Sorry Liberals, But The Nazis Were Progressive Leftists

That’s irrelevant whom Hitler hated.

He rose to power on the back of socialism. That is IRREFUTABLE fact.

The question here is which ideology, leftist or right is more probable to devolve into fascism or tyranny and oppression. Thats unequivocally leftist ideology. The system of collectivism breeds that type of regime. Or should I say it’s more susceptible to being manipulated by an evil tyrannical dictator.

For instance. It’s FAR easier for a tyrannical dictator to convince a socialist collective society to give up their guns than it is a rightist individualized society. Because they argue it’s for the good of the collective that we remove those dangers. And those idiot collectivists follow along like pigs to the slaughter because they’ve been brainwashed to believe the collective is more important than the individual. Making it MUCH easier for the tyrannical dictator to subsume control.

 

"Hitler while you folks claim was a rightie… rose to power on the back of the National Socialist Party and the 25 point plan which explicitly advocates for socialist collectivist ideals and resulted in millions murdered."

he support of Anton Drexler, Hitler became chief of propaganda for the party in early 1920.[46] Hitler began to make the party more public, and organised its biggest meeting yet of 2,000 people on 24 February 1920 in the Staatliches Hofbräuhaus in München. Such was the significance of this particular move in publicity that Karl Harrer resigned from the party in disagreement.[47] It was in this speech that Hitler enunciated the twenty-five points of the German Workers' Party manifesto that had been drawn up by Drexler, Feder and himself.[48] Through these points he gave the organisation a much bolder stratagem[46] with a clear foreign policy0 (abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, a Greater Germany, Eastern expansion and exclusion of Jews from citizenship) and among his specific points were: confiscation of war profits, abolition of unearned incomes, the State to share profits of land and land for national needs to be taken away without compensation.[49] In general, the manifesto was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist and anti-liberal.[50] To increase its appeal to larger segments of the population, on the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech on 24 February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party", or Nazi Party).[51][52][d] The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee (at the suggestion of Rudolf Jung), over Hitler's objections,[e] in order to help appeal to left-wing workers.[56]

WIKI

 

Your fact is not irrrefutable.
Drexler was no socialist. By the time Hitlerr joined his tiny party and supported the 25 principles, the party was rabidly anti socialist.

 

Wtf are you talking about? Have you ever read the 25 point plan?

 

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalisation of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, the abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

Sounds pretty damn socialist to me

 

Collective does not meaning melding hive mentality.
Individuals are free to have their own opinions. And do.
When you build something, collective effort makes individual burden lighter. But each element can still think for itself.

 

I have read a summary.
Rapidly anti semitic and directs government funds to state projects. That is the opposite of socialism which directs funds to the welfare of the people.

 

OP got so throughly destroyed in this thread.

 

No they’re not. The individual cannot have opinions that differ from the collective. That’s the ENTIRE point. Because when individuals have opinions that differ from the collective then they are not working towards the good of the collective they are working towards the good of something else which is in direct opposition to the goals of the collective which makes them a threat.

Why do you think these collectivist societies have resulted in HUNDREDS of millions of people murdered? Because those people who refuse to accept the ideals of the collective are a THREAT to the collective and cannot be tolerated.

 

Well I just posted a lot of it to you. Tell me which of those doesn’t sound socialist to you?

Hitler had no problem with socialism. Hitler promoted socialism. Hitler had a problem when said socialism was used to benefit people other than born and bred Germans. He was a Nationalistic Socialist. He wanted socialism that ONLY benefited his people. Hence the National Socialist party.

 

Do you not see that nationalisation means put into state control?
That members of a foreign nation means Jews?
Free state appropriation of land by the state? That isn't socialism!
That working for the benefit of all means for the state?
That the whole think was forcing industry to work solely for the state?
Where do you think all those armaments and military growth came from? Germany was bankrupt in 1920.
i might ask you if you had living experience of the results of the principles.
Because I have spoken to those who did.

The nazis believed the state WAS the people.
Any benefits went to those who supported it.

I am surprised you thought your extract didn't mean for the good of the state. The word nationalisation should have told you.

 

I don’t understand your point? “The State” is just a collectivist term for the collective. Which they CLAIM is the people. Read Lenin he explicitly states such.

 

His benefitting was for the centralised glory of the state and himself, particularly since threatened were no elections, nor did he invest in ANYTHING that didn't glorify the state, including art, architecture music concentration camps and new railroad tracks , and most of all, the military.
He didn't invest in transport, education, health or agriculture even when people were starving.

