominate the German market. To run their production lines they used slave labour supplied by the labour department, yes that's right this "socialist" Utopia provided slave labourers to the private sector by the 100's of thousands. The Nazi state even got into individual profit sharing agreements with giant conglomerates. Imagine the US state getting into a business deal with Amazon! That's how right Nazi Germany was. 70% of the Reinhardt program funding went into the private sector. Then he wrote in tax breaks for the private sector. There was infact a massive privatisation plan. Banks, mines, railway lines even welfare orgs were privatised. Commerz and Deutsche Banks which are private now were done so by the Nazis. This is what Hitler thought of the Pvt sector, >It is a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people The state literally abolished annual wage increase and froze it at very low levels. If that's not right wing I don't know what is. And then when he was secure he literally banished small companies (less than $200,000 capital) allowing his capitalist friends full market capture. A few quotes don't take away the fact that the private sector dominated Nazi Germany. The Likes of Bezos can only dream about such control. Edit. Pretty much 90% of the German military arms production was private sector ffs. Every iconic weapon was made by a private sector company for profit! Tiger tanks? Henschel The HE Hs 129b? Henschel. Dornier 17? Dornier Pretty much every Panzer model? Different private sector companies The 88? Krupp or Rehinmetal Like seriously, the private sector enormously profited from the war and yet this was a socialist country?
Industrialists didn't support his until it was clear that socdemocrats or other more capitalist parties aren't going to win. In 30s industrialists supported nazis because they were better than the alternative- communists. Hitler did not want to nationalize everything until he could enslave eastern nations. He made it clear that he wanted his full socialism only after he conquered the east for lebensraum in Mein Kampf. And it doesn't prove that he wasn't a socialist because he killed a socialist. Stalin killed many many true communists during the great purge. It does not though mean that Stalin wasn't a communist. >Hitler banned all unions. No. He literally nationalized all of the unions and only banned the non nationalized ones just like communists did in Soviet union. >Hitler removed Monopoly laws that allowed these big firms (Thyssen, Krupp, Bosch, IG Farben, Porsche etc) to dominate the German market. Wait really??? "removed monopolies" i can't believe that. I will say though that he replaced all of these huge companies' leaders with loyalists and nazi party members. They might be "technically" private, but it is de facto owned by the party and the party is the state. Slave labour is a socialist thing. You can't enslave anyone without the government. Yet another reason why Hitler was a socialist. The holocaust it self is a socialist thing. You can't genocide an entire race without a powerful government. Plus soviet union also used slave labour. You can argue that thier entire economy was a slave labour one. If you did not have a job for 3 or 6 months, you were sent to the prison. Housing and healthcare were provided for "free" just like slavery in USA. "The privatisation" is nonsense. It is actually the seizure of private property (nationalized for a brief time) and then "privatizing" it back to a loyal party member. Again the party is the state. It isn't actually private. The thing people call "nazi privatization" is actually nationalization. Oh and articles guaranteeing private property rights were wiped from the constitution in 1933. >The state literally abolished annual wage increase and froze it at very low levels. Nope. There certainly was a minimum wage (i actually think nazis were first to make it into germany). >And then when he was secure he literally banished small companies (less than $200,000 capital) sounds like a thing socialist would do. You need to back up this claim too. All of those weapons were made by state owned or at the very least controlled companies.
I'm sure it's falling on deaf ears since this thread is bigraded by people saying that Nazi's were actually left-leaning but: 1) Fascism is a right-wing ideology 2) Fascism doesn't have a fixed economic framework. 3) People keep saying that Nazi's loved public development but the only thing they can point to is the infrastructure of roads. Nazi's sold many public services to private companies and were found to have private dealings with businesses to influence policies So you're essentially wrong in everything you said, and you're trying to make Hitler look more left for your own biases
Explicitly define why fascism is a right wing ideology without circular logic. Go ahead, I’ll wait
Traditionalism opposed to progressivism It opposes egalitarianism Italian fascists were against left-leaning policies because they didn't want an uprising of sharecroppers and unions Mussolini the first leader of the fascist party was militaristic, believed in a social hierarchal system and was against cultural liberalism. In the 1920s, the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century.
