How do you like the nazis?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

 

"Fascism is a rightist ideology" core principals of fascism by the italian fascist party.

 

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Fascism to date was known as nationalist and racist, simply because those who had practiced it were nationalists and racists, but the economics of fascism aren't exclusive to nationalism nor racism, economics are simply economics. When those at the top see the world as one, earth is simply a nation, and all economic doctrine of fascism can still apply. Racism has zero to do with economics.

 

I rather take fascist words to know what fascism is than conservatives that like to blame it all on socialism.



"Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism"
"In economics, fascists oppose economic liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement)"
"it is anti-anarchist, anti-communist,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

Please. Nazi's describe themselves as national socialists, and you use Italian words to say fascists are rightest, and when anyone argues Stalin's Russia or Mao's China were socialists, you all say it doesn't count, because they were just lying. Yet now you, "would rather trust those who are it"? Leftists are a joke.

 

Italians were the first fascists.

the italian FASCIST party invented fascism therefore fascism is what they said it is.

Stalin and Mao did not invent fascism therefore it is what MARX said it is.

 

LOL. Well, I always say nationalists have more in common, as globalists have more in common, right vs left is just a side note. Italy and Germany being on one side vs the west with Russia and China seem to prove my point.

 

Nazism is a pathetic reactionary, authoritarian nationalistic ideology (but we all ready know that). Nothing can be used to justify its existence.

 

The reason why people assume all nationalism is fascism, is because after world war 2, interventionists controlled the world and dictated policy. Classic liberalism and Marxism are both global philosophies, albeit opposite sides of the coin in origin. Globalists are anti-nations, hence, nationalism is their enemy. They know fascism is a bad word world wide and use it to describe all nationalism on purpose. When they were at odds with each other, neither were fascist. Now that globalism rules the world, with both sides working together instead of against one another, it is in effect fascism world wide, as fascism is big business working with big government towards common purpose. Not all nationalism is fascism, but globalism is. Hitler was a national socialist. Mussolini was a national fascist. The founding fathers of America were nationalist capitalists, as was most of the west in the 1700s. We haven't seen all the ill effects of global fascism yet, because a one world state is still in the works, rogue nations are still being subdued, and the global regime need people of the nations they control to believe they are genuine good guys for the time being. But anyone with 2 eyes can see the police state apparatus taking shape on a local level, can feel the lack of representation in their national governments, and should have no doubt as to the evil about to control the world. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

You have to bear in mind that some things politicians say they mean and some they dont. It's not that hard to suss out which is which, you just need to read up a bit using reliable sources.

So Hitler said he was a socialist and then wrote to industrialists saying he didnt mean it. Which was the truth?

Well he started killing/rounding up socialists before he got into power, that was partly how he got into power. Once in power that was it, trade unions banned, all socialists in concentration camps.

During the period from 1933-9, not only were the Nazis privatising stuff (at a time when other capitalist countries were nationalising in order to try to survive the Depression) but the capitalists were having a field day. American businesses increased their investment by 50% in Nazi Germany. General Motors grew to become one of the biggest employers in Germany, helping Hitler prepare for war. Hitler handed out the Third Reich's highest award for foreigners to his hero Henry Ford (who he kept a photo of in his office) and GM boss James D Mooney.

 

Trade unions aren't socialist unless controlled by the state, and are international.
The socialists rounded up, like the communists, were internationalists, not nationalists.
Russia, whether you want to argue was genuine socialists or not, was inherently more left leaning than right, and Germany was attacked by them and the blatantly right west.
World war 2 was a battle between nationalists and globalists, hence, Hitler's anti-supra nation-state rhetoric.
He believed Jews in on the global plot.
He believed masons in on the global plot.

As one looks around today, one cannot argue, there was obviously a global plot. LOL

 

'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. '

Adolph Hitler
Mein Kampf

 

wrong

wrong

wrong

wrong

wrong

right!

wrong.

 

LOL. You have nothing. If trade unions aren't socialist unless controlled by the state, why doesn't China allow them? Just because the rich don't like something doesn't make it socialist. I'm just curious, Mr. know everything, how can Hitler's belief in Jews being part of a global plot be right, if you argue wrong to there being a global plot?

 

The socialist rounded up were SPD or KPD. Both nominally Marxist but the SPD had crushed the 1919 revolution and the KPD were Stalinists and had (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up the situation in allowing the Nazis into power. Stalin invented the theory 'socialism in one country' and tried to sabotage every socialist revolution around the world. Therefore I dispute that either party was internationalist officially.

No, Hitler rounded them up because they were socialist/communist, or at least nominally socialist/communist. Hitler saw socialism as a Jewish plot.

 

What? China is not socialist and it doesnt allow trade unions because they might demand socialism.

 

There was no global plot. The only global 'plot' was Marxism, and Marxism is not a plot. Plus, the USSR was anti-Marxist by that time. And Maxism is hardly an exclusively Jewish thing.

If you want to understand Hitler, bear this in mind:

Trotsky 1933

"Naive minds think that the office of kingship lodges in the king himself, in his ermine cloak and his crown, in his flesh and bones. As a matter of fact, the office of kingship is an interrelation between people. The king is king only because the interests and prejudices of millions of people are refracted through his person. When the flood of development sweeps away these interrelations, then the king appears to be only a washed-out man with a flabby lower lip. He who was once called Alfonso XIII could discourse upon this from fresh impressions. [1]

The leader by will of the people differs from the leader by will of God in that the former is compelled to clear the road for himself or, at any rate, to assist the conjuncture of events in discovering him. Nevertheless, the leader is always a relation between people, the individual supply to meet the collective demand. The controversy over Hitler’s personality becomes the sharper the more the secret of his success is sought in himself. In the meantime, another political figure would be difficult to find that is in the same measure the focus of anonymous historic forces. Not every exasperated petty bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petty bourgeois.

