Socialism = NAZI or...

Hitler was a socialist.


The nasty little secret they don't want you to know!


THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff...


A Veritas News Service Book Review - "A magnificent work... it should be required reading for all Americans. This book reveals socialisms nasty little secret." William Cooper


Excerpt from Chapter One.


The Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany -- an educated, industrialized, CIVILIZED Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its intellectual and cultural achievements. By reason of its long line of famous artists and thinkers, Germany has been called "the land of poets and philosophers."


But its education offered the country no protection against the Sergeant Molls in its ranks. The German university students were among the earliest groups to back Hitler. The intellectuals were among his regime's most ardent supporters. Professors with distinguished academic credentials, eager to pronounce their benediction on the Fuhrer's cause, put their scholarship to work full time; they turned out a library of admiring volumes, adorned with obscure allusions and learned references.


The Nazis did not gain power against the country's wishes. In this respect there was no gulf between the intellectuals and the people. The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37% of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country's legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44% of the total.


The voters were aware of the Nazi ideology. Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the future, papered the country during the last years of the Weimar Republic. "Mein Kampf" alone sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932. The essence of the political system which Hitler intended to establish in Germany was clear.


In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain.


The system which Hitler established -- the social reality which so many Germans were so eager to embrace or so willing to endure -- the politics which began in a theory and ended in Auschwitz -- was: the "total state". The term, from which the adjective "totalitarian" derives, was coined by Hitler's mentor, Mussolini.


The state must have absolute power over every man and over every sphere of human activity, the Nazis declared. "The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited," said Ernst Huber, an official party spokesman, in 1933.


"The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich," said Huber to a country which listened, and nodded. "There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state... The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual."


cont...

If the term "statism" designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism -- the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies -- which has characterized most of human history.


In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. Although previous dictators (and many today; e.g., in Latin America) often preached the unlimited power of the state, they were on the whole unable to enforce such power. As a rule, citizens of such countries had a kind of partial "freedom", not a freedom-on-principle, but at least a freedom-by-default.


Even the latter was effectively absent in Nazi Germany. The efficiency of the government in dominating its subjects, the all-encompassing character of its coercion, the complete mass regimentation on a scale involving millions of men -- and, one might add, the enormity of the slaughter, the planned, systematic mass slaughter, in peacetime, initiated by a government against its own citizens -- these are the insignia of twentieth-century totalitarianism (Nazi AND communist), which are without parallel in recorded history. In the totalitarian regimes, as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler's rule, every detail of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction between private matters and public matters. "There are to be no more private Germans," said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in his service." "The only person who is still a private individual in Germany," boasted Robert Ley, a member of the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, "is somebody who is asleep."


In place of the despised "private individuals," the Germans heard daily or hourly about a different kind of entity, a supreme entity, whose will, it was said, is what determines the course and actions of the state: the nation, the whole, the GROUP. Over and over, the Germans heard the idea that underlies the advocacy of omnipotent government, the idea that totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification of their total states: COLLECTIVISM.


Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective -- society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc. -- is THE UNIT OF REALITY AND THE STANDARD OF VALUE. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it -- or its representative, the state -- deems this desirable.


Fascism, said one of its leading spokesmen, Alfredo Rocco, stresses:


...the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, on behalf of society... For Liberalism (i.e., individualism), the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.


cont...

"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole," said Hitler in a 1933 speech, "must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Men, echoed the Nazis, have to "realize that the State is more important than the individual, that individuals must be willing and ready to sacrifice themselves for Nation and Fuhrer." The people, said the Nazis, "form a true organism," a "living unity", whose cells are individual persons. In reality, therefore -- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is no such thing as an "isolated individual" or an autonomous man.


Just as the individual is to be regarded merely as a fragment of the group, the Nazis said, so his possessions are to be regarded as a fragment of the group's wealth.


"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economy order was a reversal of the true concept of property [wrote Huber]. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the general interests... German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.


Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.


If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.


During the Hitler years -- in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures -- every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities -- where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).


But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.


"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."


By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.


Excerpted from Chapter 1 of THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff... most probably the most important book written in modern times. Buy it... read it... study it.


http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm

If Hitler was such a socialist, why did he attack communist Russia?
 
