FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Nazis left or right wing?
Nazis left or right wing?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thread on political spectrum in the UK got derailed by a tangential conversation about the Nazis. One poster claims they were left wing based, it appeared, solely on (some of) their economic policies (and disaggregated that from their social policies and ultimate objectives including militarisation). Another poster was saying they were “socialists” seemingly just to be contrary and didn’t provide any information to support that position. Keen to know what people think, and importantly why? P.S. This is not an attempt to paint either left or right in the modern era as good or bad by trying to associate the Nazis with one or the other. This is just a conversation about something from history and the context of their time." Think this about covers it ! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"National Socialist German Workers. It started off there, but Hitler once he had taken over took it to many places demolishing the governing socialists within the party, it’s what happens when you’re a deranged and unchallenged leader…. They ended up aligned to fascist ideologies as they closed down opposition, at war with communism etc etc. The Nazi party was a socialist party that was hijacked for the manipulation of fascist leader. " The problem is, this defense of left wing will mean every left wing dictatorship becomemes right wing. You can literally never have a left wing dictator if by centralising control under 1 person is fascism. Then thay would always be right wing. Staying would be right wing, mao, etc "Fascism Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy" Every single Authoritarian leader would be right wing, regardless of their social values, economic policies etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"National Socialist German Workers. It started off there, but Hitler once he had taken over took it to many places demolishing the governing socialists within the party, it’s what happens when you’re a deranged and unchallenged leader…. They ended up aligned to fascist ideologies as they closed down opposition, at war with communism etc etc. The Nazi party was a socialist party that was hijacked for the manipulation of fascist leader. The problem is, this defense of left wing will mean every left wing dictatorship becomemes right wing. You can literally never have a left wing dictator if by centralising control under 1 person is fascism. Then thay would always be right wing. Staying would be right wing, mao, etc "Fascism Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy" Every single Authoritarian leader would be right wing, regardless of their social values, economic policies etc. " This is pretty much correct, NK is a perfect example. What I’m saying in my first post is the party was left without doubt, it was not left at the end. Hitler simply held onto the party name. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"National Socialist German Workers. It started off there, but Hitler once he had taken over took it to many places demolishing the governing socialists within the party, it’s what happens when you’re a deranged and unchallenged leader…. They ended up aligned to fascist ideologies as they closed down opposition, at war with communism etc etc. The Nazi party was a socialist party that was hijacked for the manipulation of fascist leader. The problem is, this defense of left wing will mean every left wing dictatorship becomemes right wing. You can literally never have a left wing dictator if by centralising control under 1 person is fascism. Then thay would always be right wing. Staying would be right wing, mao, etc "Fascism Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy" Every single Authoritarian leader would be right wing, regardless of their social values, economic policies etc. This is pretty much correct, NK is a perfect example. What I’m saying in my first post is the party was left without doubt, it was not left at the end. Hitler simply held onto the party name. " Then you can never have a left of centre dictator. So putin and Russia are right wing and so is the usa and the president. Regardless of any other policy. If you have any type of Authoritarian leader that establishment becomes right wing fascist immediately. This to me is nonsensical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Regardless of any other policy. If you have any type of Authoritarian leader that establishment becomes right wing fascist immediately. " In a democracy it’s called statist or enlargement of the states control & influence. it can be left or right. It’s the opposite of libertarian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They were left wing. For the several reasons you were given in the other thread you couldn't refute." Oh they were totally refuted and you then disappeared. You were/are only looking at it through an economic lens which is totally a reductive argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"National Socialist German Workers. It started off there, but Hitler once he had taken over took it to many places demolishing the governing socialists within the party, it’s what happens when you’re a deranged and unchallenged leader…. They ended up aligned to fascist ideologies as they closed down opposition, at war with communism etc etc. The Nazi party was a socialist party that was hijacked for the manipulation of fascist leader. The problem is, this defense of left wing will mean every left wing dictatorship becomemes right wing. You can literally never have a left wing dictator if by centralising control under 1 person is fascism. Then thay would always be right wing. Staying would be right wing, mao, etc "Fascism Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy" Every single Authoritarian leader would be right wing, regardless of their social values, economic policies etc. This is pretty much correct, NK is a perfect example. What I’m saying in my first post is the party was left without doubt, it was not left at the end. Hitler simply held onto the party name. Then you can never have a left of centre dictator. So putin and Russia are right wing and so is the usa and the president. Regardless of any other policy. If you have any type of Authoritarian leader that establishment becomes right wing fascist immediately. This to me is nonsensical. " Errr Putin and Russia are right wing! The Soviet Union is long gone. Stalin was left wing (Communist). Putin most certainly isn’t  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They were left wing. For the several reasons you were given in the other thread you couldn't refute. Oh they were totally refuted and you then disappeared. You were/are only looking at it through an economic lens which is totally a reductive argument." I didn't disappear. You didn't address date actually point made. You might have done later on. But I your immediate replies. You did t address any other their social or economic policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The face of the matter is. Many policies enacted were socialist and the sane policies as many are crying out for today from our government from the left." You only focused on economic policies and disaggregated them from social policies and the ultimate aim of militarisation. You also look at this purely through a 21st Century lens and ignore the geo-political and worldwide economic situation in the 1920s/30s. You do like to extract specific details and then argue only on those points while ignoring context. I see it from you a lot. "I've given 3 absolute examples up above. That they used that power in an extreme authoritatmrian manner doesn't changed the fact that Putting in price controls and factory oversight was left wing." Control (it wasn’t state ownership) over production was subservient to militarisation not a socialist policy. "Promising every 1 a car was left wing." Militarisation again. Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. "Consolidating benefits to the government oversight was left wing" Explain this more please? "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." The Nazis seized property (not just houses but businesses and other belongings too) from ALL Jews not just “rich Jews”. This was not an economic policy it was a social policy. The distribution of Jewish property was also not evenly done. There was no “class war” at work here. This was what was called “social darwinism”. "Many of these policies we have witnessed Jeremy corbyn and his ilk want for the last decade of politics." Off topic and just bait! "Movement away from the gold standard link to your currency for free market price measurements." You’ll have to explain this further? I believe the Gold Standard had been abandoned during WWI before being partially reinstated? Germany had hyper inflation and a banking crisis causing them to leave the Gold Standard didn’t they? Didn’t the UK and USA abandon the Gold Standard during the early 30s? "They are undeniably socialist. You can't re write that history no matter how many blogs you read." The vast majority of historians agree that the Nazis were right wing and opportunists who co-opted policies to gain power before dropping them once attained. The whole “Nazis were left wing” hypotheses kicked off in line with the rise of neo-liberal led deregulation of the labour markets during the 1980s in an attempt to disaccociate “right wing” from the Nazis and imply socialism and worker protection was rooted in evil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I put in multiple policies above. " Huh? Can you address the points put to you! You asked for a response and got it. Now return the favour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discussing things with you Morley is like playing chess with a pigeon! From the other thread... The face of the matter is. Many policies enacted were socialist and the sane policies as many are crying out for today from our government from the left. You only focused on economic policies and disaggregated them from social policies and the ultimate aim of militarisation. You also look at this purely through a 21st Century lens and ignore the geo-political and worldwide economic situation in the 1920s/30s. You do like to extract specific details and then argue only on those points while ignoring context. I see it from you a lot. I've given 3 absolute examples up above. That they used that power in an extreme authoritatmrian manner doesn't changed the fact that Putting in price controls and factory oversight was left wing. Control (it wasn’t state ownership) over production was subservient to militarisation not a socialist policy. Promising every 1 a car was left wing. Militarisation again. Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. Consolidating benefits to the government oversight was left wing Explain this more please? Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing. The Nazis seized property (not just houses but businesses and other belongings too) from ALL Jews not just “rich Jews”. This was not an economic policy it was a social policy. The distribution of Jewish property was also not evenly done. There was no “class war” at work here. This was what was called “social darwinism”. Many of these policies we have witnessed Jeremy corbyn and his ilk want for the last decade of politics. Off topic and just bait! Movement away from the gold standard link to your currency for free market price measurements. You’ll have to explain this further? I believe the Gold Standard had been abandoned during WWI before being partially reinstated? Germany had hyper inflation and a banking crisis causing them to leave the Gold Standard didn’t they? Didn’t the UK and USA abandon the Gold Standard during the early 30s? They are undeniably socialist. You can't re write that history no matter how many blogs you read. The vast majority of historians agree that the Nazis were right wing and opportunists who co-opted policies to gain power before dropping them once attained. The whole “Nazis were left wing” hypotheses kicked off in line with the rise of neo-liberal led deregulation of the labour markets during the 1980s in an attempt to disaccociate “right wing” from the Nazis and imply socialism and worker protection was rooted in evil." Control (it wasn’t state ownership) over production was subservient to militarisation not a socialist policy. If the state controls the material flow, what can be produced in the fsctory. The production is owned by the state. It was state ownership. Cars. Nope. Hitler wanted all workers to own cars. He wanted the factories that produced them able to also build military vehicles. He also gave those workers state holidays for their work, and the state played all unemployed. Sounds socialist to me. Jews properly seizure. Nope I am sorry again. Hitler specifically blamed the rich Jews ( he generalised all Jews as rich, I was not talking about a specific class ofjew) He took their property, wealth,businesses and gave it to the poor and the state. You said I wasn't looking at it through a 1930 lense. Ironically this is exactly what Karl marx envisioned. Gold Standard. Germany broke with this I ww1 it was encourage to bring it back after amd continued to devalue its currency. You might know a famous left wing economic author who argued against the gold standard. Keynes? He influenced policy quite heavily.and yes the uk did abandon it during the Lib lab pact....but they wouldn't have been left wing would they ;-) Do we need to talk about holiday entitlement? Education being surrendered completely to the state? Labour service act of 1935. The labour front was a controlled trade union. When the state controls everything. That's a left wing policy. The state controlled theatres,music,literature. Left wing policy is all about big state intervention and control. Look at modern things left wingers want brought in State cotnrol of water, electricity, transport, oil and gas. Price controls on landlords, taking 2nd homes. These are all policies that the nazi party undertook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jews properly seizure. Nope I am sorry again. Hitler specifically blamed the rich Jews ( he generalised all Jews as rich, I was not talking about a specific class ofjew) He took their property, wealth,businesses and gave it to the poor and the state." You said “rich jews” and I said “all Jews” and now you are claiming you meant something else! We can’t discuss if you change the goalposts or claim you “meant” something else! If they only targeted the “rich” that could be seen as Socialist. But they didn’t. They targeted ALL Jews. This was “social Darwinism” not an economic policy! You repeat what I say then try to pass it off as what you have said! It is bizarre and almost a form if gaslighting! Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cars. Nope. Hitler wanted all workers to own cars. He wanted the factories that produced them able to also build military vehicles." Nope back at ya. He wanted more men to be able to drive so when conscripted the military did not need to train them. He also happened to love cars and saw this as a way to modernise. Glad you agree Hitler’s focus was militarisation and turning key industries towards that aim. Nothing to do with socialism! "He also gave those workers state holidays for their work, and the state played all unemployed. Sounds socialist to me." Are you honestly trying to claim that only socialist countries have state holidays? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the state controls the material flow, what can be produced in the fsctory. The production is owned by the state. It was state ownership." Let’s keep repeating this to see if it will sink in. All policies were subservient to militarisation. And these companies remained in private hands. Look at Krupp as a prime example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh and Keynes. Yep some argue he was left wing but others argue he was in the centre ground and during the 30s his focus was on rebuilding economies following the Great Depression." And thisnianwhere we enter the twilight zone when Keynes is considered centre ground. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morley lots there so will look when I get enough time but for now one jumped out... Jews properly seizure. Nope I am sorry again. Hitler specifically blamed the rich Jews ( he generalised all Jews as rich, I was not talking about a specific class ofjew) He took their property, wealth,businesses and gave it to the poor and the state. You said “rich jews” and I said “all Jews” and now you are claiming you meant something else! We can’t discuss if you change the goalposts or claim you “meant” something else! If they only targeted the “rich” that could be seen as Socialist. But they didn’t. They targeted ALL Jews. This was “social Darwinism” not an economic policy! You repeat what I say then try to pass it off as what you have said! It is bizarre and almost a form if gaslighting! Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read!" No goalposts were changed. All property and assets were seized business handed out. The Jews were considered rich vs the working man...rich Jews. This was what Hitler used to described them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the meantime here’s a long post for you to digest. Aims of Nazi economic policy: 1. To maintain the support of the population. (i.e. feeding the population, providing basic needs) 2. To make Germany a global military and industrial superpower. Resources devoted to either aim varied over time. The most important aspect of Nazi economic policy was that there was no genuine planning or theory guiding it. By Nazi viewpoint, the economy was not as pressing an issue as genetics or militarism, despite the fact that the latter was intrinsically linked to the strength of the economy; Hitler was firmly rooted in his ‘herrenvolk’ ideas, believing that the Aryan people would triumph no matter what, and himself often proclaimed that “the economy is something of secondary importance”. Time periods of Nazi economic policies: Nazi economic priorities changed over the course of the Third Reich: split into four periods. 1. 1933 – 1936: ‘Partial Fascism’ 2. 1936 – 1939: ‘Four Year Plan’ 3. 1939 – 1942: ‘Blitzkrieg’ 4. 1942 – 1945: ‘Total War’ Nazi Germany had no definite or consistent economic theory; policies changed drastically as time progressed. In other words Morley you cannot only point to Nazi economic policy (which was mutable) and say “look they were socialists!” You cannot disaggregate economic policy from social policy and their end game of militarisation. Nor can you view any of their pre-war policies without consideration to the worldwide situation in the 1920s/30s! CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT" This feels like a copy paste with no relevance to nazi left or right wing social and economic policy. When you want to discuss the othe rooints I have rebuttaled feel free. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cars. Nope. Hitler wanted all workers to own cars. He wanted the factories that produced them able to also build military vehicles. Nope back at ya. He wanted more men to be able to drive so when conscripted the military did not need to train them. He also happened to love cars and saw this as a way to modernise. Glad you agree Hitler’s focus was militarisation and turning key industries towards that aim. Nothing to do with socialism! He also gave those workers state holidays for their work, and the state played all unemployed. Sounds socialist to me. Are you honestly trying to claim that only socialist countries have state holidays?" Nope . it's well documented the labour force were to have a car . Yes both left and right wing governments have armies colour me shocked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the state controls the material flow, what can be produced in the fsctory. The production is owned by the state. It was state ownership. Let’s keep repeating this to see if it will sink in. All policies were subservient to militarisation. And these companies remained in private hands. Look at Krupp as a prime example." Regardless of militarisation...the state controlled the flow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morley lots there so will look when I get enough time but for now one jumped out... Jews properly seizure. Nope I am sorry again. Hitler specifically blamed the rich Jews ( he generalised all Jews as rich, I was not talking about a specific class ofjew) He took their property, wealth,businesses and gave it to the poor and the state. You said “rich jews” and I said “all Jews” and now you are claiming you meant something else! We can’t discuss if you change the goalposts or claim you “meant” something else! If they only targeted the “rich” that could be seen as Socialist. But they didn’t. They targeted ALL Jews. This was “social Darwinism” not an economic policy! You repeat what I say then try to pass it off as what you have said! It is bizarre and almost a form if gaslighting! Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read! No goalposts were changed. All property and assets were seized business handed out. The Jews were considered rich vs the working man...rich Jews. This was what Hitler used to described them. " Nope you were claiming it was “rich Jews” implying this was was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution. On this thread and the other. I have always responded “ALL Jews” but instead of accepting that you continued saying “rich Jews”. You are now saying “not what I meant”.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morley lots there so will look when I get enough time but for now one jumped out... Jews properly seizure. Nope I am sorry again. Hitler specifically blamed the rich Jews ( he generalised all Jews as rich, I was not talking about a specific class ofjew) He took their property, wealth,businesses and gave it to the poor and the state. You said “rich jews” and I said “all Jews” and now you are claiming you meant something else! We can’t discuss if you change the goalposts or claim you “meant” something else! If they only targeted the “rich” that could be seen as Socialist. But they didn’t. They targeted ALL Jews. This was “social Darwinism” not an economic policy! You repeat what I say then try to pass it off as what you have said! It is bizarre and almost a form if gaslighting! Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read! No goalposts were changed. All property and assets were seized business handed out. The Jews were considered rich vs the working man...rich Jews. This was what Hitler used to described them. Nope you were claiming it was “rich Jews” implying this was was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution. On this thread and the other. I have always responded “ALL Jews” but instead of accepting that you continued saying “rich Jews”. You are now saying “not what I meant”. "No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cars. Nope. Hitler wanted all workers to own cars. He wanted the factories that produced them able to also build military vehicles. Nope back at ya. He wanted more men to be able to drive so when conscripted the military did not need to train them. He also happened to love cars and saw this as a way to modernise. Glad you agree Hitler’s focus was militarisation and turning key industries towards that aim. Nothing to do with socialism! He also gave those workers state holidays for their work, and the state played all unemployed. Sounds socialist to me. Are you honestly trying to claim that only socialist countries have state holidays? Nope . it's well documented the labour force were to have a car . Yes both left and right wing governments have armies colour me shocked. " Nope this was not a socialist policy. It was rooted in militarisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re: holidays. Stronger workers rights. More holidays. We have one here called labour day. Are you denying now that typically more right wing focus on getting the most out the employees? And that stronger workers rights aren't seen as left wing politics? Again twilight zone." Worker’s rights! Seriously have you actually looked into this? The owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re: holidays. Stronger workers rights. More holidays. We have one here called labour day. Are you denying now that typically more right wing focus on getting the most out the employees? And that stronger workers rights aren't seen as left wing politics? Again twilight zone. Worker’s rights! Seriously have you actually looked into this? The owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level." I'm enjoying this ping pong 
When you say collective bargaining, do you mean unions? Or was it something else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re: holidays. Stronger workers rights. More holidays. We have one here called labour day. Are you denying now that typically more right wing focus on getting the most out the employees? And that stronger workers rights aren't seen as left wing politics? Again twilight zone. Worker’s rights! Seriously have you actually looked into this? The owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level." You were made employed by the state. You were given holidays. You were given food shelter drink. Striking was banned. But the unions existed for the work force. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Far left. Corbyn was a fascist too - as are Momentum & all the intelligentsia at the BBC, Guardian and RG universities " Lol ….how was Corbyn facist ?!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re: holidays. Stronger workers rights. More holidays. We have one here called labour day. Are you denying now that typically more right wing focus on getting the most out the employees? And that stronger workers rights aren't seen as left wing politics? Again twilight zone. Worker’s rights! Seriously have you actually looked into this? The owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level. You were made employed by the state. You were given holidays. You were given food shelter drink. Striking was banned. But the unions existed for the work force. " Nope. Trade Unions were banned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism " Are you saying at the end of the nazi party they still were socialists? As I mentioned earlier the party was socialist and that is a fact, at the end it wasn’t, it was changed beyond recognition by hitler. Some of the things you mentioned were pre socialist slip of the nazi party. The beetle being one of those things, it was an idea before ww2 and it was to provide the German people transport, but it was also the building of manufacturing plants that would be used to provide munitions and support for the forth coming war. Hitler was providing for his people, because he needed his people to provide for his ideals, he was popular because of this. He used the party to hide his motives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism " No it was militarism. How many times do you have to be told: 1. Stop looking at this from a 2023 lens. 2. You cannot disaggregate economic policy from social policy and the end game of militarisation. Tedious. Sometimes Morley you need to realise that your right wing echo chamber has been feeding you incorrect revisionist information. This isn’t just me saying this. It is virtually all the credible historians in the world for almost a century. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism Are you saying at the end of the nazi party they still were socialists? As I mentioned earlier the party was socialist and that is a fact, at the end it wasn’t, it was changed beyond recognition by hitler. Some of the things you mentioned were pre socialist slip of the nazi party. The beetle being one of those things, it was an idea before ww2 and it was to provide the German people transport, but it was also the building of manufacturing plants that would be used to provide munitions and support for the forth coming war. Hitler was providing for his people, because he needed his people to provide for his ideals, he was popular because of this. He used the party to hide his motives." Thanks @NotMe. Indeed the early Nazi party had roots in socialism, although not everyone. Once Hitler took control, over time the left wing elements in the party were purged. As per my post above, that Morley dismissed as cut n paste (from where though is the question) the Nazi economic plans were mutable. Hitler himself declared “the economy is something of secondary importance” yet that is all Morley is focused on to win his argument! Bizarre! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morley lots there so will look when I get enough time but for now one jumped out... Jews properly seizure. Nope I am sorry again. Hitler specifically blamed the rich Jews ( he generalised all Jews as rich, I was not talking about a specific class ofjew) He took their property, wealth,businesses and gave it to the poor and the state. You said “rich jews” and I said “all Jews” and now you are claiming you meant something else! We can’t discuss if you change the goalposts or claim you “meant” something else! If they only targeted the “rich” that could be seen as Socialist. But they didn’t. They targeted ALL Jews. This was “social Darwinism” not an economic policy! You repeat what I say then try to pass it off as what you have said! It is bizarre and almost a form if gaslighting! Trouble is the posts are all there for anyone to read! No goalposts were changed. All property and assets were seized business handed out. The Jews were considered rich vs the working man...rich Jews. This was what Hitler used to described them. Nope you were claiming it was “rich Jews” implying this was was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution. On this thread and the other. I have always responded “ALL Jews” but instead of accepting that you continued saying “rich Jews”. You are now saying “not what I meant”.
No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich.
Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing."You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh and Keynes. Yep some argue he was left wing but others argue he was in the centre ground and during the 30s his focus was on rebuilding economies following the Great Depression. And thisnianwhere we enter the twilight zone when Keynes is considered centre ground. " A product of his times and the need to drive economic recovery after the Great Depression. Here’s a cut n paste that you will again dismiss... Bartlett reckons that “Keynes was almost in every respect a conservative, both in philosophy and temperament, although he identifies himself as a liberal throughout his life. His conservatism was largely a function of his class. When asked why he was not a member of the Labour Party, he replied; “to begin with it is a class party and that class in not my class.. and the class war will find me on the side of educated bourgeoisie.” Conservative icon Edmund Burke was one of his political heroes. Keynes expressed contempt for the British Labour Party, calling its members “sectarians of an outworn creed mumbling moss-grown demi-semi Fabian Marxism.” He also termed the British Labour Party an “immense destructive force” that responded to “anti-communist rubbish with anti-capitalist rubbish.” Keynes’ ‘socialism’ was openly designed as an alternative to the dangerous and erroneous ideas of what he thought was Marxism. State socialism, he said, “is, in fact, little better than a dusty survival of a plan to meet the problems of fifty years ago, based on a misunderstanding of what someone said a hundred years ago.” So no fan of socialism! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re: holidays. Stronger workers rights. More holidays. We have one here called labour day. Are you denying now that typically more right wing focus on getting the most out the employees? And that stronger workers rights aren't seen as left wing politics? Again twilight zone. Worker’s rights! Seriously have you actually looked into this? The owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level. I'm enjoying this ping pong
When you say collective bargaining, do you mean unions? Or was it something else?"The entire concept of collective bargaining but also Trade Unions were banned. Ping Pong would be more fun than trying to play chess with a pigeon. This thread reminds me of the saying on rhe difference between “knowing you’re shit” and “knowing your shit” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re: holidays. Stronger workers rights. More holidays. We have one here called labour day. Are you denying now that typically more right wing focus on getting the most out the employees? And that stronger workers rights aren't seen as left wing politics? Again twilight zone. Worker’s rights! Seriously have you actually looked into this? The owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level. I'm enjoying this ping pong
When you say collective bargaining, do you mean unions? Or was it something else?
