Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 15, 2020

But one of their core assumptions " "Nazis were socialists" " has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right. And it is woefully, almost hilariously incorrect.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

We have at least one person on these threads constantly spreading Nazi revisionist history, and it needs to stop:

excerpts

"... the Nazi Party was not the "socialist" party of Germany " that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)"

"But despite joining what would be called the "National Socialist" German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist.

Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself."

"He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety."

"Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler's rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, "I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-15 07:46 PM | Reply

What Hitler actually thought about "socialism"
The best example of Hitler's own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party's left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.

But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for "revolutionary socialism," Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:

"Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings."

And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin "the entire nation" but also "end all progress of humanity."

In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees.

Thus, Hitler argues, a "workers council" taking charge of a company would only get in the way.

"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."

These are just excerpts, the entire article is well worth the read.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-15 07:51 PM | Reply

You-know-who will be here to argue that Hitler was, when he comes to.

#3 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-11-15 07:59 PM | Reply

What's funny is that he ignores the fact that Hitler's use of socialist propaganda was a cynical ploy to attract the working class... and he actually cites said propaganda as proof that Hitler was a socialist.

Another quote from the article:

"Both Otto Strasser and his brother Gregor paid the price for challenging Hitler and advocating for socialism within the Nazi party. Gregor was murdered during the Night of Long Knives in 1934, a mass purge of the left wing of the Nazi Party in which between 85 and 200 people were killed as part of an effort, in Hitler's words, to prevent a "socialist revolution." Otto Strasser fled Germany, ultimately seeking refuge in Canada.

Nazism wasn't a socialist project. Nazism was a rejection of the basic tenets of socialism entirely, in favor of a state built on race and racial classifications."

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-15 08:28 PM | Reply

Such a good article, and thanks to that idiot Mo Brooks for having made it necessary for Vox to publish this factual history.

And thanks, Corky, for posting it.

#5 | Posted by YAV at 2020-11-15 10:26 PM | Reply

Where's Madbomber? He's always talking about the Nazis as socialists. Totally full of ---- and he knows it. Not arguing in good faith. Whatsoever!

#6 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-11-15 11:44 PM | Reply

"Where's Madbomber? He's always talking about the Nazis as socialists."

I'm here.

Are we ready to talk about ------- role in the Bavarian Soviet Republic?

Or are communists no longer considered socialists either?

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 03:33 AM | Reply

Trying to educate QAnonBomber is about as productive as teaching a pig to fly.

German communists, socialists and trade unionists were among the earliest domestic opponents of Nazism and they were also among the first to be sent to concentration camps.

The first concentration camp was built at Dachau in March 1933 and its original purpose was to imprison German communists, socialists, trade unionists and others who opposed the Nazis. Communists, social democrats and other political prisoners were forced to wear red triangles.

Whenever the Nazis conquered a new piece of territory, members of communist, socialist and anarchist groups were normally the first persons to be immediately detained or executed.

en.m.wikipedia.org


I don't expect QAnonBomber to understand any of this.

But. We can keep trying to educate him.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-16 04:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"German communists, socialists and trade unionists were among the earliest domestic opponents of Nazism and they were also among the first to be sent to concentration camps."

You mean the ones who didn't run off to joint the German National Socialist Workers Party?

The Soviets did the same thing in their own country to socialists (and others) who pushed back against the regime or were deemed to be insufficiently supportive of Soviet Socialism.

#9 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 05:01 AM | Reply

#9 | Posted by madbomber

You're an idiot and you're just flucking wrong.

STFU.

#10 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-11-16 07:27 AM | Reply

Stop digging, MB.

I don't understand how you can so completely miss what the "Night of Long Knives" was about.

#11 | Posted by YAV at 2020-11-16 08:29 AM | Reply

"You're an idiot and you're just flucking wrong."

I am?

What part of what I said has not been recorded in history?

Next you're going to tell me that Mussolini wasn't a socialist.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 10:20 AM | Reply

Mussolini was at one time illiterate and incapable of walking upright.

But that has no bearing on why he's a part of history.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-16 10:26 AM | Reply

"I don't understand how you can so completely miss what the "Night of Long Knives" was about."

It was about consolidating power and eliminating rivals, many of whom were members of the SA. The Germans really didn't like the SA, they were somewhat Antfa-ish in their tactics, but more violent. SA leadership had also been vying to replace the German Reichswehr (National Armed Forces) with themselves, something that didn't sit well with most of the government. Hitler also went after conservative German leaders, who famously had little regard for the little Corporal.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 10:31 AM | Reply

"But that has no bearing on why he's a part of history."

His activities as a member of the Italian Socialist party have enormous bearing on why he is part of history.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 10:32 AM | Reply

Oh, and just to be clear, I think Hitler was very much a Socialist when he served in the Bavarian Socialist Republic. But like Mussolini, somewhere along the way he abandoned socialism in favor of Fascism. But he never tried to nationalize the means of production, eliminate private property, or enact any of the other key elements of socialism.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 10:35 AM | Reply

He abandoned socialism by killing the leadership and redefining it as Aryan nationalism.

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2020-11-16 10:39 AM | Reply

"He abandoned socialism by killing the leadership and redefining it as Aryan nationalism."

It's certainly possible, but inter-party conflict was inevitable. Ernst Rohm wanted the SA to replace the German military, something which nobody outside of the SA supported. Had Hitler sided with the SA, he would have lost any support from the military. That would have likely been a non-starter from his position, as he needed a professional army in order to conquer Europe.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"His activities as a member of the Italian Socialist party"

As does his activity of learning to read and walk.
If he hadn't learned to read and walk and wipe his ass, we would certainly not know his name today. FACT!

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-16 11:09 AM | Reply

"somewhere along the way he abandoned socialism in favor of Fascism."

So is a National Socialist a Socialist, or is a National Socialist a Fascist?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-16 11:11 AM | Reply

Fascist. 100% fascist. The party had adopted the left-wing 25 point program, which had appealed to many on the left who joined the party. But socialism wasn't particularly popular as a social movement with the German population writ-large. Had it been, I think Hitler would have likely embraced it. I think he would have embraced anything that furthered his goals.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 11:33 AM | Reply

Reading the article it again brings to mind the uncanny similarity in changes we have seen in what is today known as the GOP and especially under "Trump".