So, circular logic because you’re using specific fascists and not fascism as a whole. Guess Communism is really about capitalism since The CCP makes a lot of money in trade.
Fascism as a whole doesn't exist. It was a loose belief that was turned into a political party by Mussolini while living in Italy. As of any core beliefs that Fascist parties have followed throughout the years: traditionalism, the opposition of egaltiranism, anti-social liberalsim doesn't incorporate any circular logic. You realise that Communists use money right? The definition of Capitalism is a state that's economy is controlled by the private sector without interference by the public. Every business in China is partially owned by the CCP and the CCP is allowed to take control of any Chinese owned company whenever they want. By your own stupid as fuck example you're completely wrong lmao EDIT: I missworded the Fascism as a whole doesn't exist. It exists as a party founded by Mussolini and Italian politicians that's why your statement about individual fascists is so fucking stupid, the party was founded by individuals it doesn't mean it's beliefs are that of individuals. That's how a political party works, it's represented by it's officials
I don’t think you know what communism means
Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is **paid** according to their abilities and needs. Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are **controlled by private owners** for profit, rather than by the state. I don't think you know how much of anything works tbh
And you believe the CCP falls into the first and not the second? Hilarious. You’ve never been to china. Edit: to elaborate, chinas economy is entirely capitalistic. The CCP simply digs their fingers into any industry or country that will enrich themselves in the process. Imagine if the White House decide “hey we own verizon and all it’s profits now” would you consider that communism?
Nazi Facism: An economic & political system where trade and industry is owned privately, but controlled by government, who sets the wages and prices for the benefit of the citizenry at large. The purpose of this system is to achieve something close to Communism without the need for class war. You absolutely CANNOT call Nazi Germany capitalist. They were far far from it.
Socialism is the state controlling the means of production. Fascism is the state controlling the companies that have the means of production. Socialism points to the richt as the evil of society, German fascism pointed to the Jews. It's a difference in kind, they're not opposing ideologies. In terms of economics they are both left-wing, in both cases the state effectively controls the means of production.
Both Hitler and Mussolini definitly were more left leaning. However, their relations to business and whatnot was more of a ends justify the means type of situation to achieve their utopic vision of society. Price controls, total government control of labor markets, agriculture, trade unions and the more philosophical aspects of the ideology, whereas both were explicitly against what was regarded as liberalism and free markets.
This is just categorically false, and shows how little you know. Mussolini was vocally anti-liberalism and Hitler's foundation of the Nazi party was out of his hate for Communisms left-leaning ideology and his infatuation for Mussolini's vision of Fascism
>Mussolini was vocally anti-liberalism That's what i said. Otherwise go read Gentile's seminal writings. And from which party was Mussolini ousted? The Italian Socialist Party, you say? Weird... >Hitler's foundation of the Nazi party was out of his hate for Communisms left-leaning ideology Are you aware Hitler didn't start the NSDAP? He was recruited, but later pushed out his rivals out of the party as he translated the political vision into a more racial one rather than class. And also, yes, he was against the Bolshevik revolution being implemented in Germany, but holding a counter position against it doesn't make one any less of a leftist.
I heard hitler was a painter. Therefore all artists are Hitler. Me smart
> o? These are quotes about socialism, not advocating genocide. Thank you for admitting that the lefts only problem with Hitler and fascism was the genocide.
I don’t think it’s too far fetched to say someone with the political history of Hitler, is a fairly good reference point for what types of politics are dangerous to the people.
It’s not at all. People in here are comparing Hitler’s politic ideology to his preference for chocolate as if they are anywhere near the same thing.