The entire concept of collective bargaining but also Trade Unions were banned.
Ping Pong would be more fun than trying to play chess with a pigeon.
This thread reminds me of the saying on rhe difference between “knowing you’re shit” and “knowing your shit” "The reason I asked is collective bargaining is definitely a left wing thing. If someone cancels it, I could comfortably assume they're right wing, at least in that policy decision. As I said before, I don't know a fuck ton of Nazi policies, it is interesting to read that they were socialists until Hitler. Well not really that interesting but that'll be why people argue the Nazis were Socialists. I think what we have is when people speak of Nazis, they're actually speaking of Hitlers regime. Have I got all that right? It's so fucking hard to makes heads of this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who say the Nazis were left wing don’t understand politics, ideologies or history. Presumably they also believe that North Korea is a democratic republic, and that east Germany was too. They’re probably very confused when they read about seahorses. " You say that but above we have Birldn (history degree I think) saying the Nazis had roots in Socialism until Hitler took over (at least i think thats what hes saying). Who is it that doesn't understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who say the Nazis were left wing don’t understand politics, ideologies or history. Presumably they also believe that North Korea is a democratic republic, and that east Germany was too. They’re probably very confused when they read about seahorses. You say that but above we have Birldn (history degree I think) saying the Nazis had roots in Socialism until Hitler took over (at least i think thats what hes saying). Who is it that doesn't understand?" It IS more complicated then that but unless you were REALLY interested I won’t bore you. SOME aspects of the early Nazi party (or more accurately SOME people) believed in SOME aspects of socialism. They were eradicated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Far left. Corbyn was a fascist too - as are Momentum & all the intelligentsia at the BBC, Guardian and RG universities " This stuff is hilarious. The Guardian, and indeed the BBC, are milquetoast centrists. Mildly left of centre at best. The Guardian hated Corbyn. Some people's brains would explode if any genuinely meaningful hard left presence existed in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who say the Nazis were left wing don’t understand politics, ideologies or history. Presumably they also believe that North Korea is a democratic republic, and that east Germany was too. They’re probably very confused when they read about seahorses. You say that but above we have Birldn (history degree I think) saying the Nazis had roots in Socialism until Hitler took over (at least i think thats what hes saying). Who is it that doesn't understand? It IS more complicated then that but unless you were REALLY interested I won’t bore you. SOME aspects of the early Nazi party (or more accurately SOME people) believed in SOME aspects of socialism. They were eradicated. " I'm sure it is more complicated than that. I was just making the point that it's ridiculous to say people 'don't understand', of course they don't, as you say, it's complicated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them." Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this?" During my degree (some years back now, too many) I read a lot and was able to visit some archives. This wasn’t my idea! And for avoidance of doubt that wasn’t the only reason but it was a reason. As with many things the Volks Wagen was rooted in Hitler/Nazi militarisation aims. Factory capacity. Military versions of the car. Financial injection into the state via the saving scheme for the car (which nobody ever received BTW). That is not to say there weren’t also other aspects including modernisation of the economy, but I raised it to argue against the concept that it was a socialist policy. It wasn’t. It was multi-faceted but not socialist. As NotMe has said above, a “people’s car” wasn’t even the idea of Hitler or the Nazis and predated them by at least a decade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism " Absolute nonsense, what you refer to there is communism. Probably the most important lie being perpetrated today, state ownership is socialism. Scotland trains service is state owened, airport, state opened, ship yard state opened, vast swaths of Englans train service move between the state and private sectore. Are they all Communist? Cmon now be realistic in your words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them." "Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this?" "During my degree (some years back now, too many) I read a lot and was able to visit some archives. This wasn’t my idea! And for avoidance of doubt that wasn’t the only reason but it was a reason. As with many things the Volks Wagen was rooted in Hitler/Nazi militarisation aims. Factory capacity. Military versions of the car. Financial injection into the state via the saving scheme for the car (which nobody ever received BTW). That is not to say there weren’t also other aspects including modernisation of the economy, but I raised it to argue against the concept that it was a socialist policy. It wasn’t. It was multi-faceted but not socialist. As NotMe has said above, a “people’s car” wasn’t even the idea of Hitler or the Nazis and predated them by at least a decade." I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that Hitler wanted the Volkswagen because it would teach people to drive, and yet you acknowledge that it wasn't Hitler's idea, and that no one ever got their cars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this? During my degree (some years back now, too many) I read a lot and was able to visit some archives. This wasn’t my idea! And for avoidance of doubt that wasn’t the only reason but it was a reason. As with many things the Volks Wagen was rooted in Hitler/Nazi militarisation aims. Factory capacity. Military versions of the car. Financial injection into the state via the saving scheme for the car (which nobody ever received BTW). That is not to say there weren’t also other aspects including modernisation of the economy, but I raised it to argue against the concept that it was a socialist policy. It wasn’t. It was multi-faceted but not socialist. As NotMe has said above, a “people’s car” wasn’t even the idea of Hitler or the Nazis and predated them by at least a decade. I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that Hitler wanted the Volkswagen because it would teach people to drive, and yet you acknowledge that it wasn't Hitler's idea, and that no one ever got their cars." Yes the contradiction is weird. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re: holidays. Stronger workers rights. More holidays. We have one here called labour day. Are you denying now that typically more right wing focus on getting the most out the employees? And that stronger workers rights aren't seen as left wing politics? Again twilight zone. Worker’s rights! Seriously have you actually looked into this? The owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level. You were made employed by the state. You were given holidays. You were given food shelter drink. Striking was banned. But the unions existed for the work force. Nope. Trade Unions were banned." Dod you not understand the labour front? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism Are you saying at the end of the nazi party they still were socialists? As I mentioned earlier the party was socialist and that is a fact, at the end it wasn’t, it was changed beyond recognition by hitler. Some of the things you mentioned were pre socialist slip of the nazi party. The beetle being one of those things, it was an idea before ww2 and it was to provide the German people transport, but it was also the building of manufacturing plants that would be used to provide munitions and support for the forth coming war. Hitler was providing for his people, because he needed his people to provide for his ideals, he was popular because of this. He used the party to hide his motives." They certainly werent right wing. Which particular policies do you consider to be right wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this? During my degree (some years back now, too many) I read a lot and was able to visit some archives. This wasn’t my idea! And for avoidance of doubt that wasn’t the only reason but it was a reason. As with many things the Volks Wagen was rooted in Hitler/Nazi militarisation aims. Factory capacity. Military versions of the car. Financial injection into the state via the saving scheme for the car (which nobody ever received BTW). That is not to say there weren’t also other aspects including modernisation of the economy, but I raised it to argue against the concept that it was a socialist policy. It wasn’t. It was multi-faceted but not socialist. As NotMe has said above, a “people’s car” wasn’t even the idea of Hitler or the Nazis and predated them by at least a decade. I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that Hitler wanted the Volkswagen because it would teach people to drive, and yet you acknowledge that it wasn't Hitler's idea, and that no one ever got their cars." The difference between desired outcomes and actual outcomes and that policies were mutable. Again not the only intent but as I have said, most/many things the Nazis did was subservient to militarisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this? During my degree (some years back now, too many) I read a lot and was able to visit some archives. This wasn’t my idea! And for avoidance of doubt that wasn’t the only reason but it was a reason. As with many things the Volks Wagen was rooted in Hitler/Nazi militarisation aims. Factory capacity. Military versions of the car. Financial injection into the state via the saving scheme for the car (which nobody ever received BTW). That is not to say there weren’t also other aspects including modernisation of the economy, but I raised it to argue against the concept that it was a socialist policy. It wasn’t. It was multi-faceted but not socialist. As NotMe has said above, a “people’s car” wasn’t even the idea of Hitler or the Nazis and predated them by at least a decade. I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that Hitler wanted the Volkswagen because it would teach people to drive, and yet you acknowledge that it wasn't Hitler's idea, and that no one ever got their cars. The difference between desired outcomes and actual outcomes and that policies were mutable. Again not the only intent but as I have said, most/many things the Nazis did was subservient to militarisation. " Again. Why does an army make you right wing? I am.not sure of your defense here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism Absolute nonsense, what you refer to there is communism. Probably the most important lie being perpetrated today, state ownership is socialism. Scotland trains service is state owened, airport, state opened, ship yard state opened, vast swaths of Englans train service move between the state and private sectore. Are they all Communist? Cmon now be realistic in your words." Not nonsense at all. This is left and right wing policies. This is what you argue today about being tbe free and controlled market. You can't argue tbe tories want to lrivatise tbe NHS by outsourcing to private firms. The argue that the state controlling everything isn't left wing. Pick your stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just can't fathom how. The state taking control of every aspect isn't left wing. Yet they argue that policies of the uk gov over the years privatising health, water, electricity, oil is right wing. I wish they'd make up their minds." You need to read more and understand beyond your bubble. Stop only using an economic lens to argue the Nazis were socialist and understand the importance of militarisation. I could post 000s of words on this but you won’t read it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this? During my degree (some years back now, too many) I read a lot and was able to visit some archives. This wasn’t my idea! And for avoidance of doubt that wasn’t the only reason but it was a reason. As with many things the Volks Wagen was rooted in Hitler/Nazi militarisation aims. Factory capacity. Military versions of the car. Financial injection into the state via the saving scheme for the car (which nobody ever received BTW). That is not to say there weren’t also other aspects including modernisation of the economy, but I raised it to argue against the concept that it was a socialist policy. It wasn’t. It was multi-faceted but not socialist. As NotMe has said above, a “people’s car” wasn’t even the idea of Hitler or the Nazis and predated them by at least a decade. I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that Hitler wanted the Volkswagen because it would teach people to drive, and yet you acknowledge that it wasn't Hitler's idea, and that no one ever got their cars. Yes the contradiction is weird." There is no contradiction. Time moves forward. Intent and outcomes do not always match up. Exogenous events change plans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just can't