#22 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-11-16 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#17 | Posted by YAV

Go back and read the article. He NEVER was socialist and killed all attempts to bring any socialist goals to light. People who thought this was a socialist party did try to put socialist policy into place though. This appears to be from the beginning. He left the party briefly over it but after 1921 there was zero socialism in the party's platform or governing.

#23 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-11-16 12:04 PM | Reply

uncanny similarity in changes we have seen in what is today known as the GOP

Trump was basing his entire presidency on the teachings of the Third Reich.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-16 12:11 PM | Reply

#7 | Posted by madbomber

This is a great comment to jump off from...

Let us be clear - not even Communists are Communists. Communism and Socialism have distinct differences. That is the extreme form of government and pictured as the end goal by many Marxists. There has not every been a true Communist society either - any and all efforts to create Communist societies have failed with Dictatorship. Communism is not compatible with the Human condition. It is something of a "Utopia" - I use that term loosely as it is certainly not my idea by any means but to a true believer yes.

You want great examples of what most of us think of when we talk "Socialist" countries? The UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, etc. They are NOT socialist states. These are countries with strong social welfare programs and protections and they value the rights of the people over corporation rights. They don't "own the means to production" nor do they try. They are still VERY capitalist. I dare say they are more about Freedom than the USA in many respects.

Normal people don't consider places like Venezuela "socialist". That country has been run by former supposedly reformed communist rebels for decades now that hold power through the military like every other communist country. They came to power via Populism (aka the thing that brought Trump to power) and are more corrupt than the people they replaced. They are no more socialist than North Korea is "democratic". The importance some people put on a word that was chosen by a dictator amazes me and proves they are blissful in ignorance with the blinders on.

#25 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-11-16 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Go back and read the article. He NEVER was socialist and killed all attempts to bring any socialist goals to light.

I never said he did, however I didn't put quote marks on "abandoned" as I should have since that was Madbomber's word, and the one which I was taking issue with. Hence what came after.

#26 | Posted by YAV at 2020-11-16 12:28 PM | Reply

"But one of their core assumptions " "Nazis were socialists" " has become one of the biggest memes within a swath of the American Right."

Considering there is a much bigger effort to attach the republican party to the Nazis.....one can understand why.

You'll never remove the word "socialist" when it comes to the name of the controlling party in Germany for a long time. It's a matter of fact and recorded history.

But it bothers people, such as Corky, so he posts threads like this to dispel the assertion that the Nazis were socialists.

It's a silly reference. Socialism as a term today is what it is and no matter what, people aren't going to buy the notion that the Nazis were socialists as we understand that term. The connection is too far of a stretch.

But as long as there are attempts to make the GOP the Nazis.....expect to be having this same argument......well......forever.

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-16 12:29 PM | Reply

"Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism....."

The author of this article concedes he really doesn't know what true interest Hitler had in socialism.

So let's leave it at that. We don't know.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-16 12:33 PM | Reply

sorry...the author is a "she".

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-16 12:34 PM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

That's very well thought out and well written and the major of us agree with everything you wrote.

But. QAnonBomber is only here to spread misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories.

Such as, Socialism = Fascism = Communism. Bernie and Trump are the same and appeal to the the same voters. Proud boys aren't racists because some Cuban guy looks like a black guy. Antifa is the biggest domestic terrorist group in America. And much much more.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-16 12:39 PM | Reply

"He NEVER was socialist and killed all attempts to bring any socialist goals to light."

This article argues that Hitler argued against attempts to truly move the party to a politically socialist environment.......meaning that other high ranking members of the Nazis were indeed socialists and wanted to move in that direction.

But Hitler disagreed. Am I interpreting this correctly?

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-16 12:58 PM | Reply

" (s)he really doesn't know what true interest Hitler had in socialism. So let's leave it at that."

And ignore the fact he murdered the leading socialists after meeting with them? You're joking, right?

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-16 12:58 PM | Reply

32

Yes, we can ignore all of it.

I don't think we're going to be arguing that Hitler was just a misunderstood socialist.

What, exactly, did that term "socialism" mean to Hitler? To the guys who the article says were actual socialists?

Not really sure? Then yeah....let's leave it at that.

Don't get me wrong....you can still call the GOP "Nazis". Have at it.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-16 01:03 PM | Reply

" What, exactly, did that term "socialism" mean to Hitler?"

It meant, "Someone is coming after my dictatorship; get out the long knives.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-16 01:09 PM | Reply

If I'm reading it right, Hitler's view of socialism was within the confines and construct of the master race Hitler was focused on. He wasn't for taking socialism on the road.....and it applied only to the pure race he wanted to preserve and cooperate with as they represented the wealth and success in Germany at the time.

Interesting article.....and this back and forth primarily between Corky and Madbomber that seemingly has no end has enabled me to read more on this issue....which I had previously given zero effort towards.

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-16 01:21 PM | Reply

Considering there is a much bigger effort to attach the republican party to the Nazis.....one can understand why.

Considering republicans regularly march around carrying Nazi flags and confederate flags.....one can understand why.

But it bothers people, such as Corky, so he posts threads like this to dispel the assertion that the Nazis were socialists.

Considering it doesn't seem to be bothering you, why post on this thread. Just here to explain both sides are the same and everyone is overreacting? You're okay with misinformation?

Socialism as a term today is what it is and no matter what, people aren't going to buy the notion that the Nazis were socialists as we understand that term. The connection is too far of a stretch.

You give your Trumper friends too much credit. They're busy marching and screaming that Biden cheated and won the election.
And that covid is a hoax.

No. There's no stretch too far for Trumpers. The cult demands 200% fealty.

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-16 01:22 PM | Reply

Don't get me wrong....you can still call the GOP "Nazis". Have at it.
#33 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Oh, we can call the people who march around carrying flags with a swastika on it, Nazis?

Thanks for your permission.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-16 01:27 PM | Reply

If you dig deep enough you find out that when the NAZI party was first created it did have members that were interested in labor rights and I think expanding healthcare.