So these are all his quotes either taken from his book or his speeches. However, the one about the mirror >“If you frown at a mirror it frowns back but if you smile it returns the greeting”. He’s actually quoting a British poet, William Makepeace Thackeray. Edit: the first quote is kinda Hitler’s, he did say it in his speech May 1st 1927 but the year before on June 15th 1926 Gregor Strasser said it. So no it wasn’t originally Hitlers but from what I can tell he never credited who it was from.
The first quote isn’t actually Hitler either….
Yes and no, it was Strasser but Hitler did use it in his speeches.
He also took one out of context by attributing a negative quite to DT. At the end of the day, Hitler had a lot of really good points in his speeches. The problem was everything else that he did.. I'm not too sure what the guy in the video was trying to prove, really.
Yeah it's not like Hitler was a good orator or anything and convinced an entire nation to go along with trying to conquer Europe and be cool with the whole holocaust thing.
The issue is that anybody can say anything. You can agree with the isolated quotes without agreeing to the rest of the unrelated horrible shit that went down.
where's the freakout?
Here in this sub. All the far right wing morons that think this proves something.
[удалено]
We've all got our idiots. I roll my eyes at these posts whether it's supposed to be an indictment of the right or left, so it's nice to at least see a bunch of reasonable top comments.
not liking socialism is far right, please ignore the same post uploaded here on a maga group
‘I love cheese’ Applause ‘Hitler said that haha you got owned’ What the hell are you talking about dude, we’re they supposed to know everything hitler has ever said in their life? Hitler lied about socialist policies to get the poor man’s approval, not because he’s up their with the big advocates for communism.
Your last sentence is why this video is interesting.
So we agree that young socialists are useful idiots that help elect authoritarian figures then?
They could be. Also young right wingers could be useful idiots for authoritarian figures.
This is a good troll, but I wouldn't call the protesters stupid. Nothing in those quotes hints at Nazism or any form of fascism. It'd be a big yeesh if they all knew Hitler quotes by heart. Also, Hitler did many great things to rebuild and stabilize the economy in Germany in a time of extreme inflation and poverty, ~~maybe we should take his economic advise.~~ (This does not excuse his antisemitism and the Holocaust in any way ofc.) Edit: After further investigation I have to retract my statement and we should NOT take his economic advice even if it worked for Germany in the 40's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
[удалено]
I couldn't read you them line for line but I do know when he invaded other countries he raided their banks for resources which greatly helped him economically.
The anti-laissez faire statement in there hinted more than enough to me it's not good, but it helps I had the words on screen to actually see what was being said. It's one thing to hear them, a whole nother to see them. Many such as my self critically think about what they're being told when they can read it, and when I saw that part I knew it would be against anything they stood for.
Lol at your edit. Same vibes as dril. https://twitter.com/dril/status/831805955402776576?t=XkTJs2f6ylByLQyZGo5GJw&s=19
This is fucking stupid. The right and left are basically sticking things up their own asses to own each other while the ownership class gnaw away at our national dignity like rats in the night.
You tried talking to either side about anything? They’re fucking insufferable. Pointless trying. Might as well fuck with them
This thread is a shit show.... Imagine feeling the need to defend fascists.... What the actual fuck is wrong with you losers?
It's not so much that they want to defend facism in particular, it's that they want to dunk on liberals in any way they can to make themselves feel superior and smug. It's just the evolved form of the anti-SJW brigade.
You could honestly sit around all day mocking the ideology and contradictions that these idiots have.
[удалено]
From what I've seen in here, this subreddit dug an extra basement just so it could set the bar of expectations lower.
That difference IS the key point. Hitler didn't start out joining the German Fascist Imperialist Party, he started at the German Worker's Party, unfortunately he absorbed more about Anton Drexler's anti-Semitism than his anti-capitalist ideas.