fathom how. The state taking control of every aspect isn't left wing. Yet they argue that policies of the uk gov over the years privatising health, water, electricity, oil is right wing. I wish they'd make up their minds. You need to read more and understand beyond your bubble. Stop only using an economic lens to argue the Nazis were socialist and understand the importance of militarisation. I could post 000s of words on this but you won’t read it." I'm not using an economic lense. I used several policies Economic and social. It's state (public) vs private and free market supply and control. Again...why is militarisation a right wing policy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this? During my degree (some years back now, too many) I read a lot and was able to visit some archives. This wasn’t my idea! And for avoidance of doubt that wasn’t the only reason but it was a reason. As with many things the Volks Wagen was rooted in Hitler/Nazi militarisation aims. Factory capacity. Military versions of the car. Financial injection into the state via the saving scheme for the car (which nobody ever received BTW). That is not to say there weren’t also other aspects including modernisation of the economy, but I raised it to argue against the concept that it was a socialist policy. It wasn’t. It was multi-faceted but not socialist. As NotMe has said above, a “people’s car” wasn’t even the idea of Hitler or the Nazis and predated them by at least a decade. I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that Hitler wanted the Volkswagen because it would teach people to drive, and yet you acknowledge that it wasn't Hitler's idea, and that no one ever got their cars. Yes the contradiction is weird. There is no contradiction. Time moves forward. Intent and outcomes do not always match up. Exogenous events change plans." There certainly is. And you need to make up your mind. Using your same argument. Maggie thatcher removing tbe state control of water, phone, and rail wasn't privatisation and right wing policy. Things move on. Exogenous events change plans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re: holidays. Stronger workers rights. More holidays. We have one here called labour day. Are you denying now that typically more right wing focus on getting the most out the employees? And that stronger workers rights aren't seen as left wing politics? Again twilight zone. Worker’s rights! Seriously have you actually looked into this? The owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level. You were made employed by the state. You were given holidays. You were given food shelter drink. Striking was banned. But the unions existed for the work force. Nope. Trade Unions were banned. Dod you not understand the labour front? " I don’t think you do!!!! The German Labour Front (DAF) was then created in May 1933 as the organization that was to take over the assets seized from the former trade unions. Robert Ley, who had no previous experience in labour relations, was appointed by Hitler to lead the DAF upon its creation. Three weeks later, Hitler issued a decree that banned collective bargaining and stated that a group of labour trustees, appointed by him, would "regulate labour contracts" and maintain "labour peace." This decree effectively outlawed strikes, since workers could not oppose the decisions of the trustees. Meanwhile, Robert Ley promised "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory—that is, the employer... Only the employer can decide." The leadership of the DAF stressed that there was no need for antagonism between workers and employers in the new Nazi state. To underline this, its laws were couched in a neo-feudal language of reciprocity. This new system of industrial relations represented a major victory for the employers, backed by the Nazi leadership, who needed the co-operation of industry in their drive to rearm. Seriously Morley, just admit this is not a topic you know a lot about! I know you are a smart guy and know a lot about certain things. But not Nazi Germany. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitler wanted increased car ownership so that more men could drive so that when they were drafted into the army, they didn’t have to train them. Where do you get this idea from? Is there any evidence for this? During my degree (some years back now, too many) I read a lot and was able to visit some archives. This wasn’t my idea! And for avoidance of doubt that wasn’t the only reason but it was a reason. As with many things the Volks Wagen was rooted in Hitler/Nazi militarisation aims. Factory capacity. Military versions of the car. Financial injection into the state via the saving scheme for the car (which nobody ever received BTW). That is not to say there weren’t also other aspects including modernisation of the economy, but I raised it to argue against the concept that it was a socialist policy. It wasn’t. It was multi-faceted but not socialist. As NotMe has said above, a “people’s car” wasn’t even the idea of Hitler or the Nazis and predated them by at least a decade. I'm interested in how you come to the conclusion that Hitler wanted the Volkswagen because it would teach people to drive, and yet you acknowledge that it wasn't Hitler's idea, and that no one ever got their cars. The difference between desired outcomes and actual outcomes and that policies were mutable. Again not the only intent but as I have said, most/many things the Nazis did was subservient to militarisation. Again. Why does an army make you right wing? I am.not sure of your defense here?" I haven’t said having an army makes you right wing? Show me where I have? Patently ridiculous attempt at misdirection! You are arguing that the Nazis were left wing or socialists based purely on a range of their economic policies. My argument is two fold: 1. All economic policies were subservient to the delivery of militarisation. 2. Defining whether the Nazis are left/right cannot be done on the basis of one dimension so you cannot disaggregate economic policy (see point 1 anyway) from social policy from end game. My argument throughout has been consistent so you are clearly not reading. BTW no reply on the “rich Jews” point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism Absolute nonsense, what you refer to there is communism. Probably the most important lie being perpetrated today, state ownership is socialism. Scotland trains service is state owened, airport, state opened, ship yard state opened, vast swaths of Englans train service move between the state and private sectore. Are they all Communist? Cmon now be realistic in your words. Not nonsense at all. This is left and right wing policies. This is what you argue today about being tbe free and controlled market. You can't argue tbe tories want to lrivatise tbe NHS by outsourcing to private firms. The argue that the state controlling everything isn't left wing. Pick your stance." Once again you betray the point that you are looking at this from a 2023 lens and what matters is the contemporary conditions and wider landscape. It is because you are an accountant and not a historian  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism Absolute nonsense, what you refer to there is communism. Probably the most important lie being perpetrated today, state ownership is socialism. Scotland trains service is state owened, airport, state opened, ship yard state opened, vast swaths of Englans train service move between the state and private sectore. Are they all Communist? Cmon now be realistic in your words. Not nonsense at all. This is left and right wing policies. This is what you argue today about being tbe free and controlled market. You can't argue tbe tories want to lrivatise tbe NHS by outsourcing to private firms. The argue that the state controlling everything isn't left wing. Pick your stance." I genuinely do not know what your point is there. One point though, why do I have to pick my stance, you can have both left of centre, centrist and right of centre views can you not. You can easily be a socalist and a capitalist, it is how the vast majority of Europe works. Advocating certain industries be nationalised isn't socalist policies, it is merely an attempt to ensure that your capitalist ventures have the correct support structures long term to succeed for the majority and not bring short term profits to the few. Anyway....I'm making a cuppa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again you betray the point that you are looking at this from a 2023 lens and what matters is the contemporary conditions and wider landscape. It is because you are an accountant and not a historian "It seems to me that you are the one looking at it from a 2023 lens. You seem to have looked at Hitler and seen (rightly) that he was a horrible dictator, and so you've assumed that he was the same horrible dictator for the whole of his life. You've then gone further and assumed that all of his actions from an early age were part of a big plan to get himself into power. I don't see Hitler that way. I see him as a man who genuinely believed that the German people were being oppressed, and set out to do something about it. The 'pure Aryan blood' idea which looks so bad today, made a lot of sense back then when Lamarckian genetics was the popular theory. To go back to my previous example, I believe that Hitler promoted the People's Car idea because he thought it would be good for the German people. In 1934 when it was first discussed, war wasn't on most people's minds. Obviously things changed later on as war became more inevitable, but I don't agree that Hitler got onboard with the project solely to improve his war machine. People do change over the years, and it seems clear to me that Hitler started as a socialist, and then got progressively further away from his ideals as time went on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again you betray the point that you are looking at this from a 2023 lens and what matters is the contemporary conditions and wider landscape. It is because you are an accountant and not a historian
It seems to me that you are the one looking at it from a 2023 lens. You seem to have looked at Hitler and seen (rightly) that he was a horrible dictator, and so you've assumed that he was the same horrible dictator for the whole of his life. You've then gone further and assumed that all of his actions from an early age were part of a big plan to get himself into power.
I don't see Hitler that way. I see him as a man who genuinely believed that the German people were being oppressed, and set out to do something about it. The 'pure Aryan blood' idea which looks so bad today, made a lot of sense back then when Lamarckian genetics was the popular theory.
To go back to my previous example, I believe that Hitler promoted the People's Car idea because he thought it would be good for the German people. In 1934 when it was first discussed, war wasn't on most people's minds. Obviously things changed later on as war became more inevitable, but I don't agree that Hitler got onboard with the project solely to improve his war machine.
People do change over the years, and it seems clear to me that Hitler started as a socialist, and then got progressively further away from his ideals as time went on."What an odd take on what I have posted? I haven’t remotely talked about Hitler’s early years or how he rose to prominence in the Nazi Party. Your point on war not being on most people’s minds seems odd to. It was certainly on Hitler’s mind (and the top Nazis) as an inevitability. Have you read Mein Kampf? If not then do and check out when it was written. German expansion was an economic necessity that was only going to be possible though conflict. So the German economy needed to be geared up for militarisation. You seem focused on the car so let’s break that down: - The idea of an affordable “people’s car” predated Hitler and the Nazis rise to power. - After becoming Chancellor the idea was co-opted by Hitler who commissioned Porsche to design it. - The intent provided multiple perceived benefits while being promoted as an aspiration for German people (in no particular order): - Development of manufacturing processes that could be used for military application. - Modernisation towards a more mechanised society. - Potential for future export. - Increased numbers of men able to drive. - Creation of a source of income to the Govt via the saving scheme (needed 900 reichmarks I think, would need to look up) whereby people bought stamps for future trade in against their order. - However, WWII arrived sooner than expected in Sept 1939 and the Nazis had to shift manufacturing focus to support the military. - Not one of the cars that had been saved up for and paid/ordered was ever delivered (the first VW “Beetle” only got delivered after the war) - although Hitler took delivery of a prototype (convertible I think). - During WWII the VW factories used sl@ve labour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And...silence! How typical. "If you refuse to listen to what other people are saying, fail to provide any counter points to their arguments, and just continue repeating your own view with no evidence to back it up, eventually everyone will just get bored of being lectured at and will go find something more productive to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And...silence! How typical.