 

Hint:  Hitler was a Dictator, not a Socialist....

A dictator can not be a socialist?

barry is both...

hitler was a right wing nazi.  look it up.  you really don't have a clue, do you? 

Give me some examples of anything the Nazis did that vaguely resembled socialism.    (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Simple minds read that the name of the party was "National Socialists" and that's as far as they get.       (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Confiscation of guns, nationalizing the healthcare system,redistribution of wealth. Kinda like Liberals today.

idiot    (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Advocacy of killing the unborn and those who were physically defective......

They were students of Margaret Sanger.....

Ask someone to read to you about what the fuck socialism is.   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

right wingers are always trying to revise history.  the democrats let freddie mac and fannie mae buy too many mortgages, when 95% of those mortages were bought while bush was in office and the republicans held both houses of congress.  the republicans pushed through the Civil Rights Act, when it was the democratic president from the south who pushed it through, knowing it would end the democratic nomination of the south by the democrats for generations, due to so many racists living in the south then and even today.  and that nazis were left wing, not the most right wing political group ever in history...just crazy ass ridiculous shit, that some revisionist right winger has put on his website so they try to believe it.

sound familiar warren?


"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

– From the political program of the Nazi Party, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920

barry is more a student of Marx than of any other radical leftist.....

barry is a marxist....

what is this goddamn obsession these idiot right wingers have with abortion?  that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.  sure, some right wingers believe the state has the power to force women to have babies, but so do some liberal catholics and protestants, and many more are against it themselves, but do not believe the state has the right to force any women to cede control to the state power over her body.  nobody is pro-abortion.  adams is just a silly ass clown.   

See #10 above.   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

The answer is obvious.  Hitler was a Nazi.  As such he was more "Nazi" than liberal or conservative.  As I have stated before Hitler's racist beliefs, his economic policy, and form of government are all uniquely "Hitler" in their own evil way and not to be carelessly compared to the politicians of today.  Many are no fan of the policies of George W. Bush or Barack H. Obama but neither deserve to be put beside the mass murderer of six millions Jews.
Having said that since Glenn Beck has made the absurd claim that Hitler was more liberal than conservative I feel the need to defend the progressives.  Looking at all of Hitler's policies, not just the select few Beck picks, Hitler was clearly more right-wing conservative that left-wing liberal.  Though I would never say any of the current, prominent modern-day conservatives are on the same level of Hitler's craziness.  Let us now look at all of Hitler's beliefs and policies.
Economic Policy:
As the Beck clip below correctly asserts Hitler did believe in a strong emphasis on education and universal health care (except of course for those he ruthlessly murdered).  However they are also correct in their assertion that Hitler outlawed labor unions in Germany.  Yes that would be the "progressive" labor unions of the day like SEIU that Beck always complains about.  Beck and Goldberg then go on to say there is no real difference between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain.  The Nazis were a socialist party in name only.  The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state.  In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control.  Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy.  Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business.  Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature.  There is a tremendous difference between the two.
Having said this it must be conceded that progressives generally favor more governmental regulation of the economy than conservatives.  Hitler was certainly in favor of more government control though his policy was more extreme than anything proposed by American progressives.
Military Policy and Foreign Policy:
Another major part of Hitler's policy was militarism.  Hitler greatly increased the portion of the German economy devoted to military spending and further believed that the best defense was a good offense.
A look at recent history reveals that Republicans certainly favor more military spending than liberals.  Reagan greatly increased "defense" spending even though a good portion of the increased budget was devoted to weapons of an offensive nature.  President Bush was also noted for his large increases in the defense budget.  Beck claims Bush was a progressive, a belief not at all agreed upon by the many conservatives who call him part of their own.
Finally Hitler's foreign policy was focused not on cooperation but on the use of force or the the threat of force to dominate the rest of the world.  President Obama has consistently been criticized by Beck and other conservatives for "apologizing" and being "soft" in his foreign policy approach.  They contrast this with people like Reagan who attempted to use military power and a "tougher" stance to achieve American foreign policy objectives.
Social Policy:
Most conservative beliefs have a religious underpinning.  Beck himself cites his Mormon beliefs many times in justifying his political views.  Conservatives use religious reasoning to justify their opposition to gay rights, the separation of church and state, and the general loss of "morality" in American culture.
The myth is that Hitler was anti-religion.  In reality Hitler used religious reasoning to justify his own policies.  Hitler focused on how the Aryan people had a "Christian heritage" with principles that must be adhered in order to rebuild the country.  This all sounds awfully similar to Beck's urging for us to return to the supposed Christian foundations of our own country.
Hitler worked with the Catholic Church to implement his agenda. The Catholic church has subsequently apologized for its role during the Nazi era.
One of the targets of Nazi persecution, in addition to Jews, were homosexuals.  Homosexuals were viewed as deviants under Hitler's government who were not deserving of equal rights along with other German citizens.
Conclusion:
The liberal and conservative movements of today are distinct from the beliefs and policies of Hitler's Nazi-era regime.  Beck only distorts the historical record by arguing Hitler was somehow more progressive or liberal than conservative.  In anything an analysis of all of Hitler policies resemble more of an extreme far-right ideology than anything else.