Hitler had their leaders killed in the night of long knives and for whatever reason they kept the name.

In short the Nazi party that hit the world stage was not a socialist party.

#41 | Posted by Tor at 2020-11-16 01:45 PM | Reply

"The author of this article concedes he really doesn't know what true interest Hitler had in socialism."

He invaded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I think that tells us enough to make an educated guess:

Operation Barbarossa (German: Unternehmen Barbarossa) was the code name for the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, which started on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during World War II. The operation put into action Nazi Germany's ideological goal of conquering the western Soviet Union so as to repopulate it with Germans. The German Generalplan Ost aimed to use some of the conquered people as slave labour for the Axis war effort while acquiring the oil reserves of the Caucasus as well as the agricultural resources of various Soviet territories. en.wikipedia.org

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-16 01:57 PM | Reply

#31 | Posted by eberly

You are interpreting correctly that some in the party were indeed in favor of socialist policies (the left wing) but that does not make the party leftist or socialist - especially by the time they rose to power. The article does a pretty good job of explaining what was going on.

Hitler defined the party and in fact Hitler was the party. From 1921 on Hitler was "the man" in charge. Hitler was anti-socialist from at least about 1919 on. He was anything but a socialist. As of 1929 the article states he wouldn't even entertain Socialist ideas being put forth. Frankly much like Donald Trump what Hitler wanted were loyalists no matter what their political leaning was. He wanted mouth pieces who would echo his thoughts. He wanted people in positions of power who would make sure his every whim was made policy.

Hitler wanted FASCISM as laid out in the article. After the night of the Long Knives the leaders of the Strasserist faction of the Nazi party were gone. That was the leftists in the party. Of course he also killed the "unreliable" conservatives - you might think of those that are labeled as "RINOs" today or someone like Romney who is by no means a Trump loyalist.

#43 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-11-16 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BOOM! Exactly, GalaxiePete! Great summation!

#44 | Posted by YAV at 2020-11-16 02:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

43

I see your point.....but it's hard to compare any of that time period to the current political environment.

Unless you think folks like Rommey are vulnerable to being knifed to death soon..

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-16 02:07 PM | Reply

it's hard to compare any of that time period to the current political environment.

Not really.

Trump is doing his best to create his very own Third Reich.

Have you been paying any attention over the past four years?

Or were you too busy normalizing it to notice?

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-16 02:12 PM | Reply

"Unless you think folks like Rommey are vulnerable to being knifed to death soon..

^
You're taking things too literally.
Republicans don't need to physically kill other Republicans to render them politically lifeless.
Your party doesn't kill them, your party just votes them out and replaces them with Trump QAnon supporters.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-16 02:12 PM | Reply

#25

You're preaching to the choir, my friend. I've saying just what you've said for a long time. Even those in the US who refer to themselves as "socialists" really aren't. The one thing that every socialist movement has in common is the desire to overthrow capitalism. That's what makes it socialist.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 02:14 PM | Reply

"The author of this article concedes he really doesn't know what true interest Hitler had in socialism."

So, what we do know is that he served as a battalion commander in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, and in that role his job was to enact the policies of that country. You don't get much more socialist that a Soviet.

But Mussolini started out as one of Italy's most prominent socialists. He split with the party during WWI as a result of the COMINTERN's decision not to support the allied war effort, which in turn prohibited members of those socialist parties controlled by the Soviets from participating. So he created the Italian Fascist party with the intent of applying socialism at a national, rather than international level.

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 02:19 PM | Reply

"And ignore the fact he murdered the leading socialists after meeting with them? You're joking, right?"

The Soviets did the same thing. Are you going to argue that they weren't socialist?

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 02:21 PM | Reply

"If you dig deep enough you find out that when the NAZI party was first created it did have members that were interested in labor rights and I think expanding healthcare."

Here is a full list of the National Socialist's 25 point program:

en.wikipedia.org

Here are some of the highlights that could be considered socialist:

-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 nourish the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) must be excluded from the Reich.

-The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the whole for the benefit for the general good. We demand therefore:
--Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes.
--Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

-In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice of life and property that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. Therefore, we demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

-We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).

-We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

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

-We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization 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.

-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, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

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

-The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the state must be striven for by the school [Staatsbrgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

-The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

-For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 02:28 PM | Reply

"Trump is doing his best to create his very own Third Reich."

Comments like these are why people don't take you seriously.

It's no different than when righties were calling Obama a socialist.

Left or right, it doesn't seem like many people know what socialism is.

Don't people take ECON courses anymore?

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-16 02:37 PM | Reply

-Don't people take ECON courses anymore?

How would we know based on how much people like about their background??

www.cnbc.com

Based on the above, how many folks here do you think have lied (on an anonymous blog) about their education?

If someone is going to lie to get a job then how easy is it to lie when trying to be taken seriously on a blog??

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-16 02:46 PM | Reply

Who cares what socialism is? Few people are using consistent meanings, so the term is worthless now.

The dems should use a more descriptive term. Norwayism. Govern like Norway does. The actual outcomes are visible. Tweak Norwayism policies as desired.

Arguing over the meaning and outcomes of governance models invented a century or more ago is pointless.

#57 | Posted by bored at 2020-11-16 02:46 PM | Reply

"Here is a full list of the National Socialist's 25 point program:"

That's from 1920.
Nazis took power in 1933.
What you're doing is like saying "here's Brett Kavanaugh's political agenda" and trotting out his high school yearbook.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-16 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Don't people take ECON courses anymore?"

People need to take MATH courses before they take ECON courses.

If they don't, they might end up like MadBomber: Full of ----.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-16 03:01 PM | Reply

"Trump is doing his best to create his very own Third Reich."
Comments like these are why people don't take you seriously.
It's no different than when righties were calling Obama a socialist.

^
Bull. ----.

It's very different than that.
Trump is installing his loyalists at the highest levels of government, and also made it easier to fire people at lower levels of government.

Why are you downplaying Trump's seizure of power?
Have you never heard of a bloodless coup? The way the Nazis actually rose to power isn't part of your history of Nazism?

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-16 03:06 PM | Reply

"Trump is doing his best to create his very own Third Reich."