If you refuse to listen to what other people are saying, fail to provide any counter points to their arguments, and just continue repeating your own view with no evidence to back it up, eventually everyone will just get bored of being lectured at and will go find something more productive to do."Errr the entire thread is counter points! I did not see you or others providing “evidence” just opinion. Morley asserts a range of economic policies and says that proves they were socialist. I counter that by saying you cannot disaggregate their economic policies from social policies and their drive to militarisation. AND it has to be viewed in the context of their times (great depression etc). One example was Morley being completely wrong about Trade Unions and the Labour Front. Another was his assertion (then backtracking) on the seizure of houses from “rich Jews” in an effort to paint it as a socialist economic policy of wealth redistribution. He was wrong. You seem to be saying Hitler and the Nazis were left wing/socialist on the basis of their thinking earlier in life without acknowledging that this clearly evolved. I countered that but you feel “lectured”? Is it being lectured at if someone provides information to counter your argument that you are then unable to refute? As I have said, I have not seen counter arguments to my points, only opinion. As for “evidence” well any links would be against forum rules as not news sources. If you are genuinely interested (I doubt you are) you can DM me and I can point you to a tonne of evidence! So that said what is your point? Do you think the Nazis and Hitler were left wing/Socialist and if so on what basis and why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And...silence! How typical." "If you refuse to listen to what other people are saying, fail to provide any counter points to their arguments, and just continue repeating your own view with no evidence to back it up, eventually everyone will just get bored of being lectured at and will go find something more productive to do." "Errr the entire thread is counter points! ..." It really isn't. Earlier on I said "I believe that Hitler promoted the People's Car idea because he thought it would be good for the German people". You then replied with a repeat of your assertion that it was for military purposes. You've not given any evidence for that, no memoirs, interviews, written material, contemporary analysis, nothing, you just keep repeating it as if that will make it more real. You've also not addressed the idea that Hitler might have thought that it would be good for the German people, you just keep repeating that it wasn't his idea, and that it didn't work anyway. So on the one hand you're saying that it wasn't socialist because it was his devious military plan, and on the other hand you're saying that even if we think it was socialist it doesn't count because it wasn't his idea. That's not a joined up argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And...silence! How typical. If you refuse to listen to what other people are saying, fail to provide any counter points to their arguments, and just continue repeating your own view with no evidence to back it up, eventually everyone will just get bored of being lectured at and will go find something more productive to do. Errr the entire thread is counter points! ... It really isn't. Earlier on I said "I believe that Hitler promoted the People's Car idea because he thought it would be good for the German people". You then replied with a repeat of your assertion that it was for military purposes. You've not given any evidence for that, no memoirs, interviews, written material, contemporary analysis, nothing, you just keep repeating it as if that will make it more real. You've also not addressed the idea that Hitler might have thought that it would be good for the German people, you just keep repeating that it wasn't his idea, and that it didn't work anyway. So on the one hand you're saying that it wasn't socialist because it was his devious military plan, and on the other hand you're saying that even if we think it was socialist it doesn't count because it wasn't his idea. That's not a joined up argument." Ok I kind of see the point you are making but am now confused. Did none of this provide wider context regarding the car... "You seem focused on the car so let’s break that down: - The idea of an affordable “people’s car” predated Hitler and the Nazis rise to power. - After becoming Chancellor the idea was co-opted by Hitler who commissioned Porsche to design it. - The intent provided multiple perceived benefits while being promoted as an aspiration for German people (in no particular order): - Development of manufacturing processes that could be used for military application. - Modernisation towards a more mechanised society. - Potential for future export. - Increased numbers of men able to drive. - Creation of a source of income to the Govt via the saving scheme (needed 900 reichmarks I think, would need to look up) whereby people bought stamps for future trade in against their order. - However, WWII arrived sooner than expected in Sept 1939 and the Nazis had to shift manufacturing focus to support the military. - Not one of the cars that had been saved up for and paid/ordered was ever delivered (the first VW “Beetle” only got delivered after the war) - although Hitler took delivery of a prototype (convertible I think). - During WWII the VW factories used sl@ve labour." I wasn’t saying it doesn’t count as it wasn’t his idea? Just stating some facts about the car (context). It is interesting the disconnect between what I wrote and how you read it. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough? NotMe also raised the point on the idea of the car predating Hitler. Was his post clearer though? With that full context around the car, do you still say it is a socialist policy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You then replied with a repeat of your assertion that it was for military purposes. You've not given any evidence for that, no memoirs, interviews, written material, contemporary analysis, nothing, you just keep repeating it as if that will make it more real." well the same can be said about your points! Where is your evidence? My argument is based on research and a lot of reading (including conclusions agreed by the majority of historians). It is also evidenced by the reality of what happened, people did provide funds into the state in return to be able to order a car that in the end they never received. The factories did shift their assembly lines to military applications. If the Volks Wagen had been a socialist policy then surely the state would have intended to provide the cars gratis (or in return for labour/services)? What actually happened is the people who wanted one had to but 5 reichmark stamps and stick them in a book until they had 990 worth. They could then place an order. Apparently on avg salaries it was expected to take 4yrs to save enough - note not save up yourself and get interest from the bank, but pay the state upfront. So ONE aspect of the VW was to fund the state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument is based on research and a lot of reading ... It is also evidenced by the reality of what happened ..." As I said earlier, you seem to be looking at the outcomes, and then assuming that all the decisions were designed to produce that outcome. Let's imagine that the idea of a People's Car was in fact a social policy. How would you plan such a policy? You'd obviously need a government funded factory to build the cars, though you might want to run it as a private company. You can't just give everyone a car, that would be a massive commitment and cost a fortune. You need to work out some way of deciding who gets a car, and who doesn't. An easy way of doing that is to get customers to register in advance. And should the state pay for the car production from taxes? It seems fairer to 'tax' the customers through a progressive purchase scheme, meaning that those that benefit pay the tax, and those that don't, don't. So given that the state-run factory, the ambition to get people driving, and the savings scheme are all compatible with a well-intentioned socialist policy, what leads you to believe that it was definitely a cover for war preparations? Why are you so sure that it wasn't set up with good intentions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So given that the state-run factory, the ambition to get people driving, and the savings scheme are all compatible with a well-intentioned socialist policy, what leads you to believe that it was definitely a cover for war preparations? Why are you so sure that it wasn't set up with good intentions?" I don’t believe I have said it was only a cover for war preparations have I? I provided a list of benefits. Based on stated intention for the expansion of Germany and the inevitable conflict that would ensue, the need therefore for militarisation and an economy designed to support that, it leads me (and many very eminent historians) to conclude that that end game was a primary driver (no pun) that still had secondary benefits. Of course Hitler (and his propaganda machine) would want to show happy enriched German citizens who are benefitting from the Nazi regime. Look how much better life is under us compared to the Weimar Republic. Here’s some things to aspire to by owning a car. Oh and thanks for the treasury contributions. I don’t see driving consumer demand as a socialist policy. Let me ask again. When labelling the Nazis as left or right wing, do you think you can point single policies and say “that looks socialist so they must be socialist” or do you think it is the aggregate of all their policies and actions once they are in power? Even if you were able to argue or prove the car was a socialist policy. Does that mean they must be socialist? Also you keep saying Hitler wanted the car for the good of the people. Why do you say that? Beyond the propaganda posters, what leads you to that conclusion? And even if he did and that was bis primary reason, is caring about people/citizens a uniquely left wing/socialist principle? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists" Shhhh there are some people on here who still think the Nazis were Socialists and you’ll upset them!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists" Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. " When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again for the cheap seats - the same people who claim the Nazis were socialist because they said it in their name are the same folk who think the conservatives aren’t conservative. " Based on policies. I would say economically, socially. The conservatives aren't being very Conservative. I made several point son her earlier while ago regarding monetary and fiscal policy. No one had a comeback. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? " I already did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again for the cheap seats - the same people who claim the Nazis were socialist because they said it in their name are the same folk who think the conservatives aren’t conservative. Based on policies. I would say economically, socially. The conservatives aren't being very Conservative. I made several point son her earlier while ago regarding monetary and fiscal policy. No one had a comeback." Nope. You said the Nazis were left wing/socialist. You used economic policies as the basis of your argument while ignoring social policy and the priority of militarisation above all else. You are now trying to backtrack and gaslight but the posts are all above for anyone to read. Time to just step up and admit to being wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? I already did. " Except no you didn’t. Seven days ago I posted information on what the German Labour Front actually was. ie not a Trade Union as you assert. There was no response from you. Because you were wrong! Despite frequently lambasting others for not admitting mistakes and calling them a child, you did the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? I already did. Except no you didn’t. Seven days ago I posted information on what the German Labour Front actually was. ie not a Trade Union as you assert. There was no response from you. Because you were wrong! Despite frequently lambasting others for not admitting mistakes and calling them a child, you did the same. "We dealt with it. The unions were free market. Hitler centralised the unions into the government operation. Again. I explained. Bringing things into central ownership is left wing policy. Leaving the free market to take care of unions, energy water etc is right wing policy. Literally dealt with this a week ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? I already did. Except no you didn’t. Seven days ago I posted information on what the German Labour Front actually was. ie not a Trade Union as you assert. There was no response from you. Because you were wrong! Despite frequently lambasting others for not admitting mistakes and calling them a child, you did the same.
We dealt with it.
The unions were free market.
Hitler centralised the unions into the government operation.
Again. I explained.
Bringing things into central ownership is left wing policy.
Leaving the free market to take care of unions, energy water etc is right wing policy.
Literally dealt with this a week ago.
"You only dealt with it in your head Morley. And you were wrong and that was clearly demonstrated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? I already did. Except no you didn’t. Seven days ago I posted information on what the German Labour Front actually was. ie not a Trade Union as you assert. There was no response from you. Because you were wrong! Despite frequently lambasting others for not admitting mistakes and calling them a child, you did the same.
We dealt with it.
The unions were free market.
Hitler centralised the unions into the government operation.
Again. I explained.
Bringing things into central ownership is left wing policy.
Leaving the free market to take care of unions, energy water etc is right wing policy.
Literally dealt with this a week ago.
You only dealt with it in your head Morley. And you were wrong and that was clearly demonstrated."Whatever you need to tell yourself. I'll remind you of this next time you talk about privatisation of the nhs, water, electricity, gas etc. Thatbthese aren't conservative right wing policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? I already did. Except no you didn’t. Seven days ago I posted information on what the German Labour Front actually was. ie not a Trade Union as you assert. There was no response from you. Because you were wrong! Despite frequently lambasting others for not admitting mistakes and calling them a child, you did the same.
We dealt with it.
The unions were free market.
Hitler centralised the unions into the government operation.
Again. I explained.
Bringing things into central ownership is left wing policy.
Leaving the free market to take care of unions, energy water etc is right wing policy.
Literally dealt with this a week ago.
You only dealt with it in your head Morley. And you were wrong and that was clearly demonstrated.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
I'll remind you of this next time you talk about privatisation of the nhs, water, electricity, gas etc. Thatbthese aren't conservative right wing policies.
"The difference is that on most subjects I post an opinion but do not try to position myself as an expert. While I can sometimes be arrogant, i am rarely dismissive or disparaging of other people’s point of view or opinions. That is not how you post. You always “go for the win” rather than have a discussion. You always come across as only you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Simply reading a lot does not make you an expert. Immersion in through extensive study and/or years of work/lived experience is what makes a person even remotely close to being an expert. In this discussion on the Nazis you have never conceded a point, have backtracked or trued to reposition the point you were making (rich Jews), dismissed counter points even when backed up by extensive information (eg. DAF), and most fundamentally only looked at the Nazis through a single lens of economic policy (with a 2023 slant that ignores the geo-political situation in the World in the 1920/30s) while ignoring everything else. You demand evidence but then ignore it when provided to you. It is tiresome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? I already did. Except no you didn’t. Seven days ago I posted information on what the German Labour Front actually was. ie not a Trade Union as you assert. There was no response from you. Because you were wrong! Despite frequently lambasting others for not admitting mistakes and calling them a child, you did the same.
We dealt with it.
The unions were free market.
Hitler centralised the unions into the government operation.
Again. I explained.
Bringing things into central ownership is left wing policy.
Leaving the free market to take care of unions, energy water etc is right wing policy.
Literally dealt with this a week ago.
You only dealt with it in your head Morley. And you were wrong and that was clearly demonstrated.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
I'll remind you of this next time you talk about privatisation of the nhs, water, electricity, gas etc. Thatbthese aren't conservative right wing policies.
The difference is that on most subjects I post an opinion but do not try to position myself as an expert. While I can sometimes be arrogant, i am rarely dismissive or disparaging of other people’s point of view or opinions. That is not how you post. You always “go for the win” rather than have a discussion. You always come across as only you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Simply reading a lot does not make you an expert. Immersion in through extensive study and/or years of work/lived experience is what makes a person even remotely close to being an expert.
In this discussion on the Nazis you have never conceded a point, have backtracked or trued to reposition the point you were making (rich Jews), dismissed counter points even when backed up by extensive information (eg. DAF), and most fundamentally only looked at the Nazis through a single lens of economic policy (with a 2023 slant that ignores the geo-political situation in the World in the 1920/30s) while ignoring everything else. You demand evidence but then ignore it when provided to you. It is tiresome."As above we dealt with all this. I still think I am waiting for your response when I asked for a right wing policy they had... That was well over a week ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? I already did. Except no you didn’t. Seven days ago I posted information on what the German Labour Front actually was. ie not a Trade Union as you assert. There was no response from you. Because you were wrong! Despite frequently lambasting others for not admitting mistakes and calling them a child, you did the same.
We dealt with it.
The unions were free market.
Hitler centralised the unions into the government operation.