 

Why should I read Lenin when we are discussing a fascist state definition?
Drexler and Hitler didn't see the state as a collective. They saw it as a conduit and tool to their OWN power. The state wasn't a collective of the population.
It was the mechanism by which they controlled them.

 

Again that’s not relevant. We aren’t discussing whether he actually instituted the policies to benefit the state and himself or the people. We are discussing which system gives a tyrannical dictator a better opportunity to take power.

Of course once the tyrannical dictator takes power he’s not going to do things to help his people he’s going to help himself. But that’s not germane to the conversation.

His policies that he used to gain power were unabashedly socialist. Now did he institute those policies to actually help people? Of course not. That’s what all dictators who take power from a socialist ideology do.

That’s why communism has failed in every single iteration and why every single collectivist society will INEVITABLY fail.

 

You seriously need to read the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection kit, and scroll down to the section on "Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy".

On the extreme left, you have communism. On the extreme right, you have fascism.

Communism is state ownership & party control of production, fascism is dictatorial control by military under direction of a dictator over private production.

The pendulum can swing either way.

Both are totalitarian/authoritarian.


So, where does the pendulum rest?


Dead center. The center is the farthest point away from either extreme.

What is the center?

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/

 

And you need to read how a slippery slope is not always a fallacy. However we aren’t talking about a slippery slope at all.

We are talking about the fact that collectivist societies (leftist) are far more likely to devolve into a tyrannical dictatorship resulting in the murder of tens of millions than individualized societies (rightist).

 

It’s really quite simple. The individual is a threat to the collective pursuits and the collective is a threat to the individuals pursuits. They cannot coexist for long. One or the other MUST give up ground.

 

Way way too simplistic.
The definitions are far less about the centralisation of the state and far far more too do with what the state does with the funds.
Hitler used language that played into the idea that the state could reconstitute the old German empire.
Instead it became a fascist charter to Rob the people of revenue they made and use it for the purposes of an unelected state.
Fulfilling one definition of fascism, a single dictator.

 

Nonsense.
Are you telling me boy scout Cook out always becomes a punch up?

 

I keep telling you.
Centralisation is not the issue. It does not define fascism or socialism.
The issue is how that central point uses its power.

 

No. What they did is what EVERY socialist elite does. They say we are doing these things for YOUR good. For the good of the collective.

Who makes the decision on what is the collective good? It’s not the people. It’s the socialist elite. The socialist elite argue that they know better what to do for the country and it’s people than the people themselves do. That’s why you have them pushing green energy for instance. They say, “We, the socialist elite, recognize a problem that is arising and you, the people, are too stupid to recognize that problem and do anything to fix it yourselves. So instead, for the good of the collective, we are going to force those policies on you. Yes you may have to suffer some (just like Buttiguge or Bootyjudge or however you spell his name said about the gas prices) but the end result will be a benefit to the collective.”

Which is fine as long as you have altruistic people in charge who are TRULY in it to benefit the populous. That works great.

The problem is that INEVITABLY there will come a time when someone who is amoralistic, power hungry, evil and corrupt who will gain a position of immense power within the system. And while he uses the same language that his altruistic predecessors used, he’s not in it to benefit the people. He’s in it to benefit himself. So when he convinces the people to do something for the collective it’s really to benefit himself or to allow him to consolidate more power.

And when that happens the people get ****ed. And it happens every single time, without exception. It is an inevitability.

 

Threads like this are a reminder why NOBODY should take right wing bleating about stuff like the 1619 Project seriously. They don't care about history for its own sake or for the sake of getting facts right, they care about it as propaganda. History is 'good' when it says what they want & 'bad' when it does not. As a result you get stuff like this & that laughably bad 1776 thing Trump had made up.

There is not one credible historian of Fascism* who considers it 'progressive leftist'. Why? Because they actually understand what Fascism was and the historical context in which it existed. They actually do research using documents rather than reading a propaganda article they liked and deciding that is the truth. There is a reason why right wingers NEVER cite proper historians in these discussions - they have no interest in proper history.

If you think Jonah Goldberg is either credible or a historian you don't get to discuss history with grownups.

 

Looks like the OP has hit a home-run and offended all the alt-LEFT socialist-progressive supporters here, who fail to recognize that the true order of NAZISM is only nuanced by its 1 degree of separation from the murderous party of Socialism.

 

Please remember that any government in an elective system responsible to their electricity..
The Nazi party did not have to.
The "collective" had no choice.
You individually can do nothing useful by acting alone. It is a good example of the power of the collective.
Your penultimate paragraph is what happened under Nazi fascist Germany. There was no opportunity for any public opinion to express itself.