Comments like these are why people don't take you seriously.
It's no different than when righties were calling Obama a socialist.

People don't take me serious? This thread was made in hopes of educating you. I knew it would be futile. But. Corky is more of an optimist. He actually believes you can learn.

By the way. As to your suggestion that Obama and Trump are the same.

All I gotta say is.

Thanks QAnon!

it doesn't seem like many people know what socialism is.

You're living proof of that.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-16 03:28 PM | Reply

Why are you downplaying Trump's seizure of power?
#60 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

He's trying to normalize what Trump is doing.

QAnon is one of the biggest Trumpers on the DR.

#62 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-16 03:29 PM | Reply

"Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings."

Did that really come out from his face, or is this heavily "revised"? Either way it's the definition of Adolf Hitlers fear of his own meager past and his desire to destroy it. His "weakness".

#63 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2020-11-16 04:01 PM | Reply

#54

Hilarious/Sad.... NaziRevisionistHistoryBomber keeps posting the very socialist propaganda that scholars note was just that, socialist propaganda intended to gain supporters from the working class where socialism was popular, and in no way reflective of Hitler's own political philosophy.... which was anything but socialist.

"Nazism wasn't a socialist project. Nazism was a rejection of the basic tenets of socialism entirely, in favor of a state built on race and racial classifications." from the article

That summation is agreed upon by almost all scholars of the subject... MB obviously not being one of them.

en.wikipedia.org

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-16 04:02 PM | Reply

"The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists isn't a straightforward one, due to how the Nazi party developed and grew its base of support. But the consensus among historians is that the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were not socialists in any meaningful sense.

Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology.

Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis' incorporation of socialist into their name in 1920, "Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism ... .Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism".

Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, "Hitler was never a socialist."

fullfact.org

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-16 04:20 PM | Reply

This argument's about as sad and tired as the civil war states rights/slavery argument.

#66 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-11-16 04:22 PM | Reply

"For members of the Nazi Party, in fact, defending socialism on its own terms was a risky activity which could result in ejection from the party, or worse. Of party leader and dissenter Otto Strasser (whose similarly-minded brother, Gregor, would ultimately be assassinated by the Nazis), William Shirer writes:

Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word "socialist" but the word "workers" in the party's official name of National Socialist German Workers' Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry.

This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal sins of "democracy and liberalism." On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party.

The plain truth, writes Historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich, was that Hitler and his party saw socialism, communism, and leftism generally as inimical to everything they hoped to achieve:

www.snopes.com

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-16 04:26 PM | Reply

"What Nazism Stood For

The National Socialists completely ignored socialism's primary aim (replacing the existing class-based society with an egalitarian one in which workers owned the means of production) and substituted their own topsy-turvy agenda, Evans writes, "replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader":

The "National Socialists" wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism.

Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity."

snopes link

#68 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-16 04:27 PM | Reply

"German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterizes this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of "prestidigitation":

This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the "great mass of the anonymous." And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler's party was "socialist" only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a "workers' party" in order to lure the most energetic social force.

As with Hitler's protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy."

same link

#69 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-16 04:28 PM | Reply

"Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the "Aryan" race and the German nation, by any means necessary.

Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals.

The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality." same link

'
SO when revisionists of Nazi history make claims based on the very same propaganda that the Nazis used, they are merely carrying on the Big Lie for said Nazis.

And with the rise of white nationalists in recent years, it is inexcusable to parrot the same lies that the Proud Boys and QAnon are preaching in their forums.

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-16 04:33 PM | Reply

Madbomber just sees socialists as ------------- was a killer so he must be a socialist, or something like that. Fuzzy thinking, too focused on the word socialist and not clear about actual concepts.

What a dumbass. He can't learn. He already knows it all. Don't waste your time. His mind is hermetically sealed.

#71 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-11-16 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well laid out, Corky.

#72 | Posted by YAV at 2020-11-16 06:32 PM | Reply

"What you're doing is like saying "here's Brett Kavanaugh's political agenda" and trotting out his high school yearbook."

That's exactly what I was doing. In fact I think I said as much.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 12:44 AM | Reply

"Trump is installing his loyalists at the highest levels of government, and also made it easier to fire people at lower levels of government."

Cool. And may then enjoy it for the next 65 days.

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 12:50 AM | Reply

"Why are you downplaying Trump's seizure of power?"

Are you on drugs?

Trump was elected to office in 2016. In 2020 he was elected out of office.

If his goal was a seizure of power, he has failed. He would have been unlikely to succeed in any case, as the US system of government doesn't lend itself to something like that happening.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 12:52 AM | Reply

"That summation is agreed upon by almost all scholars of the subject... MB obviously not being one of them."

Cool.

When do you want to address Hitler's role in the Bavarian Soviet Republic. You can make a strong argument that Hitler pulled the National Socialist party away from his socialist roots, therefor showing through action he was not a socialist. But his role in the Soviet state is much harder to defend.

Crickets?

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 12:55 AM | Reply

Perhaps if you read all the real scholars you wouldn't have so many dumb questions.... naw.

Pretty hilarious though, that you are now down to walking your Hitler was a socialist nonsense back to... 1918, rofl.

But hey, it's not so unusual that once someone makes an idiotic claim, they stick too it no matter how much it's been demolished by the facts.

Take your Nazi revisionism and your quoting of the very same propaganda that Hitler published as a cynical effort to dupe.... well, people such as yourself, and stick it were the sun don't shine.

Even neo-Nazis appreciate the fact that Hitler's Nazism was rwing on any political spectrum you care to consult... and they don't know jack.

#77 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-17 01:29 AM | Reply

"Perhaps if you read all the real scholars you wouldn't have so many dumb questions.... naw."

What have the scholars said about Hitler's role in the Bavarian Socialist Republic?

"Take your Nazi revisionism and your quoting of the very same propaganda that Hitler published as a cynical effort to dupe.... well, people such as yourself, and stick it were the sun don't shine."

Did Hitler tout his time in the Bavarian Soviet Republic as a means of bolstering his right-wing street cred? And isn't what you're doing little more than socialist revisionism?