Again. I explained.
Bringing things into central ownership is left wing policy.
Leaving the free market to take care of unions, energy water etc is right wing policy.
Literally dealt with this a week ago.
You only dealt with it in your head Morley. And you were wrong and that was clearly demonstrated.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
I'll remind you of this next time you talk about privatisation of the nhs, water, electricity, gas etc. Thatbthese aren't conservative right wing policies.
The difference is that on most subjects I post an opinion but do not try to position myself as an expert. While I can sometimes be arrogant, i am rarely dismissive or disparaging of other people’s point of view or opinions. That is not how you post. You always “go for the win” rather than have a discussion. You always come across as only you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Simply reading a lot does not make you an expert. Immersion in through extensive study and/or years of work/lived experience is what makes a person even remotely close to being an expert.
In this discussion on the Nazis you have never conceded a point, have backtracked or trued to reposition the point you were making (rich Jews), dismissed counter points even when backed up by extensive information (eg. DAF), and most fundamentally only looked at the Nazis through a single lens of economic policy (with a 2023 slant that ignores the geo-political situation in the World in the 1920/30s) while ignoring everything else. You demand evidence but then ignore it when provided to you. It is tiresome.
As above we dealt with all this.
I still think I am waiting for your response when I asked for a right wing policy they had...
That was well over a week ago."It was not dealt with. I posted information on the DAF and you did not respond. Same goes for “rich Jews” and you didn’t respond. You can’t insist people answer you if you refuse to answer them. I have already said that some (perhaps many) of the Nazi economic policies could be seen as socialist (through a 2023 lens) when viewed in isolation. But that does not equate to the Nazis being left wing/socialist as it is the sum of the parts that determines the definition. For example, would you call the Johnson govt socialist? How, in isolation, would you consider Covid furlough payments, mortgage holidays, 12mths tax payer funded BBL interest payments and loan guarantees, or business interruption grants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that they were left wing "Then I suggest some remedial history lessons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that they were left wing "THAT took you four attempts! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this still going? Have we agreed what left wing and right wing mean yet? " Seems like "right wing", means "left wing", And "left wing" also means "left wing". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy." This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'." Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'." Has someone hacked your account? This is very not like you at all! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy." "This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'." "Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist." No one has presented any evidence that Hitler wasn't a socialist. There's no analysis of his speeches or writings, and no attempt to analyse his psyche. We just see people saying that all of his actions had a secret purpose of preparing for war, and that he persecuted Jews so that proves that he can't be socialist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'. Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist. No one has presented any evidence that Hitler wasn't a socialist. There's no analysis of his speeches or writings, and no attempt to analyse his psyche. We just see people saying that all of his actions had a secret purpose of preparing for war, and that he persecuted Jews so that proves that he can't be socialist." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'. Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist. No one has presented any evidence that Hitler wasn't a socialist. There's no analysis of his speeches or writings, and no attempt to analyse his psyche. We just see people saying that all of his actions had a secret purpose of preparing for war, and that he persecuted Jews so that proves that he can't be socialist." There’s been ample evidence presented. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your lookout. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Far left. Corbyn was a fascist too - as are Momentum & all the intelligentsia at the BBC, Guardian and RG universities Lol ….how was Corbyn facist ?!?" The new twist on political observation by the uneducated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'. Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist. No one has presented any evidence that Hitler wasn't a socialist. There's no analysis of his speeches or writings, and no attempt to analyse his psyche. We just see people saying that all of his actions had a secret purpose of preparing for war, and that he persecuted Jews so that proves that he can't be socialist." Oh if you want extended essays that will soon take this thread way over limit, then we can go there. Do you REALLY expect to see in depth analysis? I have already asked if you have read Mein Kampf. Have you? My dog eared copy with annotations and post its is right here on the shelf. In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Want more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Far left. Corbyn was a fascist too - as are Momentum & all the intelligentsia at the BBC, Guardian and RG universities Lol ….how was Corbyn facist ?!? The new twist on political observation by the uneducated" Sometimes this forum is just a competition to see who can say the most ridiculous thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'. Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist. No one has presented any evidence that Hitler wasn't a socialist. There's no analysis of his speeches or writings, and no attempt to analyse his psyche. We just see people saying that all of his actions had a secret purpose of preparing for war, and that he persecuted Jews so that proves that he can't be socialist. Oh if you want extended essays that will soon take this thread way over limit, then we can go there. Do you REALLY expect to see in depth analysis? I have already asked if you have read Mein Kampf. Have you? My dog eared copy with annotations and post its is right here on the shelf. In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Want more?" Actually two more points Mr Discretion. 1. You demand more analysis yet earlier in the thread accused me of lecturing. So make your mind up. 2. Where is YOUR analysis in support of the idea Hitler and the Nazis were Socialists? Only two people on this thread have argued that they were socialist. You and Morley. At least Morley has tried, unsuccessfully, to argue they were socialist based on a list of economic policies (while looking at these in total isolation without any further explanation or consideration to the wider context and geo-political situation in the 1920/30s). So come on, argue why both Hitler and the Nazis were socialist. Explain YOUR thinking. Make YOUR argument! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'. Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist. No one has presented any evidence that Hitler wasn't a socialist. There's no analysis of his speeches or writings, and no attempt to analyse his psyche. We just see people saying that all of his actions had a secret purpose of preparing for war, and that he persecuted Jews so that proves that he can't be socialist. Oh if you want extended essays that will soon take this thread way over limit, then we can go there. Do you REALLY expect to see in depth analysis? I have already asked if you have read Mein Kampf. Have you? My dog eared copy with annotations and post its is right here on the shelf. In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Want more? Actually two more points Mr Discretion. 1. You demand more analysis yet earlier in the thread accused me of lecturing. So make your mind up. 2. Where is YOUR analysis in support of the idea Hitler and the Nazis were Socialists? Only two people on this thread have argued that they were socialist. You and Morley. At least Morley has tried, unsuccessfully, to argue they were socialist based on a list of economic policies (while looking at these in total isolation without any further explanation or consideration to the wider context and geo-political situation in the 1920/30s). So come on, argue why both Hitler and the Nazis were socialist. Explain YOUR thinking. Make YOUR argument!" BUT THEY WERE CALLED THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS' PARTY!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'. Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist. No one has presented any evidence that Hitler wasn't a socialist. There's no analysis of his speeches or writings, and no attempt to analyse his psyche. We just see people saying that all of his actions had a secret purpose of preparing for war, and that he persecuted Jews so that proves that he can't be socialist." Shall we let the lecture continue Mr Discretion? Your point on “secret purpose of preparing fir war”... The Nazis created a scheme for deficit financing, in which capital projects were paid for with the issuance of promissory notes called Mefo bills, which could be traded by companies with each other. This was particularly useful in allowing Germany to rearm because the Mefo bills were not Reichsmarks and did not appear in the federal budget, so they helped conceal rearmament. On becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." Anyway, enough for now. Got plenty more but instead shall we wait for your analysis and counter arguments? In the words of our fellow poster TICK TOCK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You went on some rant about working with the bourgeois And talking to industrialists. You never addressed any of the several key point so of legislature passed in tbe reach stage or post burning. When you can address what actually went on under the nazis instead of propaganda. We can have a serious debate. Do you want to address. How they removed the wealth lf citizens? Particularly the Jews and re distributed to the workers? The removal of the gold standard and currency devaluation? The control of the industries. The power of the state to control all means of productions for military purposes The creation of the peoples car. The centralisation of all benefits and charity under one roof. I cited several reason all what you would describe as the state owning control and removal of wealth and private ownership. Feel free to address each of the above. As well as the attempt to make car universally available for all." The irony was that NOBODY got “The Peoples Car”….because Nazism decried Capitalism as a ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ and their factories relied on forced Labour as more & more men were called up the Volkswagen came into its own in the post war period…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again everything state controlled. Not free market. This is socialism " When you look at the state of this country over the past 45 years ‘The Free Market’ has been codified into the legitimate plundering of state assets by all those ‘entrepreneurs’ in Parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Neither right or left just wrong, very wrong." They were definitely very wrong but they were overwhelmingly right wing with some economic policies that through modern eyes may be considered as left wing (when viewed in isolation) but these were a means to an end (militarisation) and also in some cases necessary considering the wider economic situation in the 1920/30s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
We need to look at social views and economic views separately. In the political compass, the Nazis fall under what is called Auth Center category - Socially authoritarian and economically centrist. Whether they are economically centre left or centre right can be debated. But it's practical to see them as AuthCenter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This debate will never end
"There is no real debate. It's pretty funny that there are three whole threads about it though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This debate will never end
There is no real debate.
It's pretty funny that there are three whole threads about it though. "I wasn’t going to but couldn’t help myself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres a good piece on Britannica on this very question. Its only a 5 minute read so not difficult. It explains why they were very right wing. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Ah yes the idea Hitler wasn't socialist because he got rid of other socialists. We certainly never saw any other socialist do that. Cough Lenin, cough stalin, cough mao. When are you going to respond on the German Labour Front? I already did. Except no you didn’t. Seven days ago I posted information on what the German Labour Front actually was. ie not a Trade Union as you assert. There was no response from you. Because you were wrong! Despite frequently lambasting others for not admitting mistakes and calling them a child, you did the same.
We dealt with it.
The unions were free market.
Hitler centralised the unions into the government operation.
Again. I explained.
Bringing things into central ownership is left wing policy.
Leaving the free market to take care of unions, energy water etc is right wing policy.
Literally dealt with this a week ago.
You only dealt with it in your head Morley. And you were wrong and that was clearly demonstrated.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
I'll remind you of this next time you talk about privatisation of the nhs, water, electricity, gas etc. Thatbthese aren't conservative right wing policies.
The difference is that on most subjects I post an opinion but do not try to position myself as an expert. While I can sometimes be arrogant, i am rarely dismissive or disparaging of other people’s point of view or opinions. That is not how you post. You always “go for the win” rather than have a discussion. You always come across as only you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Simply reading a lot does not make you an expert. Immersion in through extensive study and/or years of work/lived experience is what makes a person even remotely close to being an expert.
In this discussion on the Nazis you have never conceded a point, have backtracked or trued to reposition the point you were making (rich Jews), dismissed counter points even when backed up by extensive information (eg. DAF), and most fundamentally only looked at the Nazis through a single lens of economic policy (with a 2023 slant that ignores the geo-political situation in the World in the 1920/30s) while ignoring everything else. You demand evidence but then ignore it when provided to you. It is tiresome.
As above we dealt with all this.
I still think I am waiting for your response when I asked for a right wing policy they had...
That was well over a week ago.
It was not dealt with. I posted information on the DAF and you did not respond. Same goes for “rich Jews” and you didn’t respond. You can’t insist people answer you if you refuse to answer them.
I have already said that some (perhaps many) of the Nazi economic policies could be seen as socialist (through a 2023 lens) when viewed in isolation. But that does not equate to the Nazis being left wing/socialist as it is the sum of the parts that determines the definition.