The rapid growth of German capitalism prior to the First World War by no means signified a simple destruction of the middle classes. Although it ruined some layers of the petty bourgeoisie it created others anew: around the factories, artisans and shopkeepers; within the factories, technicians and executives. But while preserving themselves and even growing numerically – the old and the new petty bourgeoisie compose a little less than one-half of the German nation – the middle classes have lost the last shadow of independence. They live on the periphery of large-scale industry and the banking system, and they live off the crumbs from the table of the monopolies and cartels, and off the spiritual alms of their theorists and professional politicians.

The defeat in 1918 raised a wall in the path of German imperialism. External dynamics changed to internal. The war passed over into revolution. Social Democracy, which aided the Hohenzollerns in bringing the war to its tragic conclusion, did not permit the proletariat to bring the revolution to its conclusion. The Weimar democracy spent fourteen years finding interminable excuses for its own existence. The Communist Party called the workers to a new revolution but proved incapable of leading it. The German proletariat passed through the rise and collapse of war, revolution, parliamentarism, and pseudo-Bolshevism. At the time when the old parties of the bourgeoisie had drained themselves to the dregs, the dynamic power of the working class also found itself sapped.

The postwar chaos hit the artisans, the peddlers, and the civil employees no less cruelly than the workers. The economic crisis in agriculture was ruining the peasantry. The decay of the middle strata did not mean that they were made into proletarians, inasmuch as the proletariat itself was casting out a gigantic army of chronically unemployed. The pauperization of the petty bourgeoisie, barely covered by ties and socks of artificial silk, eroded all official creeds and first of all the doctrine of democratic parliamentarism.

The multiplicity of parties, the icy fever of elections, the interminable changes of ministries aggravated the social crisis by creating a kaleidoscope of barren political combinations. In the atmosphere brought to white heat by war, defeat, reparations, inflation, occupation of the Ruhr, crisis, need, and despair, the petty bourgeoisie rose up against all the old parties that had bamboozled i.e. The sharp grievances of small proprietors never out of bankruptcy, of their university sons without posts and clients, of their daughters without dowries and suitors, demanded order and an iron hand.

The banner of National Socialism was raised by upstarts from the lower and middle commanding ranks of the old army. Decorated with medals for distinguished service, commissioned and noncommissioned officers could not believe that their heroism and sufferings for the Fatherland had not only come to naught, but also gave them no special claims to gratitude. Hence their hatred of the revolution and the proletariat. At the same time, they did not want to reconcile themselves to being sent by the bankers, industrialists, and ministers back to the modest posts of bookkeepers, engineers, postal clerks, and schoolteachers. Hence their “socialism.” At the Yser and under Verdun they had learned to risk themselves and others, and to speak the language of command, which powerfully overawed the petty bourgeois behind the lines. [2] Thus these people became leaders.

At the start of his political career, Hitler stood out only because of his big temperament a voice much louder than others, and an intellectual mediocrity much more self-assured. He did not bring into the movement any ready-made program, if one disregards the insulted soldier’s thirst for vengeance. Hitler began with grievances and complaints about the Versailles terms, the high cost of living, the lack of respect for a meritorious non-commissioned officer, and the plots of bankers and journalists of the Mosaic persuasion. There were in the country plenty of ruined and drowning people with scars and fresh bruises. They all wanted to thump with their fists on the table. This Hitler could do better than others. True, he knew not how to cure the evil. But his harangues resounded, now like commands and now like prayers addressed to inexorable fate. Doomed classes, like those fatally ill, never tire of making variations on their plaints nor of listening to consolations. Hitler’s speeches were all attuned to this pitch. Sentimental formlessness, absence of disciplined thought ignorance along with gaudy erudition – all these minuses turned into pluses. They supplied him with the possibility of uniting all types of dissatisfaction in the beggar’s bowl of National Socialism, and of leading the mass in the direction in which it pushed him. In the mind of the agitator was preserved, from among his early improvisations, whatever had met with approbation. His political thoughts were the fruits of oratorical acoustics. That is how the selection of slogans went on. That is how the program was consolidated. That is how the “leader” took shape out of the raw material."

Leon Trotsky
What Is National Socialism?
(June 1933)

Written in exile in Turkey, June 10, 1933.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

 

This is wrong. Both were fascists and fascism is always nationalist, so adding the prefix is misleading and wrong. Like describing wet water. Hitler was not a national socialist and such a thing is an oxymoron as Hitler later admitted.

 

Hitler was a nationalist. Nationalists were around before Nazi's. The communists in Germany were internationalists. Whether one believes the Jews came before internationalism, or internationalism came before the Jews, is irrelevant. Hitler wanted a Germany controlled by Germans, for Germans. Nationalist. Obviously, his power led him to do horrible things, and if kept himself in check, most of Europe would be flying that Nazi flag to this day. If he wouldn't have hit Britain and Russia, they would have let him kept what he had taken. If he wouldn't have used death camps, and simply exiled all not loyal, no one could have said anything. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and no villain in history ever had so much power as modern globalists are about to posses. You think by defending international Marxism, you are defending a great thing, when in reality, there are no genuine Marxists in the current global regime, and you are fighting for a group who will make the Nazi's look like pacifists.

 

so?

debatable

not sure what the point of al this is

There are no genuine Marxists in the current regime, true, there are a handful knocking around but not many.

Who is it you are saying will make the Nazis look like pacifists? Marxists?