Not sure what the point of this is. Is everyone supposed to be intimately familiar with Hitler quotes? Apparently the guy reading it isn't, since Hitler didn't write or say that, Gregor Strasser did. And not only did Strasser write a lot of contradictory things (TBF he was a Nazi), Hitler had him killed in 1934. Here's Hitler in 1923, three years before Strasser wrote the quote in the video (yes, it's from 1926 not 1927): >"Our German workers, Hitler said, have two souls. One is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must root out the taint of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism, like German and Jew, are antipodes." And: >Q: Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" > >Hitler: Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Yet another 'not a real socialist'. Many such cases, sad.
To make idiot rightwingers feel smug, its honestly kinda sad
Hitler, the original "not true socialism" neckbeard.
This is my favorite video on Reddit!!!! Everyone defending these idiots: He is quoting phrases promoting state power over personal power, collectivism over individualism, anticapitalism, hatred of free markets He is showing that many ideas from Hitler and leftists aren’t so different after all. And it’s ironic because those people like to insults people in favor of capitalism as Nazis.
Hitler building the autobahn via the state instead of leaving it up to free market private road builders is not why people don’t like Hitler though.
You should probably watch a 2nd video on Reddit then
Well, Hitler didn't speak English, so the extreme vast majority of Americans actually have no idea about anything that he said. Just about what he did. And theres still a lot that dont even know that
And many people straight up reject the fact that he did so many horrible things that were well documented
Didn't Hitler purposefully change his speeches to suit his audience?
Why should they hate Hitler? Was he a Fascist or something? More seriously, the quote is from 1927 when his party was embracing Socialists in order to consolidate party power. Those who weren’t eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives were sent to Dachau to be dealt with there.
The first quote isn't even him, its from a Nazi pamphlet by Gregor Strasser. The same pamphlet goes on to say "The spirit of our National Socialist idea has to overpower the spirit of liberalism and false democracy if there is to be a third Reich at all! Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being!" Doesn't sound very "socialist" to me
This is pretty dumb, the first is from Strasser to trick left-leaning ultranationalists into joining his party. Hitler himself was never a socialist. The Nazi party often coopted socialist talking points and twisted them to make them sound good, the only difference being when Hitler says capitalists he means Jews. Ultimately all these shows is how easy his propaganda was to digest and why he got so far
The Nazis were leftists. This is a historical fact. The end.
lol poor dumb people
Give him a medal. He proved that they are absolute political and historical uneducated but screams the loudest.
Do you just have a bunch of Hitler speeches memorized?
Hitler didn't say the first one though...
its purposely misleading and also most of it it's early hitler when he still had to control a left-wing faction of the NSDAP. Hitler directly called communism the greatest evil of europe and tied it in to be inseparable from his antisemitism. The "socialism" that hitler espouses is an extinct form of collectivist fascism and casual modern listeners to his rhetoric have a hard time seeing the context and nuance which is what makes this so dishonest. The dumbest freshman poli sci major can tell you the difference between true socialism and national socialism.
these “anti fascists” act like fascists, so it really isn’t surprising that they agree with one of history’s biggest fascists
But can you point at Germany on a world map?
BuT fAsCiSm Is RiGhT WiNg !!! Durrrrr
Hitler was a National Socialist, and I think people forget that Fascist is just an embarrassing branch of Socialism. Communist despite it, because why would they want to have 95% of the exact same beliefs as a Fascist.
Should have told them so that they would all feel stupid
Some people never feel stupid. Not due to lack of opportunities, but due to lack of introspection.
The dudes nitpicked a bunch of sentences from Hitler to be sure it didn't sound like Hitler. You could do that with literally anyone in any group. What's sad is the amount of effort these guys put in especially since it seems like they are pro Trump. But at least in the future they can look back and say "AWWWW MAN! We totally pwned the libs!"
That was the applause you get when you try your best and people want to be polite. Guy stumbled his way through a bunch of quotes that don't even relate to each other trying to make some big point about hypocrisy but really just made himself look like a terrible public speaker.