For example, would you call the Johnson govt socialist? How, in isolation, would you consider Covid furlough payments, mortgage holidays, 12mths tax payer funded BBL interest payments and loan guarantees, or business interruption grants?"You posted about fascism. And tbe 14 or whatever things that link to fascism. Fascism can be left or right. It's not solely right wing. So again I think you got confused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'." Completely correct. This same re write went on under Blair. They don't want to be associated with him now. So he was never left wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Part of the reason Hitler named his party the National Socialist Workers Party was to attract the swathes of workers who believed in it. The Nazis were far-right and to suggest anything else is blasphemy. This is why this thread is still going - because some people treat socialism like a religion. And with religion comes intolerance and division. To them it's clear that Hitler did bad things, so he can't possibly be accepted into the welcoming fold of socialism. They ignore any evidence put to them and say 'bad man = not socialist'. Plus all the evidence that Hitler wasn’t a socialist. No one has presented any evidence that Hitler wasn't a socialist. There's no analysis of his speeches or writings, and no attempt to analyse his psyche. We just see people saying that all of his actions had a secret purpose of preparing for war, and that he persecuted Jews so that proves that he can't be socialist. Oh if you want extended essays that will soon take this thread way over limit, then we can go there. Do you REALLY expect to see in depth analysis? I have already asked if you have read Mein Kampf. Have you? My dog eared copy with annotations and post its is right here on the shelf. In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Want more?" As stated the man who actually co authored Marxism didn't believe all men were created equal. Infsct neither did Karl marx. He didn't live life through equality. Are you saying engels and marx weren't left wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have 30 replies left. Please don't wate them. As per Mr Discretion. Can you give any socio economic writing/speeches where Hitler maybe said something about lower tax to the rich? Free markets. Withdrawing state aid etc etc. " You seriously cannot expect people to answer your questions when you don’t address the points they have made. You providing a list of economic policies devoid of context, absent from the contemporary geo-politics and viewed only through a 21st lens is simply not proof or evidence the Nazis and/or Hitler were socialists or left wing. Read my post about about differences/similarities between fascism and socialism/communism. Another post will be here soon focused on left/right... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have 30 replies left. Please don't wate them. As per Mr Discretion. Can you give any socio economic writing/speeches where Hitler maybe said something about lower tax to the rich? Free markets. Withdrawing state aid etc etc. You seriously cannot expect people to answer your questions when you don’t address the points they have made. You providing a list of economic policies devoid of context, absent from the contemporary geo-politics and viewed only through a 21st lens is simply not proof or evidence the Nazis and/or Hitler were socialists or left wing. Read my post about about differences/similarities between fascism and socialism/communism. Another post will be here soon focused on left/right..." I provided every context toward the cars, the allowances, the seizing of property. Please name the right wing policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And for Morley... The left/right classification of political tendencies that led to the modern convention of viewing Marxism as left wing and Nazism and Fascism as right wing had its origin in the French Revolution. The left (later socialist) side’s ideological values were egalitarian and internationalist, secular, and revolutionary. The right (later fascist) side’s ideological concerns were hierarchical to a Nietzschean degree, nationalist, and conservative. Whether or not you like the current prevailing language convention on the matter, it exists because a preference for egalitarianism, secularism, radical reform of the existing order, and internationalism have tended to cluster on what has been called the left with Marxism on the extreme left ever since then. A preference for hierarchy, nationalism, and a reverence for tradition have tended to cluster on what has been called the right. These preferences exist along a broad spectrum. There certainly are some important similarities between the extreme left and extreme right. These include a utopian, historicist view of history that lacks respect for human rights and and sees no limits on the uses the state may be put to in service of those preferred values. Both extremes tend to appeal to the same authoritarian personality types. Hence the “horseshoe” metaphor. Like all classification systems, this left/right one has it strengths and weaknesses. " That's a nice copy paste that answers nothing. What socio economic right-wing policies did the nazis have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not playing your game Morley. If I thought you were genuinely discussing then I would. As it is you have not provided anything of any substance beyond “here’s a list of economic policies that could be considered left wing or socialist when viewed in isolation with 21st century eyes”. If you dismiss my last two posts rather than discuss them and put forward a counter argument, then this “discussion” is futile. The overwhelming majority of historians and people view the Nazis to be right wing and analogous to Fascists. You are in the minority claiming otherwise. You need to prove your argument. You provide speeches and evidence to support your claim. I have already provided more than enough. Where’s yours?" Translated roughly to " I can't answer" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. " Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50%" They don't "believe" they understand. Big difference. I've no idea what the split is between those who are funded by the fossil fuels industry and those that aren't. The important point is that understanding the science removes the need for "belief". Anyway, back to your bonkers Nazi nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50%" Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not playing your game Morley. If I thought you were genuinely discussing then I would. As it is you have not provided anything of any substance beyond “here’s a list of economic policies that could be considered left wing or socialist when viewed in isolation with 21st century eyes”. If you dismiss my last two posts rather than discuss them and put forward a counter argument, then this “discussion” is futile. The overwhelming majority of historians and people view the Nazis to be right wing and analogous to Fascists. You are in the minority claiming otherwise. You need to prove your argument. You provide speeches and evidence to support your claim. I have already provided more than enough. Where’s yours? Translated roughly to " I can't answer"" Keep telling yourself that. Provide your evidence. Support your argument with more than a list. Stop watching You Tube videos that worship pseudo historians like D’Souza or Peter Hitchens. Stope reading The Federalist (financed by the Koch brothers, hmmm wonder who else they are involved with). Start reading some real historians. But mainly, show us your evidence. Ensure that evidence is represented in the context of the times and not through a 21st century lens. Not just a list, but explanations of why that supports your argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? " Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr" Except you were asked first in the first and second threads. Only then, having not provided anything more than a list, did you start demanding other people give you a list of policies. However, this will just rumble on as you are focused on wanting a list of policies but are failing to acknowledge the point made from the beginning around context, contemporary geo-politics and ultimate aims of the Nazi regime and Hitler. The thing is that your view is the outlier. The vastly majority view of historians (barring a small few in comparison) both contemporary and modern, AND the views of politicians, media and diplomats at the time, is/was that the Nazis were fascist (or a subset of fascism). They were also opportunist magpies who wanted to get into power no matter what so they could execute their ambitions, and as such were more than willing to appropriate words and policies to achieve their goal of power. In addition the party evolved from a more left leaning to far right party over time once Hitler gained control. I have provided a macro definition above that explains how you position on a left/right scale. It is quite clear where the Nazis fall. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr Except you were asked first in the first and second threads. Only then, having not provided anything more than a list, did you start demanding other people give you a list of policies. However, this will just rumble on as you are focused on wanting a list of policies but are failing to acknowledge the point made from the beginning around context, contemporary geo-politics and ultimate aims of the Nazi regime and Hitler. The thing is that your view is the outlier. The vastly majority view of historians (barring a small few in comparison) both contemporary and modern, AND the views of politicians, media and diplomats at the time, is/was that the Nazis were fascist (or a subset of fascism). They were also opportunist magpies who wanted to get into power no matter what so they could execute their ambitions, and as such were more than willing to appropriate words and policies to achieve their goal of power. In addition the party evolved from a more left leaning to far right party over time once Hitler gained control. I have provided a macro definition above that explains how you position on a left/right scale. It is quite clear where the Nazis fall." You provided a list of what made a fascist? Iirc? A fascist is neither left nor right wing. They are simply a fascist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding the reply on the other thread. "Who cares about policies" So then you can't define left or right wing by policies? Jesus wept." You're better off responding to the post on here. I had problems posting that last post so made it incredibly succinct. The INDIVIDUAL policies was my statement - as others have stated, context is everything. And you obviously have nothing to say in response to post here because it is fully reasoned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr Except you were asked first in the first and second threads. Only then, having not provided anything more than a list, did you start demanding other people give you a list of policies. However, this will just rumble on as you are focused on wanting a list of policies but are failing to acknowledge the point made from the beginning around context, contemporary geo-politics and ultimate aims of the Nazi regime and Hitler. The thing is that your view is the outlier. The vastly majority view of historians (barring a small few in comparison) both contemporary and modern, AND the views of politicians, media and diplomats at the time, is/was that the Nazis were fascist (or a subset of fascism). They were also opportunist magpies who wanted to get into power no matter what so they could execute their ambitions, and as such were more than willing to appropriate words and policies to achieve their goal of power. In addition the party evolved from a more left leaning to far right party over time once Hitler gained control. I have provided a macro definition above that explains how you position on a left/right scale. It is quite clear where the Nazis fall. You provided a list of what made a fascist? Iirc? A fascist is neither left nor right wing. They are simply a fascist." No no no! Fascist are considered by most people to be right wing. Communists are considered by most people to be left wing. It is an established linguistic convention. Go back to the definitions above! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr Except you were asked first in the first and second threads. Only then, having not provided anything more than a list, did you start demanding other people give you a list of policies. However, this will just rumble on as you are focused on wanting a list of policies but are failing to acknowledge the point made from the beginning around context, contemporary geo-politics and ultimate aims of the Nazi regime and Hitler. The thing is that your view is the outlier. The vastly majority view of historians (barring a small few in comparison) both contemporary and modern, AND the views of politicians, media and diplomats at the time, is/was that the Nazis were fascist (or a subset of fascism). They were also opportunist magpies who wanted to get into power no matter what so they could execute their ambitions, and as such were more than willing to appropriate words and policies to achieve their goal of power. In addition the party evolved from a more left leaning to far right party over time once Hitler gained control. I have provided a macro definition above that explains how you position on a left/right scale. It is quite clear where the Nazis fall. You provided a list of what made a fascist? Iirc? A fascist is neither left nor right wing. They are simply a fascist. No no no! Fascist are considered by most people to be right wing. Communists are considered by most people to be left wing. It is an established linguistic convention. Go back to the definitions above!" And yet the term fascist is neither left nor right wing. But it may interest you to know that the fascist party in Italy believed in Improving literacy and enforcing school education from 12years of age to 14. They created clubhouses for local communities , sports clubs, libraries and theatres. They created a worker union in the OND pretty much. The onb provided households with radios,concerts plays for the population. The created sick pay, pensions,paid holidays for thr Italian population. And about a quarter the Italian population got healthcare. Social security was 21% of the national expenditure. They created trade unions for workers. But they believed in free market being the best way to build. But hey. This was the actual fascist party where the term comes from... What do they knkw about left or right wing fascism.