It's not like it matters. Hitler is just one more socialist monster amongst many. Or are you going to tell me next that Pol Pot and Chairman Mao weren't socialists?

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 10:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Even neo-Nazis appreciate the fact that Hitler's Nazism was rwing on any political spectrum you care to consult..."

What about Hitler's socialism while a member of the BSR? Right wing as well?

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 10:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#78

Bavarian Soviet Republic. Not the Bavarian Socialist Republic.

And distinction without difference? Yes. But a distinction nonetheless.

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 10:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

And since it doesn't seem like the majority ever went to college, I'm going to help you out. The type of economic system employed by the German Reich during the National Socialist era is something called corporatism. Or at least corporatism comes closest. It was also explicitly practiced in Italy under Benito Mussolini, and various forms exist today across Europe. Much of what could be considered social democracy or social market economies are, in fact, corporatist.

But here's the problem. When you use the term "corporatist," many on the illiterate left immediately imagine that the term has something to do with capitalism, or profits, or the bourgeoise, or some other bogeyman. See below:

www.bing.com

www.bing.com

And since we're talking about Nazi's:

www.bing.com

So, to put this thing to bed: Was Hitler a socialist? Almost certainly. Otherwise, why did he join the Bavarian Soviet Republic? If there was some other reason he joined, it has yet to be brought to light. Were the National Socialists a socialist party? Not really. And any hope of that ever happened ended with Hitler's murder of the party's left wing. At which point he shows little interest in pursuing any sort of socialist goals.

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 12:12 PM | Reply

- Were the National Socialists a socialist party? Not really.

Which is exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming on this blog for months... well, until you were embarrassed on this thread into admitting you were wrong.

- Was Hitler a socialist? Almost certainly

"Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, "Hitler was never a socialist."

Not embarrassed enough, apparently, but maybe one day you'll get there.

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-17 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- it has yet to be brought to light.

Perhaps if you listened half as much as you talked, you wouldn't be so often in the dark.

"In the Lechfeld transit camp Hitler, now an openly radical right-wing propagandist, gave talks to fellow soldiers who had returned from war captivity "contaminated with Bolshevik and Spartacist ideas."

www.spiegel.de

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-17 01:09 PM | Reply

If you want a short list, start writing down all of the dictators that HAVENT used welfare programs to shore up domestic support in key demographics.

#84 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-11-17 01:36 PM | Reply

"Which is exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming on this blog for months... well, until you were embarrassed on this thread into admitting you were wrong."

No, what I've been saying is that they're as socialist as Bernie Sanders, AOC, or most others who claim to be socialist. The Antifa rioters not withstanding-the hammer and sickle pretty much cement them solidly in the socialist sphere.

But if you consider AOC and Bernie to be socialists, or Sweden, or France, or Germany, then you also have to accept the National Socialists into that cohort as well, as they all employed similar economic policies. The fact that the National Socialists were genocidal racists has nothing to do with their economic system.

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 01:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If you want a short list, start writing down all of the dictators that HAVENT used welfare programs to shore up domestic support in key demographics."

That's situational, not ideological. It's a significant difference. Trump funneled subsidies to midwestern farmers to preserve their support when he instituted tariffs against China. Doesn't make him a socialist though. Not by a long shot.

#86 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-11-17 01:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Not embarrassed enough, apparently, but maybe one day you'll get there."

As soon as you (or anyone else) can provide an explanation as to why Hitler joined the Bavarian Soviet Republic when there were plenty of non-socialist groups he could join, then you can claim he was never a socialist.

"Almost every day some pundit or commentator paints conservatives and even libertarians with the toxic brush of Hitlerism. These uninformed critics repeatedly accuse the Fuhrer of right-wing extremism. But according to many scholars, that narrative has been found to be completely false. A number of historians, including the German Thomas Weber, are now declaring that Hitler was personally involved with a whole different crowd who opposed anything remotely conservative or classical liberal.

In truth, Hitler was involved in an extreme left-wing political movement and revolution, sporting a red armband while working on behalf of the Communist Party of Germany in Munich. In fact, on the second day after the Communists declared the Bavarian Soviet Republic on April 6, 1919, Hitler sought and won an elected position in the Communist government. Bluntly, Hitler participated in a Communist regime even during a period that resembled a Lenin-like reign of terror.

Where is the historical proof? It comes from military archives from Hitler's barracks, which Thomas Weber discovered in Munich during research for his 2011 book Hitler's First War. Thought to be lost during WWII Allied bombing campaign of Munich, these archives provide clear evidence that Hitler threw his hat into the ring within two days of the communist seizure of the Bavarian government. Elected "Deputy Battalion Representative," Hitler appeared determined to support the revolutionary socialist Rterepublik, which waslead by the Jewish, Russian-born Communist revolutionary leader Eugen Levin. And in doing so, Hitler was pledging his allegiance to Lenin's Soviet Russia. In fact, Weber revealed that Hitler earned the second-highest number of votes in his unit, resulting in his victory for the Ersatz-Bataillons-Rat position. According to Weber, Hitler's actions made him a "more significant cog in the machine of Socialism," helping to "sustain the Soviet Republic."

www.lewrockwell.com

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 02:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The following is from an interview with the author referenced in #87

Lindley: I think readers will also be surprised that, just after the First World War ended, Hitler served with the left-wing Soviet Republic of Munich, rather than with the right-wing Freikorps.

Weber: Yes, it's amazing. At the very least we can say is that Hitler's path toward fascism was very unusual for fascists. The standard route was to be radical right wing at the end of the First World War, then through the Freikorps, to becoming a fascist. Hitler's political socialization is very different. While his future fellow fascists are fighting the Soviet Republic, he is in the center of Munich serving the Soviet Republic. He even serves as one of the elected representatives of his postwar unit.

Hitler biographers have tried to make sense of his actions by arguing that maybe they were a smokescreen for what he really wanted to do, or that he was a secret spokesperson for hyper-nationalists, or that he was a full-fledged communist. I find none of these explanations persuasive. The problem is that scholars thought that they had to resolve Hitler's contradictory actions during this time by showing that one action was a smokescreen for another.