Marxism, Liberalism, pretty much the same thing.

only to a fucking idiot clown like you...

So, are you too embarrassed to show attribution for your cut and paste......

That shit did not come from you, a mere mental midget......

Hoosier, doesn't know what Nazi stands for!
 
National Socialist German Workers Party!
 
Hoosier, Socialist is in the name!

John, If only you had more than two neurons and a single synapse you would be able to comprehend what you read rather than copy and paste it as if it were a Gospel.

Ah the last resort of a defeated liberal, childish name calling!

If one is a student of history and understand history, comprehension becomes a foregone conclusion.....

Those who choose to ignore history and not learn from it are destined to repeat it.....

That has been said before, yes I think so, my paraphrase does not do the justice it is due......


Here we are.....

Famous Quote from George Santayana   


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." 

screech says, "Marxism, Liberalism, pretty much the same thing"

Are your parents siblings?

His assessment is correct the only difference is the degree of oppression they advocate!
 
Marxism is total governmental control of every aspect of human life while liberalism is near total governmental control of every aspect of human life!

The German Nazi (National Socialist) Party was politically fascist, which is a corporatist, racist, overwhelmingly petty bourgeois pastiche of ideologies based on the supremacy of the state over the individual, the importance of tightly centralized power and the fetishization of national myths and heroes. Socialism is multinational and working-class in character, seeking to establish a fully democratic, classless society.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Nazi_party_socialists
[HIGHLIGHT=#NaNNaNNaN][/HIGHLIGHT][/COLOR]

Socialists never distribute to the poor what they confiscate from the wealthy as the fast majority of those confiscated funds go to the bureaucracy!
 
All the same way the Nazis did!

Collectivism is what socialists, fascists, marxists and Leninists all have in common:
 
In place of the despised "private individuals," the Germans heard daily or hourly about a different kind of entity, a supreme entity, whose will, it was said, is what determines the course and actions of the state: the nation, the whole, the GROUP. Over and over, the Germans heard the idea that underlies the advocacy of omnipotent government, the idea that totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification of their total states: COLLECTIVISM.


Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective -- society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc. -- is THE UNIT OF REALITY AND THE STANDARD OF VALUE. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it -- or its representative, the state -- deems this desirable.

Now the debate over what is and isn't socialism is brought to its common denominator.  The debate our time is collectivism v. individualism.

the government did not confiscate the military industrial giants, they worked with them and forced citizens to work for these rich industrialists..they were right wing, you stupid idiotic bitches....read something..

Wrong Hoosier!
 
The Nazis told industry work with us or we will shut you down, seize all your assets and distribute them to those we like!
 
Do try to get it right!

i got it right, bitch.  the nazis were right wing...you are a fucking idiot.  try to keep it straight.

The word socialist is in their name and still you deny it!
 
How intentionally blind can you be Hoosier?

Another useless effort to argue a point that history has judged to be accurate......
 
The left can not accept the fact that the very essence of the nazi party is idealogically leftist.....

Double-dumass says, "The word socialist is in their name and still you deny it!"

In the 30s, in a worldwide economic disaster, "socialist" was in the name of many political parties to make them appeal more to voters, but their political philosophies had no relation to "socialism".

Wrong!
 
The Nazis were very socialist in their policies from socialized medicine to the volks wagon!
 
For liberals their socialist policies were to be envied!