PDA

View Full Version : Hitler, the Leftist.



Panzerknacker
12-07-2008, 10:39 PM
You say is not possible ?

Check the articles here:

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

tankgeezer
12-07-2008, 11:30 PM
Far as I know,, Socialism is Socialism, whether Soviet, or National.
People will show a linear scale with Soviet socialism at one end, and Fascist socialism at the other.I would say Look at it as a circle, then they are side by side.

Man of Stoat
12-08-2008, 04:25 AM
Most attempts to argue that Hitler was not a socialist only succeed in showing that Hitler was not a Marxist, which was never the question. It appears that most Marxists deny the existence of non-Marxist socialism, and there is nothing a Marxist hates more than a competing form of socialism, particularly one which is more attractive to the average Joe than his own...

Further, the "party line" Marxist analysis of National Socialism is that it was the " last gasp of capitalism", which is particularly ironic given that national socialist rhetoric and thinking is distinctly anticapitalist.

There is a particularly interesting 1933 pamphlet written by Joseph Goebbels which explains why they were nationalist, and why they were socialist.

And also another interesting point: in the late 1920s and 1930s, American progressives (euphemism for smiley faced National Socialists in the US -- modern "progressives" seem to have a complete lack of understanding of the history of the term) did not distinguish the National Socialism of Mussolini and the international socialism of Lenin, and referred to both as the "Russo-Italian method".

Panzerknacker
12-08-2008, 05:47 PM
Far as I know,, Socialism is Socialism, whether Soviet, or National

Some quotation of the Ernst Röhm

" We ( the SA) are like the good steaks, brown in the outside but reds inside"

Despite being butchered by Hitler later, Ernst Rohm and the Sturmabteilung was a clear inspiration form him in the early years, so the relation with socialism is inevitable, and socialism is not a right wing ideal.


http://www.hitler.org/posters/nsdap.jpg

Ivaylo
12-15-2008, 08:19 AM
The difference is with the way the act with their countries - Stalin get fear everywhere and to everyone , killing is the common thing between the two regimes it's their way to achieve the needed power . But hitler was using another weapon his speeches making fanatics which to follow him until death and as it showed they followed him , and also he was making the idea of the great germans so the spirit of the broken Weimar Germany to be lift up and people to feel glory and pride being a germans . Otherwise everything else is pretty much the same - the camps , SS, NKVD , terror and so on .

Kregs
12-15-2008, 11:48 AM
The Nazi Party, from what I've read, subscribed to the theory of National Socialism among some elements that the Nazi Party embraced were: antiparliamentism Pan-Germanism and collectivism (the focus on the collective needs, something the Communists picked up). It's quite evident that some of Hitler's viewpoints were Marxist as well. In the Mein Kampf (spelling?) Hitler once said that history was a struggle.

Was Hitler a leftist? He could have hid it better.

Schuultz
12-31-2008, 01:58 PM
Mein Kampf (spelling?)

You got it right.

One harsh difference between the communists and the national-socialists was the fact that, while the communists claimed that everybody was going to be the same, and obviously lied to themselves, the NSDAP stated right from the beginning that they are going to have one strong leader, and the rest is going to be underneath him.

If you ask me, this reminds me more of a 'monarchy' comparable to that of ancient Rome, with Hitler comparable to Cesar.

Makes sense to me, especially as Hitler was inspired by Mussolini, who wanted to go back to these "glory days" Rome.

Carl Schwamberger
01-06-2009, 09:51 PM
Marxism, like the older forms of eglatarian revolution such as the French Revolution of the 1790s included a idea of the basic equality of men. The Facist movements drew a ethnic or racial line and divded people. The nazis were the worst, using extreme racial & cultural policys for their goals.

Note that late in his game Stalin also targeted enemys by race and begain a suppresion of Communist party members of Jewish ancestory in the early 1950s. Other ethnic groups had become specific targets as well.

snebold
01-12-2009, 07:00 AM
Tankgeezer is right. Politic standpoints are better pinned to a circle than a line.