My argument is that the whole point is that Hitler's actions should not be resolved. His actions were contradictory and he had flexible political ideas. The least we can say, whatever ideas Hitler might have secretly harbored, that was not why his fellow soldiers voted for him as a representative of his post-war battalion in 1919.

historynewsnetwork.org

Weber even referenced Ian Kershaw, whom you quoted earlier:

"I'm not criticizing at all the magisterial Hitler biographies by people like Kershaw or Bullock or Fest, but they could only be as good as the material and research that existed on these questions. Ian Kershaw's book necessarily had to rely on publications about Hitler in the First World War that existed when he wrote his Hitler biography. I spent about four years researching Hitler in the First World War. If Ian Kershaw had spent a similar amount of time on each of Hitler's years of his life, he would never have been able to write his biography. And also, a majority of Hitler biographers"including Ian Kershaw"are experts on the Third Reich itself. Therefore, and this is no criticism, they knew the archives for the years 1933 to 1945 much better than for the earlier years."

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-17 02:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trump funneled subsidies to midwestern farmers to preserve their support when he instituted tariffs against China. Doesn't make him a socialist though. Not by a long shot.

#86 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2020-11-17 01:52 PM | FLAG:

Indeed. Socialism and farming tend to end in famine. People that want welfare programs are really stuck on the word socialism, it's a bit silly. They're capitalists that just want more taxes and expanded programs.

#89 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-11-17 04:16 PM | Reply

They're capitalists that just want more taxes and expanded programs.
#89 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

We don't need more taxes.

We need the taxes we pay now to stop funding the rich.

#90 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-17 04:22 PM | Reply

#85

BS... now you are just moving the goalposts. You have framed Nazism in general as left-wing and socialist on these pages.

- Lew Rockwell, lmao!

"Despite a less-than-sterling record of confronting racism and the downright dubious company he keeps, no one has yet had the audacity to call him a white supremacist and let him know his so-called praxeology "solution" for fixing the economy is basically fascism with bad bow ties instead of jackboots."

rationalwiki.org

Not a scholar of any kind, much less of Hitler and Nazism. Just another rwing libertarian loser who hates it when it is pointed out that Nazism and Fascism are rwing on any political model.

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-17 04:27 PM | Reply

"People that want welfare programs are really stuck on the word socialism,"

This thread is proof of the sensitivity people harbor over that word.

It's as if they would rather be called a racist.

I'm exaggerating......but only a little.

#92 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-17 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-They're capitalists that just want more taxes and expanded programs.

when you say "more taxes", do you mean more taxes paid by someone other than themselves?

#93 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-17 04:43 PM | Reply

I like looking at the question differently like who are the current Nazis supporting? ------- or Sanders?

#94 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-11-17 04:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- Weber

"Plckinger has compiled many good arguments to support his view of Hitler. As a member of an investigative commission in his regiment, the lance corporal learned how to fight political rivals. He attended anti-Bolshevik courses in which right-wing lecturers, who were hoping for an end to democracy in Germany, taught him the art of propaganda.

The political career of Hitler the soldier began in the spring of 1919, as the situation was escalating in Munich.

On April 7, radical socialists proclaimed the Bavarian Soviet Republic and began forming a "Red Army" modeled after its Soviet counterpart.

Most of the soldiers at Hitler's side refused to join the revolutionary troops. Although the Austrian lance corporal was elected to one of the soldiers' councils in his regiment, he remained a staunch opponent of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, as Plckinger writes.

In early May 1919, after bloody fighting, German Reichswehr troops and right-wing militias occupied the Bavarian capital. Hundreds of sympathizers with the Soviet Republic were indiscriminately murdered. A wave of persecution gripped all of Munich."

"In the Lechfeld transit camp Hitler, now an openly radical right-wing propagandist, gave talks to fellow soldiers who had returned from war captivity "contaminated with Bolshevik and Spartacist ideas."

from the article you either did'nt read or didn't comprehend
www.spiegel.de

This, btw, is OTHMAR PLCKINGER:

mosseprogram.wisc.edu

Nazism is not now, nor has it ever been, anything but a racist rwing political movement and war machine.

Your claims about it being socialist notwithstanding, no matter how you couch them in your contempt for people like Bernie Sanders.

But then, were Bernie's policies enacted, one supposes there would be less call for people to bomb villages.

#95 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-17 04:46 PM | Reply

- who are the current Nazis supporting? ------- or Sanders?

The current Nazis and their apologists who want claim that Nazis were lefties.

And try to go back 20 years in Hitler's personal history to prove that, rather than relying on the scholarship about what the Nazis themselves and Hitler as their leader really stood for.... which had nada to do with left wing politics.

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-17 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This thread is proof of the sensitivity people harbor over that word.
#92 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You read through this thread and used all your critical thinking skills to come up with that conclusion?

This thread is proof of the confusion caused by the misuse of the word socialism.

QAnonBomber is doing his best to continue to spread misinformation and disinformation.

Maybe that's what's confusing you.

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-17 07:15 PM | Reply

This thread is proof of the sensitivity people harbor over that word.
#92 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Not sensitivity.
It's faux outrage.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-17 07:21 PM | Reply

"Not a scholar of any kind, much less of Hitler and Nazism. Just another rwing libertarian loser who hates it when it is pointed out that Nazism and Fascism are rwing on any political model."

And Thomas Weber, the author he is quoting? Another rwing Libertarian loser? Sponsored by those other rqing Libertarian losers at George Washington University's Columbia College of Arts and Sciences?

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 12:46 AM | Reply

"We need the taxes we pay now to stop funding the rich."

You don't pay taxes. They do.

#100 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 12:47 AM | Reply

"BS... now you are just moving the goalposts. You have framed Nazism in general as left-wing and socialist on these pages.

Economically, 100% Without even the least bit of ------- doubt. The corporatist economic framework established within the German Reich was a kissing cousin to the Dutch Polder model, the western European Rhine model, and others. If you think that they are left-wing, it would be impossible to claim that the government of the German Reich was not equally left-wing.

I'm not sure why you're even arguing this. You're clearly way out of your element. You seem to be wanting to carry water for an economic system that you lack the educational background to understand, and you're willfully disregarding elements of recorded history that don't fit with your preconceived narrative. I don't get it. Yes, Hitler was bad, but he was only one bad socialist amongst many. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro...would it really be such a surprise if socialism had produced another such monster in western europe?