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr Except you were asked first in the first and second threads. Only then, having not provided anything more than a list, did you start demanding other people give you a list of policies. However, this will just rumble on as you are focused on wanting a list of policies but are failing to acknowledge the point made from the beginning around context, contemporary geo-politics and ultimate aims of the Nazi regime and Hitler. The thing is that your view is the outlier. The vastly majority view of historians (barring a small few in comparison) both contemporary and modern, AND the views of politicians, media and diplomats at the time, is/was that the Nazis were fascist (or a subset of fascism). They were also opportunist magpies who wanted to get into power no matter what so they could execute their ambitions, and as such were more than willing to appropriate words and policies to achieve their goal of power. In addition the party evolved from a more left leaning to far right party over time once Hitler gained control. I have provided a macro definition above that explains how you position on a left/right scale. It is quite clear where the Nazis fall. You provided a list of what made a fascist? Iirc? A fascist is neither left nor right wing. They are simply a fascist. No no no! Fascist are considered by most people to be right wing. Communists are considered by most people to be left wing. It is an established linguistic convention. Go back to the definitions above! And yet the term fascist is neither left nor right wing. But it may interest you to know that the fascist party in Italy believed in Improving literacy and enforcing school education from 12years of age to 14. They created clubhouses for local communities , sports clubs, libraries and theatres. They created a worker union in the OND pretty much. The onb provided households with radios,concerts plays for the population. The created sick pay, pensions,paid holidays for thr Italian population. And about a quarter the Italian population got healthcare. Social security was 21% of the national expenditure. They created trade unions for workers. But they believed in free market being the best way to build. But hey. This was the actual fascist party where the term comes from... What do they knkw about left or right wing fascism.. " Didn’t the NFP also believe in maintaining class structure and oppose liberalism and Marxism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr Except you were asked first in the first and second threads. Only then, having not provided anything more than a list, did you start demanding other people give you a list of policies. However, this will just rumble on as you are focused on wanting a list of policies but are failing to acknowledge the point made from the beginning around context, contemporary geo-politics and ultimate aims of the Nazi regime and Hitler. The thing is that your view is the outlier. The vastly majority view of historians (barring a small few in comparison) both contemporary and modern, AND the views of politicians, media and diplomats at the time, is/was that the Nazis were fascist (or a subset of fascism). They were also opportunist magpies who wanted to get into power no matter what so they could execute their ambitions, and as such were more than willing to appropriate words and policies to achieve their goal of power. In addition the party evolved from a more left leaning to far right party over time once Hitler gained control. I have provided a macro definition above that explains how you position on a left/right scale. It is quite clear where the Nazis fall. You provided a list of what made a fascist? Iirc? A fascist is neither left nor right wing. They are simply a fascist. No no no! Fascist are considered by most people to be right wing. Communists are considered by most people to be left wing. It is an established linguistic convention. Go back to the definitions above! And yet the term fascist is neither left nor right wing. But it may interest you to know that the fascist party in Italy believed in Improving literacy and enforcing school education from 12years of age to 14. They created clubhouses for local communities , sports clubs, libraries and theatres. They created a worker union in the OND pretty much. The onb provided households with radios,concerts plays for the population. The created sick pay, pensions,paid holidays for thr Italian population. And about a quarter the Italian population got healthcare. Social security was 21% of the national expenditure. They created trade unions for workers. But they believed in free market being the best way to build. But hey. This was the actual fascist party where the term comes from... What do they knkw about left or right wing fascism.. Didn’t the NFP also believe in maintaining class structure and oppose liberalism and Marxism? " They did they opposed conservatism too The corporstis. Side of their manifesto quickly came under attack when enacted. Trade barriers went up.(so not a fre emarket) the redomesticated wheat production rather than improving I'm an attempt to.improve the inco.es of lower classes. Taxes particularly on wealthy increased. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr Except you were asked first in the first and second threads. Only then, having not provided anything more than a list, did you start demanding other people give you a list of policies. However, this will just rumble on as you are focused on wanting a list of policies but are failing to acknowledge the point made from the beginning around context, contemporary geo-politics and ultimate aims of the Nazi regime and Hitler. The thing is that your view is the outlier. The vastly majority view of historians (barring a small few in comparison) both contemporary and modern, AND the views of politicians, media and diplomats at the time, is/was that the Nazis were fascist (or a subset of fascism). They were also opportunist magpies who wanted to get into power no matter what so they could execute their ambitions, and as such were more than willing to appropriate words and policies to achieve their goal of power. In addition the party evolved from a more left leaning to far right party over time once Hitler gained control. I have provided a macro definition above that explains how you position on a left/right scale. It is quite clear where the Nazis fall. You provided a list of what made a fascist? Iirc? A fascist is neither left nor right wing. They are simply a fascist. No no no! Fascist are considered by most people to be right wing. Communists are considered by most people to be left wing. It is an established linguistic convention. Go back to the definitions above! And yet the term fascist is neither left nor right wing. But it may interest you to know that the fascist party in Italy believed in Improving literacy and enforcing school education from 12years of age to 14. They created clubhouses for local communities , sports clubs, libraries and theatres. They created a worker union in the OND pretty much. The onb provided households with radios,concerts plays for the population. The created sick pay, pensions,paid holidays for thr Italian population. And about a quarter the Italian population got healthcare. Social security was 21% of the national expenditure. They created trade unions for workers. But they believed in free market being the best way to build. But hey. This was the actual fascist party where the term comes from... What do they knkw about left or right wing fascism.. Didn’t the NFP also believe in maintaining class structure and oppose liberalism and Marxism? They did they opposed conservatism too The corporstis. Side of their manifesto quickly came under attack when enacted. Trade barriers went up.(so not a fre emarket) the redomesticated wheat production rather than improving I'm an attempt to.improve the inco.es of lower classes. Taxes particularly on wealthy increased. " And yet...(in case you missed it) The left/right classification of political tendencies that led to the modern convention of viewing Marxism as left wing and Nazism and Fascism as right wing had its origin in the French Revolution. The left (later socialist) side’s ideological values were egalitarian and internationalist, secular, and revolutionary. The right (later fascist) side’s ideological concerns were hierarchical to a Nietzschean degree, nationalist, and conservative. Whether or not you like the current prevailing language convention on the matter, it exists because a preference for egalitarianism, secularism, radical reform of the existing order, and internationalism have tended to cluster on what has been called the left with Marxism on the extreme left ever since then. A preference for hierarchy, nationalism, and a reverence for tradition have tended to cluster on what has been called the right. These preferences exist along a broad spectrum. There certainly are some important similarities between the extreme left and extreme right. These include a utopian, historicist view of history that lacks respect for human rights and and sees no limits on the uses the state may be put to in service of those preferred values. Both extremes tend to appeal to the same authoritarian personality types. Hence the “horseshoe” metaphor. Like all classification systems, this left/right one has it strengths and weaknesses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons (not the ones playing chess obviously HA HA). As I said above the left-right model is flawed. There are others of course but one that I think completely removes itself from any concept of left and right breaks government down as follows: MONARCHY = rule by one (Emperor, King, Dictator and Communism, Socialism, Nationalism, Fascism) = 100% total power OLIGARCHY = rule by group (and Corporatism) DEMOCRACY = rule by the people REPUBLIC = the rule of law ANARCHY = the absence of government = 0% no power" You'll still be asked for right wing policies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you claim the Nazis were left wing, you’re arguing against the vast majority actual academics and historians, probably somewhere in a similar ratio to scientists vs flat-earthers. And similar to flat-Earthers, no amount of evidence will make you change your mind. Is thisnlike your claim that 99% of climate experts beleive in climate change? And then it turned out to be less than 50% Righto Morely, go and find us a decent number - say 25? - of *reputable* historians who claim Hitler and the Nazis were left wing. Should be easy enough for you, right? Righto... Give me my policies that were right wing first. Amazing is t it. Asked a simple question. What are the nazis right wing policies 150 odd replies later. Still nothing. You'll get your question answered when you answer minr Except you were asked first in the first and second threads. Only then, having not provided anything more than a list, did you start demanding other people give you a list of policies. However, this will just rumble on as you are focused on wanting a list of policies but are failing to acknowledge the point made from the beginning around context, contemporary geo-politics and ultimate aims of the Nazi regime and Hitler. The thing is that your view is the outlier. The vastly majority view of historians (barring a small few in comparison) both contemporary and modern, AND the views of politicians, media and diplomats at the time, is/was that the Nazis were fascist (or a subset of fascism). They were also opportunist magpies who wanted to get into power no matter what so they could execute their ambitions, and as such were more than willing to appropriate words and policies to achieve their goal of power. In addition the party evolved from a more left leaning to far right party over time once Hitler gained control. I have provided a macro definition above that explains how you position on a left/right scale. It is quite clear where the Nazis fall. You provided a list of what made a fascist? Iirc? A fascist is neither left nor right wing. They are simply a fascist. No no no! Fascist are considered by most people to be right wing. Communists are considered by most people to be left wing. It is an established linguistic convention. Go back to the definitions above! And yet the term fascist is neither left nor right wing. But it may interest you to know that the fascist party in Italy believed in Improving literacy and enforcing school education from 12years of age to 14. They created clubhouses for local communities , sports clubs, libraries and theatres. They created a worker union in the OND pretty much. The onb provided households with radios,concerts plays for the population. The created sick pay, pensions,paid holidays for thr Italian population. And about a quarter the Italian population got healthcare. Social security was 21% of the national expenditure. They created trade unions for workers. But they believed in free market being the best way to build. But hey. This was the actual fascist party where the term comes from... What do they knkw about left or right wing fascism.. Didn’t the NFP also believe in maintaining class structure and oppose liberalism and Marxism? They did they opposed conservatism too The corporstis. Side of their manifesto quickly came under attack when enacted. Trade barriers went up.(so not a fre emarket) the redomesticated wheat production rather than improving I'm an attempt to.improve the inco.es of lower classes. Taxes particularly on wealthy increased. And yet...(in case you missed it) The left/right classification of political tendencies that led to the modern convention of viewing Marxism as left wing and Nazism and Fascism as right wing had its origin in the French Revolution. The left (later socialist) side’s ideological values were egalitarian and internationalist, secular, and revolutionary. The right (later fascist) side’s ideological concerns were hierarchical to a Nietzschean degree, nationalist, and conservative. Whether or not you like the current prevailing language convention on the matter, it exists because a preference for egalitarianism, secularism, radical reform of the existing order, and internationalism have tended to cluster on what has been called the left with Marxism on the extreme left ever since then. A preference for hierarchy, nationalism, and a reverence for tradition have tended to cluster on what has been called the right. These preferences exist along a broad spectrum. There certainly are some important similarities between the extreme left and extreme right. These include a utopian, historicist view of history that lacks respect for human rights and and sees no limits on the uses the state may be put to in service of those preferred values. Both extremes tend to appeal to the same authoritarian personality types. Hence the “horseshoe” metaphor. Like all classification systems, this left/right one has it strengths and weaknesses." I am judging left or right based on sp Socio economic policy. Which is why I asked about ambifestos and actions in government. You are judging then based on the fact no defect dictato can ever be left wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet mussolinis fascist parties would today be considered extremely left wing. As they were ein his days. As per the examples I gave. Your main point is some sort of attempt to picture any dictator at right wing But this simply isn't the case. Should you wish to point out the manifesto and acts of.parliament that the fascist party undertook that were right win. I am atill all ears. But we burned through 175 replies on the last thread without a single right win policy. " You're ignoring historians, you're ignoring context of the time period and you're ignoring Hitler's own thoughts and actions against socialism. But yeah you bang on on about policies cos you're right and everyone else is wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet mussolinis fascist parties would today be considered extremely left wing. As they were ein his days. As per the examples I gave. Your main point is some sort of attempt to picture any dictator at right wing But this simply isn't the case. Should you wish to point out the manifesto and acts of.parliament that the fascist party undertook that were right win. I am atill all ears. But we burned through 175 replies on the last thread without a single right win policy. You're ignoring historians, you're ignoring context of the time period and you're ignoring Hitler's own thoughts and actions against socialism. But yeah you bang on on about policies cos you're right and everyone else is wrong. "It's an exercise in arguing the most ridiculous unarguable point possible, just for the sake of it. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting the Nazis and fascism aren't right wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet mussolinis fascist parties would today be considered extremely left wing. As they were ein his days." And therein is your problem and something I have said multiple times on all three threads since the beginning. You can only assess the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists in the context of their times and the contemporary geo-politics. It is irrelevant how they would be considered in today’s world because almost a century has passed and politics evolves. Maybe we should talk about the Roman Republic? And they were NOT considered left wing in their day. When I can be bothered I will pull out some quotes I know, including from Mussolini himself. Like Hitler Mussolini’s thinking evolved. He may have been a Socialist in 1919 but he wasn’t 10/20 years later. "Your main point is some sort of attempt to picture any dictator at right wing" Er no it isn’t. Show me where? I have already said Stalin and Mao were left wing dictators. The only person attempting revisionist history is you I’m afraid. Come on admit it, you’ve been reading D’Souza right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