Röhm and Göbbels both represented a radical strain in the party, with more emphasis on "socialist" than "national", compared to the more pragmatic line of Hitler. (The result was a dead Röhm and a frustrated Göbbels).


Note that late in his game Stalin also targeted enemys by race and begain a suppresion of Communist party members of Jewish ancestory in the early 1950s. Other ethnic groups had become specific targets as well.

That´s another striking similarity between those two regimes (and modern Russia, it seems): Whatever problems the nation faces, someone else than the leadership is to blame. These seem to have taken much "national identity" from hating someone else (The white´s/capitalists, The reds/jews, (the evil US schemes); all very useful for cementing an incomplete nation-state, but conflict-prone, to say the least.

Man of Stoat
01-12-2009, 08:56 AM
The circle and the line have been much abused, as has what constitutes "left" and "right". A much better way to do it is to have a graph: on the horizontal axis you have the original meanings of "left and "right, namely complete government control of the economy on the left, and complete free market economy on the right. Then, on the vertical axis you have authoritarianism at the top, and libertarianism at the bottom.

A good explanation here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

A few choice quotes:

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.


Anyway, it is best to look at fascism and communism as two sides of the revolutionary socialist coin (hence why they hate each other so much -- there is nothing a socialist hates more than a different kind of Socialist).

Man of Stoat
01-12-2009, 09:01 AM
This is worth reading in its entirety, from the horse's mouth, as it were:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/haken32.htm

The relevant excerpts:

Why Are We Socialists?

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom.

Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers' state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.
We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!
We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!
We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!
We are for the National Socialist German Workers Party!


Why a Workers' Party?

Work is not mankind's curse, but his blessing. A man becomes a man through labor. It elevates him, makes him great and aware, raises him above all other creatures. It is in the deepest sense creative, productive, and culture-producing. Without labor, no food. Without food, no life.

The idea that the dirtier one's hands get, the more degrading the work, is a Jewish, not a German, idea. As in every other area, the German first asks how, then what. It is less a question of the position I fill, and more a question of how well I do the duty that God has given me.

We call ourselves a workers' party because we want to rescue the word work from its current definition and give it back its original meaning. Anyone who creates value is a creator, that is, a worker. We refuse to distinguish kinds of work. Our only standard is whether the work serves the whole, or at least does not harm it, or if it is harmful. Work is service. If it works against the general welfare, then it is treason against the fatherland.

Marxist nonsense claimed to free labor, yet it degraded the work of its members and saw it as a curse and disgrace. It can hardly be our goal to abolish labor, but rather to give new meaning and content. The worker in a capitalist state — and that is his deepest misfortune — is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker.

He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces. Labor is for him only a way to survive, not a path to higher blessings, not a joy, not something in which to take pride, or satisfaction, or encouragement, or a way to build character.

We are a workers' party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. Money is the measuring rod of liberalism, work and accomplishment that of the socialist state. The liberal asks: What are you? The socialist asks: Who are you? Worlds lie between.

We do not want to make everyone the same. Nor do we want levels in the population, high and low, above and below. The aristocracy of the coming state will be determined not by possessions or money, but only on the quality of one's accomplishments. One earns merit through service. Men are distinguished by the results of their labor. That is the sure sign of the character and value of a person. The value of labor under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to the whole community. Labor means creating value, not haggling over things. The soldier is a worker when he bears the sword to protect the national economy. The statesman also is a worker when he gives the nation a form and a will that help it to produce what it needs for life and freedom.

A furrowed brow is as much a sign of labor as a powerful fist. A white collar worker should not be ashamed to claim with pride that of which the manual laborer boasts: labor. The relations between these two groups determine their mutual fate. Neither can survive without the other, for both are members of an organism that they must together maintain if they are to defend and expand their right to exist.