#101 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 12:55 AM | Reply

"You don't pay taxes. (The rich) do."

Nonsense. The middle class pays the lion's share of taxes, once all are on the table, especially once you count massive givebacks via the tax code. Welfare is a pittance compared to corporate tax breaks.
www.pgpf.org

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-18 01:01 AM | Reply

"Hitler was bad, but he was only one bad socialist amongst many."

Hitler was a sociallist?!? When??? He had the Socialists killed, and his Fascist Dictatorship had nothing to do with workers controlling the means of production.

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-18 01:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Doesn't matter how many people correct QAnonBomber.

He practices the old adage, "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."

He learned it from his mentor, Goebbels.

#104 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-18 02:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He had the Socialists killed, and his Fascist Dictatorship had nothing to do with workers controlling the means of production.

#103 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2020-11-18 01:04 AM | FLAG:

First point is irrelevant. Socialists had socialists killed frequently around the globe. Socialists then promptly erased most of their socialist victims from their history books. Krushchev eventually rehabilitated the image of some that were conveniently dead to make things appear unified.

Second part isn't true. German Labour Front was the primary Nazi labor org. They used it to consolidate their existing labor unions, not wipe them out. The DAF advocated nationalized industry owned by the people and had union benefits far more expansive than anything an American Union could imagine, including worker owned travel lines and resorts to offer subsidized vacations to all of their membership. It's very specific stated goal was to "combat capitalism and liberalism".

On a hilarious side note of the DAF, they never did get The People's Car. After the union built the factory for it, the government seized it and converted it to tank production.

#105 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-11-18 08:21 AM | Reply

Trotsky had to hide in Mexico to keep from being murdered by socialists. In the most Russian thing ever, he was poisoned to death.

#106 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-11-18 08:22 AM | Reply

Oh I forgot, the poison failed. He was axe murdered.

#107 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-11-18 11:23 AM | Reply

"Hitler was a sociallist?!? When???

When he was an officer in the armed wing of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. When he was actually engaged in not only enforcing Soviet law, but also fighting against his future comrades who at that point were largely members of the German Freikorps, the precursor party to the National Socialists.

Have you not been keeping up?

#108 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 01:38 PM | Reply

"Nonsense. The middle class pays the lion's share of taxes, once all are on the table, especially once you count massive givebacks via the tax code. Welfare is a pittance compared to corporate tax breaks."

"The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 21 percent, from 19.7 percent in 2016. Their share of federal individual income taxes rose to 38.5 percent, from to 37.3 percent in 2016.
In 2017, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.
The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.9 percent)."

taxfoundation.org

#109 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 01:49 PM | Reply

I'm sure the middle class can be found nested in there somewhere.

#110 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 01:53 PM | Reply

"Their share of federal individual income taxes..."

STOP RIGHT THERE. You're using bogus parameters by only counting one type of tax: INCOME tax. The vast majority of workers (~70%) pay more in payroll taxes than they do income taxes over their lifetimes.

Also, the top 1% get 83% of the Trump income tax giveaways. And since they clearly don't pay 83% of the income taxes, that's s burden shift to the middle class. It's in the equation.

Finally, if rates are cut, and the top 1% ends up paying a GREATER share of income taxes, that means they got a GREATER percentage of wealth, to more than make up for the rate cuts.

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-18 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

People who don't want the government involved in spending on social infrastructure are pushing this fear-mongering narrative in the face of the rise in popularity of outspoken "Democratic Socialist" Bernie Sanders. People want policies similar to that of Scandanavia. That spending significant increases in tax dollars on healthcare and education would somehow morph into rounding up "undesirables" and putting them in camps, while the Republican party grows more fascist, is loony tunes. were-nazis-socialists

#112 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-11-18 02:07 PM | Reply

^[Thinking] that spending...

#113 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-11-18 02:09 PM | Reply

Dan, there are some here who take umbrage at the notion that Hitler could have been a socialist. I think for ideological purposes, it's simply not an idea that can be reconciled. Which is strange, because socialism is rotten with monsters. Not sure why one more would be a big deal. An since Hitler's moments in power were marked with so much horror, it's odd to focus on what had been a relatively contemporary economic policy that wasn't far out of line with what would come next under the government of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

ISIS is a band of monsters. The fact that they employ capitalist, free market systems doesn't make them less of as monster.

#114 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 02:09 PM | Reply

"there are some here who take umbrage at the notion that Hitler could have been a socialist. I think for ideological purposes, it's simply not an idea that can be reconciled."

You're joking, right? It was "reconciled" when Hitler had the leading Socialists killed during The Night of the Long Knives. It was "reconciled" when the Gestapo arrested socialists, specifically because they were socialists. What more proof is needed?

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-18 02:21 PM | Reply

"People who don't want the government involved in spending on social infrastructure are pushing this fear-mongering narrative in the face of the rise in popularity of outspoken "Democratic Socialist" Bernie Sanders. People want policies similar to that of Scandanavia."

You think so?

The standard VAT rate in Sweden is 25%. Think of it as a sales tax that's built in to the price, Another VAT is 15% for food. Another is 12% for travel.

This is how the Scandinavian policies people want are funded. And it's not a bad thing. It takes the participation of every Norwegian, regardless of income, to make this work. In the US, you don't hear talk of VATs. The intent for most on the left would be to send the bill to high income earners, who would likely have no inherent reason to pay it.

#116 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 02:24 PM | Reply

"You're joking, right? It was "reconciled" when Hitler had the leading Socialists killed during The Night of the Long Knives. It was "reconciled" when the Gestapo arrested socialists, specifically because they were socialists. What more proof is needed?"

You're struck trying to explain why, as an officer in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, he fought against his future comrades. As a Socialist. As a Soviet.

There are explanations: Thomas Weber simply states "My argument is that the whole point is that Hitler's actions should not be resolved. His actions were contradictory and he had flexible political ideas. The least we can say, whatever ideas Hitler might have secretly harbored, that was not why his fellow soldiers voted for him as a representative of his post-war battalion (in the Bavarian Soviet Republic) in 1919."