We call ourselves a workers' party because we want to free labor from the chains of capitalism and Marxism. In battling for Germany's future, we freely admit to it, and accept the odium from the liberal bourgeoisie that results. We know that we will succeed in bringing new blessings out of their curses.

God gave the nations territory to grow grain. The seed becomes grain and the grain becomes bread. The middleman of it all is labor.
He who despises labor but accepts its benefits is a hypocrite.

That is the deepest meaning of our movement: it gives things back their original significance, unconcerned that today they may be in danger of sinking into the swamp of a collapsing worldview.
He who creates value works, and is a worker. A movement that wants to free labor is a workers' party.

Therefore we National Socialists call ourselves a worker's party.
When our victorious flags fly before us, we sing:

"We are the army of the swastika,
Raise high the red flags!
We want to clear the way to freedom
For German Labor!"

Nickdfresh
01-12-2009, 01:50 PM
Um, Goebbels was a propagandist twat that had little to do with economic matters and Hitler certainly wasn't a leftist. And equating "National Socialism" to democratic socialism is like equating Nazism to modern conservatism or Stalinism with liberalism. I'm not a socialist by any means, but I find this to be very simplistic and I think the link (I haven't checked in a while) is from some B.S. libertarian American think tank (I think libertarianism=gov't should disappear so we can become a deregulated oligarchy where no one pays taxes and wealth becomes extremely polarized). Unlike conservatism, Nazism was/is a revolutionary ideology, but one fomented very much from the right. Just as Marxist/Leninism and Stalinism are very much revolutionary ideologies germinated from the extreme left...

As far as the capitalism vs. socialism debate, there were plenty of capitalists/industrialists that made great profits from the Third Reich and to my knowledge few companies were actually nationalized as Krupp and Messerschmidt did just fine. The Nazi gov't certainly planned and controlled much of the economy, but as long as industrialists towed the line, they were allowed a good deal of autonomy...

There was a whole chapter dedicated to this subject and why Hitler was as a much an anathema to the German conservative military and intellectual elites as he was to leftist academia and the like. The the whole play on National Socialism as akin to democratic socialism is just a semantic atrocity and libertarian op-ed crap and I think it is just juxtaposition for partisan purposes.

Nickdfresh
01-12-2009, 02:03 PM
Yes, I'm aware the following is from Wiki, but:


General characteristics of fascist economies

Fascists considered the economy to be of little importance, and did not have clear economic views. One significant fascist economic belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening.[16] Often, different members of a fascist party would make completely opposite statements about the economic policies they supported.[17] Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals. Long-lasting fascist regimes (such as that of Benito Mussolini in Italy) made drastic changes to their economic policy from time to time. Stanley Payne argues that common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.[18]

The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[19] They favoured corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists).[20] Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[21]

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme[22], meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[23]

Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote allegedly superior individuals and weed out the weak.[24] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[25] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."[26] Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[27]

In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade; fascists believed that too much international trade would make the national economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments.[28]

Fascism was highly militaristic, and as such, fascists often significantly increased military spending.

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

Man of Stoat
01-13-2009, 04:25 AM
Quoting Wikipedia on anything like this is problematic, since there are many extreme left-wingers who aggressively alter articles. Just read anything on collectivisation, and you will see how much Stalin era propaganda is being repeated as "fact" 80 years later. in fact, it is quite amazing how much Stalin era propaganda permeates thought with regard to Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and so on. Placing fascists to the right of Conservatives is again one of these: the Soviet propaganda said that "fascism is the last bastion of conservatism", or words to that effect, and you still see this repeated in books today.

Nice misrepresentation of libertarianism, by the way...

I think you will find that both Mussolini and Hitler were Marxist revolutionaries before they developed National Socialism: Hitler even served on a revolutionary soviet after the end of the First World War, and Mussolini was moving in Marxist/Bolshevik circles in Switzerland for many years, and was much admired by Lenin. Neither of them was ever conservative or classical liberal. They were both anticapitalist in many ways, Mussolini was even a more classical Marxist than Lenin in the 1920s, and american leftists did not differentiate Italian fascism from the Soviet communism of the 1920s, referring to them in admiring terms as the "Russo-Italian method"

I suggest you read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg, since it gives a much better explanation that I possibly can.

Nickdfresh
01-13-2009, 09:17 AM
Quoting Wikipedia on anything like this is problematic, since there are many extreme left-wingers who aggressively alter articles.

Not nearly as true as it used to be. Wiki is now "patrolled by a legion of bots" that monitor any alterations and is more tightly controlled than ever. In fact there is criticism now to the opposite affect, that Wiki is now no longer the place where anyone can place an entry, but is the providence of a few...


Just read anything on collectivisation, and you will see how much Stalin era propaganda is being repeated as "fact" 80 years later. in fact, it is quite amazing how much Stalin era propaganda permeates thought with regard to Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and so on. Placing fascists to the right of Conservatives is again one of these: the Soviet propaganda said that "fascism is the last bastion of conservatism", or words to that effect, and you still see this repeated in books today.

But I didn't say that. I AM NOT SAYING THAT FASCISTS are just extreme conservatives. But they come from some of the very same rightist principles of nationalism, ethnocentrism, etc. Fascism is indeed extreme right wing - anyone in political science dept at any sort of real university will state that. The confusion begins because in many ways fascism, and especially the "bestial German" Nazi variety, are in some ways antithetical to conservatism and the reactionary, because they are revolutionary ideologies. But still firmly rooted in the rightist ideologies of nationalism. And understand that many of Hitler's opposition were politically conservative such as Von Stauffenberg and the aristocracy...


Nice misrepresentation of libertarianism, by the way...

It's my opinion. But one I think I can back up, as it is typically the "conservative think tanks" here that use much misinformation to propagate their cause...


I think you will find that both Mussolini and Hitler were Marxist revolutionaries before they developed National Socialism: Hitler even served on a revolutionary soviet after the end of the First World War, and Mussolini was moving in Marxist/Bolshevik circles in Switzerland for many years, and was much admired by Lenin. Neither of them was ever conservative or classical liberal. They were both anticapitalist in many ways, Mussolini was even a more classical Marxist than Lenin in the 1920s, and american leftists did not differentiate Italian fascism from the Soviet communism of the 1920s, referring to them in admiring terms as the "Russo-Italian method"


Um, what? Hitler was radicalized and blaming Jews and Marxists for the downfall of Germany and the Army in WWI by 1918-19. Do you have anything that relates to Hitler on a Soviet? Benito was a commie or a socialist for a while, but of the two, he had people in place that were far closer to the policies of capitalism and private property as practiced in the Western democracies, for a while. But both were radicalized, but drawing from the anxieties of the right by the time they reached any sort of power. And to call them anti-capitalist is a bit silly, since they both reconciled the concepts of private property, left the industrialists alone more or less as long as they worked in the interests of the military industrial complex and adopted an anti-Jewish stance. In fact, they were social Darwinist, and ideal that is associated with extreme laissez faire capitalism. And I'm pretty sure either could have given two shits about the rights of workers as even their more socially benevolent acts in the public works realm, such as the Autobahn, where brutal on those laborers who actually had to build them.

In the end, their motives were about raw power and control --not class equality or economics. Both were responding to the worlds worst modern economic depression and were simply adopting public works programs to employ the problematic, archetype of unemployed young men.

And as far as "American-leftists?" Who are we talking about? One faction? I doubt they were a monolith...


I suggest you read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg, since it gives a much better explanation that I possibly can.

LMFAO! Jonah Goldberg? A guy who makes his living "producing" partisan op-eds? No thanks. I've seen him taken apart in enough debates and have read some of his work...

Man of Stoat
01-13-2009, 10:04 AM
Nick, there is a picture of Hitler serving on a Soviet in Bavaria. Can't find it right now.

Private property in Nazi Germany was allowed to continue provided that it served the aims of the state, just as industry was. There is bucket loads of anticapitalist rhetoric in Nazi speaking and thinking, and they commonly referred to the "decadent capitalist democracies" or words to that effect.

The American leftists that I am talking about were those that referred to themselves as "progressives".

Nice ad hominem against Jonah Goldberg. His book is impeccably referenced, and he lets the sources speak for themselves.

Wikipedia may not be as bad as it used to be, but some of the admin/moderators are activists in the area which they moderate.

Nickdfresh
01-13-2009, 11:01 AM
Nick, there is a picture of Hitler serving on a Soviet in Bavaria. Can't find it right now.

Private property in Nazi Germany was allowed to continue provided that it served the aims of the state, just as industry was. There is bucket loads of anticapitalist rhetoric in Nazi speaking and thinking, and they commonly referred to the "decadent capitalist democracies" or words to that effect.

Anti-capitalist fodder rhetoric during a depression coming out of a period of a valueless Deutchmark and policies are two different things. Yes, they demanded corporate adherence to the state. But true socialists would have nationalized industry, which they did not do by-and-large...

As I said, German industry did just fine -and so did capitalist war-profiteers from Krupp to Topper...


The American leftists that I am talking about were those that referred to themselves as "progressives".

Again, just a broad brush...


Nice ad hominem against Jonah Goldberg. His book is impeccably referenced, and he lets the sources speak for themselves.

Um, some of the pronouncements he makes seem completely idiotic and himself like sort of a "fascist":

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/latimes-jonah/

He's also a Neoconservative, one of the strains of thought that I see disastrous for America in leading us to an awful War in Iraq...

On the contrary, it is the likes of Goldberg that employs the sophistry of Goebbels...it is in fact Goldberg that advocates fascist-lite ideals of McCarthyism, censorship, and interpretation of the US Constitution to fit his own hypocritically "activist" ideals...

In fact, I would submit to you that it is American and UK Neoconservatives that are exposing revolutionary foreign interventionist ideals similar to Trotskyism, Marxist-Leninism, and Maoism...

Because much of the Neo Con agenda is espoused by people that were in fact "60's radicals" who were themselves revolutionary leftists 40 years ago...

Respected American conservative author, fmr. Nixon speechwriter, and pundit Pat Buchanan on "Neoconservatives." From : "Whose War?" (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/)


The Neoconservatives

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.
...



Wikipedia may not be as bad as it used to be, but some of the admin/moderators are activists in the area which they moderate.

Maybe, but obvious redflags would be raised if they couldn't back up what they say and they know academics are ready to pounce and publicly attack them...

P.S.: I might add that Christopher Hitchens is the UK (actually he's become an American citizen, but you can have him back :D) counterpart to US Neo Cons who started out as a 60's lefty who supported the Algerians against the French, but then blasted Iraqi Sunni insurgents for using similar tactics against the Americans and Shiites....

snebold
01-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Um, Goebbels was a propagandist twat that had little to do with economic matters but he had his views, and he was frustrated.

As to free economy, Junkers was imprissoned and told he would remain so until he signed a contract transferring his business to the state soon after the nazi take over. Thyssen famously went to Switzerland muttering that there was no difference between nazi´s and communists when it came to attitudes to free enterprise (NOT that he was right at that, but he certainly was dissatisfied).

Man of Stoat
01-14-2009, 03:57 AM
Nick, I believe this disagreement comes down to one thing: I think you have fallen into the trap of "true socialism = Marxism" (it's that 1930s era Soviet propaganda again...)

It's not.

Nickdfresh
01-14-2009, 05:54 AM
Well, being a very big fan of George Orwell, who was a democratic socialist who debunked any sort of myths regarding autocratic communism, I have my doubts...