#117 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-11-18 02:28 PM | Reply

Wow, MB.

You're really dedicated to dying on this hill.

Curious.

#118 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-11-18 02:31 PM | Reply

"You're struck trying to explain why, as an officer in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, he fought against his future comrades. As a Socialist."

Who cares what lies he told as he rose to power?!? It's what he did once in power which defines him, and it certainly wasn't empowering Socialists. Nor was he empowering workers, and certainly never giving them control over the means of production.

"His actions were contradictory and he had flexible political ideas."

Big deal; that just means he was transactional. Pretend he supported both Republicans and Democrats, called himself a Democrat when asked, then ran as a Republican, and was transactional the entire time. Go ahead...try to imagine that.

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-18 02:40 PM | Reply

118

Corky posted the thread, not MB.

Corky wanted the argument.

Now, with that said, I have enjoyed this thread as I've learned more about Hitler than I would have thought I would ever care to learn about him.

All sides have done a really good job with their arguments, IMO.

I can't say that about many threads like this one.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-18 02:42 PM | Reply

"his fellow soldiers voted for him as a representative of his post-war battalion (in the Bavarian Soviet Republic)"

Well, if it's all in a name, that makes him a Soviet. And a Republican. You know...just like Saddam's Republican Guard.

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-18 02:43 PM | Reply

"...he fought against his future comrades."

Not unless their names were Gehring, Goebbels, or Himmler.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-18 02:46 PM | Reply

Wow, MB.
You're really dedicated to dying on this hill.
Curious.
#118 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Corky posted the thread, not MB.
Corky wanted the argument.
#120 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Not sure why you think this is a good response to what Rsty posted.

#123 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-18 02:52 PM | Reply

- I don't get it. Yes, Hitler was bad, but he was only one bad socialist amongst many. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro...would it really be such a surprise if socialism had produced another such monster in western europe?

#101 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Right, you certainly don't get it.

You find one historian who finds Hitler's early passing acquaintance with socialism sincere, although even he says that that socialism was nothing like right or left politics of today...

... as opposed to the vast majority of historians expert in Hitler and Nazism, many quoted here, who tell you that Hitler was never a real socialist, but was just the opposite, a racist nationalist who stated that the moneyed elite were genetically predisposed to run the world and it's corporations.

Your laughable inclusion of Hitler among the list you posted above is preposterous, and a delusional denial of reality meant to confirm your rwing bias.

'
"Man tries to claim the Nazis were socialist and gets shut down by a history teacher
Posted Saturday 13 June 2020 "

www.indy100.com

That was fun.

Same thing happened on this thread.

#124 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-18 03:04 PM | Reply

Sinclair Lewis' novel It Can't Happen Here is fiction, but it portrays how fascism could come about in America. Lewis' example shows fascism arising via a Tr***ian populist racist macho demagogue, only in this case he hijacks the Democratic Party to get his power. He kissed the police ass and encouraged brutality to get them on his side, and he had his brownshirt flunkies violently intimidating people in the streets, and nutjob media personalities were there to stir things up and enjoy the ratings. The educated liberals and Republicans laughed at him at first, then things got scary, and then worse. Written in the 1930s, it was prescient. Lots of parallels to Tr*** today.

#125 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-11-18 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This 'Hitler was a socialist' crap needs to be banned - like the sign saying 'No Stairway' (Stairway to Heaven) in the guitar store.

#126 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-11-18 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Weimar Political Parties

The most important of these radical anti-Republican parties were the communists on the left and the National Socialists (Nazis) on the right. Most of the 22 Weimar government coalitions were made up of members of the Catholic Center, Social Democratic, Democratic and People's parties.

In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the People's Party (DVP).

The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi).

The parties on the left were strong supporters of progressive taxation, government social welfare programs, labor unions, equality and economic opportunity for women.

They were less nationalistic, militaristic and antisemitic than the parties on the right. They favored greater government involvement in"and control of"business and industry, and were to varying degrees anti-religious.

Still, there were strong differences and major conflicts between the two major leftist parties. The Social Democrats were strong supporters of the Republic and democracy while the Communists were opposed to both, favoring a Russian style communist dictatorship.

The parties on the right were strongly nationalistic and supported large military. They were opposed to social welfare programs, labor unions and progressive taxation. They favored an economy directed by industrialists and landowners with large estates.

They were antisemitic and favored traditional roles for women. The Nationalists were a more traditional Conservative Party, while the National Socialists were a radical party wanting revolutionary change. Both parties publicly supported the Churches and the role of religion in society but some elements in the Nazi Party harbored hostility to traditional religion.

Professor Paul Bookbinder, University of Massachusetts Boston

excerpts

www.facinghistory.org

#127 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-18 04:31 PM | Reply

Can anyone name a credible historian who claims that Hitler was a socialist?

If not this matter is settled AF.

#128 | Posted by Tor at 2020-11-18 06:34 PM | Reply

#128

The person who famously claimed that in a book about a decade ago was none other than that brilliant historian and political mind, son of rwing dirty tricks diva Linda Tripp's friend Lucianne, Jonah Goldberg.

Which was thoroughly debunked at the time:

"Jonah Goldberg's Bizarro History
In his new book, Goldberg has decided to dream up fascists on the left rather than acknowledge that the real American fascists have been lurking in the right's closet for many years.

Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.

What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and that the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist.

Indeed, whole chapters of Mein Kampf are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's animus."

prospect.org

much more at the link

#129 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-18 06:54 PM | Reply

-Can anyone name a credible historian who claims that Hitler was a socialist?

Does anyone care if a credible historian claims Hitler was a socialist?

Personally, this has been good just to learn.

Not that I'm interested in drawing a formal conclusion.

#130 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-18 07:07 PM | Reply

Hard to imagine anyone with any sense claiming that the most extreme proponent of eugenics in human history was a socialist. That only leaves right wingers.

#131 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-11-18 07:09 PM | Reply

"What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities,"

I read that earlier in the thread. socialism was narrowed to the master race. Presumably to recruit support from those folks??

#132 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-18 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort