Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Make Palestine Great Again
Comments
-
I would have lost to Washington in row boat.creepycoug said:
Chintresting. Didn't realize Rohm was a diddler. I figured that would have been Goring, who was a bit of a weirdo anyway. I've not read much about Rohm, other than the guy was a fucking brute.YellowSnow said:
Furthermore, the party evolved over time. Ernst Rohm and the SA wing of the party was more radical and left on economis as I recall, but that element was purged in 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. Ultimately, to consolidate power, Hitler needed to have the backing of both the conservative business leader in Germany, and, of course, the Army. Rohm was seen as a threat to both and got whacked as a result. Plus he liked to diddle the young teen boi recruits.UW_Doog_Bot said:
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.creepycoug said:
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.Sledog said:
/dnc said:Sledog said:
CD is in the make communism great again camp.CirrhosisDawg said:Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!”
It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either.
Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
Great THUD as always.
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
Also chintresting to read that Goebbels was a real left winger and dedicated socialist, who was heart broken to learn that Hitler didn't share those views. Of course, Yosef was more in love with Hitler than he was dedicated to any economis ideals, and so probably repressed it and focused on the Yews, a point of commonality with his hero.
It must have been something else to be alive in those days. Can you imagine being young and educated in Germany at that time? What would you have done? -
Palestine makes it hard to abide by rule 1
Has there ever been a shittier group -
Yes, that's what I mean to say. Better stated.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Per Mike's article(and what I say all the tim regarding interventionism) Hitler probably believed that he could manipulate the economy to get the outcomes he wanted, which inevitably led to more and more interventions, and more and more state command and control of the economy(Doesn't sound like anyone in the Tug...).creepycoug said:
This seems right to me. I guess the question, though, remains: if there was a cohesive Nazi economic platform, what was it? If you're in total fucking control of everything, and can tell people when to shit, then why didn't they nationalize everything? What better time to seize control of productivity? I think the fact that the entire historical context for Nazi rule was either in post-depression era and wartime Germany - times in which government predictably interferes in the national economy -somewhat thwarts the analysis.UW_Doog_Bot said:
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.creepycoug said:
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.Sledog said:
/dnc said:Sledog said:
CD is in the make communism great again camp.CirrhosisDawg said:Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!”
It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either.
Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
Great THUD as always.
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
And, as I mention in another post, there is ample evidence their supreme leader was sympathetic to the rule of private property and the entrepreneurial contributor. He was more about Germany qua Germany than he was about ordinary German workers. So whatever you conclude, you have to account for Hitler, because he was the Nazi party for all intents and purposes.
It's a mistake to look for a deeper or broader economic vision imo. I think he was a nationalist first with intentions of building wealth and prosperity for ze' Germans and would have taken whatever pragmatic economic policies he thought were best to those ends. His ideology was political/social first and economic only as a means to those ends.
-
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.Bendintheriver said:Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
-
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.creepycoug said:
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.Bendintheriver said:Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market". -
@dawgfan1936, true?!YellowSnow said:
I would have lost to Washington in row boat.creepycoug said:
Chintresting. Didn't realize Rohm was a diddler. I figured that would have been Goring, who was a bit of a weirdo anyway. I've not read much about Rohm, other than the guy was a fucking brute.YellowSnow said:
Furthermore, the party evolved over time. Ernst Rohm and the SA wing of the party was more radical and left on economis as I recall, but that element was purged in 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. Ultimately, to consolidate power, Hitler needed to have the backing of both the conservative business leader in Germany, and, of course, the Army. Rohm was seen as a threat to both and got whacked as a result. Plus he liked to diddle the young teen boi recruits.UW_Doog_Bot said:
National Socialists were an alternative to communists and neither as far right or as far left as both sides like to portray so their chosen team doesn't include the "bad guys". They were a "middle road" of socialism which was reaction-arily nationalist compared to the "workers of the world unite" of the far left. Some people classify them as "center-right" on the economic spectrum but I would argue(obviously from an economic freedom perspective) that they are center-left. The Nazis resembled the Commies economically more than they resembled us? or someone like Pinochet(the example of far right authoritarianism) Obviously, on the authoritarian spectrum they are about as up there as possible. Plenty of Nazi era propaganda resembles current DemSoc arguments about the need to "restrain" the free market for the good of the people and the state acting as a benevolent intermediary between market forces and the people. The CCP in China is probably the closest current regime in the world to the Nazi political spectrum location, limited free markets & state sponsored industries with high levels of authoritarianism/nationalism.creepycoug said:
Some were. I think Goebbels was. Hitler, from what I recall reading about his debates with Otto Strasser and other political figures of the time, seemed @Swaye d by capitalism and private industry. Sure, he wasn't big on individual rights to the extent that individuals were expected to act in the best interests of Germany - in that he was an extreme nationalist. But his views on race and and the inherent superiority of some people over others ("race of Lords") folds in nicely with capitalism. Sure they ran herd on industry during the war; we did too. But Hitler, I believe, thought that natural selection made some people better businessmen than others. He also thought little of the working class in general, arguing forcefully that incompetent people who have "no notion of ideas or of anything" would ruin commerce and thus the economy, and he was all about the economy because he was all about Germany and German rule. Gotta have an economy first.Sledog said:
/dnc said:Sledog said:
CD is in the make communism great again camp.CirrhosisDawg said:Trump’s “Ultimate Deal!”
It’s got to be bigger than the huge deals on health care, immigration, trade, North Korea denuclearization, and Mexico paying for The Wall because those never happened either.
Just ask the Palestinians (who are still in Gaza and the West Bank because they won’t negotiate with trump’s son in law).
Great THUD as always.
.NAZI's were socialists. How are people this dumb?
Communist don't like LBGTZXQY Shit one bit. Off to the gulag with them and many others. The left wanting political systems that have murdered more than 100 million people. There's the dangerous purple right there.
Hitler was a fascist; I don't think he was a socialist. If you think that abject nationalism and subjugation of the individual to the needs of the nation equates to socialism, then you also think the current alt right nationalists are socialists, which I don't think is correct.
And, so, while there were probably some real socialists among the Nazi party ranks, there is ample evidence to suggest Hitler thought otherwise and was militantly against any road to full on communism. And if that's true - we can let @YellowSnow the Historian or @UW_Doog_Bot the Economis weigh in to confirm - then the Nazis were not socialists, because the Nazis were whatever Hitler wanted them to ben.
The word "socialist" in the Nazi party name has a whole historical context ... that's not the argument anybody makes.
What I know of Hitler from reading, his core philosophy on life and human beings does not fit well with any notion of "we should all be the same", and I think he was quite comfortable with the notion of an elite ruling class within Germany.
Also chintresting to read that Goebbels was a real left winger and dedicated socialist, who was heart broken to learn that Hitler didn't share those views. Of course, Yosef was more in love with Hitler than he was dedicated to any economis ideals, and so probably repressed it and focused on the Yews, a point of commonality with his hero.
It must have been something else to be alive in those days. Can you imagine being young and educated in Germany at that time? What would you have done? -
Interestingly enough, if it wasn't for the failure of American capitalism (far less regulated than it is nowadays mind you) in the period circa 1929- 32, the NSDAP would have never won enough seats in the Reichstag for Hitler to be named Chancellor.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.creepycoug said:
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.Bendintheriver said:Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market". -
You call it the failure of capitalism but I've got plenty of government regulations and market interference to point to in that era. Don't make me start citing economic historians before pointing fingers at my free markets.YellowSnow said:
Interestingly enough, if it wasn't for the failure of American capitalism (far less regulated than it is nowadays mind you) in the period circa 1929- 32, the NSDAP would have never won enough seats in the Reichstag for Hitler to be named Chancellor.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.creepycoug said:
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.Bendintheriver said:Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market". -
We've already discussed at great length the subject and I never disagreed with you, so don't twist. A better form of free-market capitalism, with sound monetary policy and good safety nets (unemployment insurance) would likely avoided the Great Depression. But still...UW_Doog_Bot said:
You call it the failure of capitalism but I've got plenty of government regulations and market interference to point to in that era. Don't make me start citing economic historians before pointing fingers at my free markets.YellowSnow said:
Interestingly enough, if it wasn't for the failure of American capitalism (far less regulated than it is nowadays mind you) in the period circa 1929- 32, the NSDAP would have never won enough seats in the Reichstag for Hitler to be named Chancellor.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.creepycoug said:
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.Bendintheriver said:Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market". -
I know, it was moar for the idiots in the back of the crowd who might be thinking "aha! capitalism bad!".YellowSnow said:
We've already discussed at great length the subject and I never disagreed with you, so don't twist. A better form of free-market capitalism, with sound monetary policy and good safety nets (unemployment insurance) would likely avoided the Great Depression. But still...UW_Doog_Bot said:
You call it the failure of capitalism but I've got plenty of government regulations and market interference to point to in that era. Don't make me start citing economic historians before pointing fingers at my free markets.YellowSnow said:
Interestingly enough, if it wasn't for the failure of American capitalism (far less regulated than it is nowadays mind you) in the period circa 1929- 32, the NSDAP would have never won enough seats in the Reichstag for Hitler to be named Chancellor.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Well, I would add, a rejection of capitalism as well. They attempted to plow a "middle road" similar to Nehru in India which, like many examples in history, meant an ever increasing scope of self-justifying interventionism that lead to a full blown state planned economy.creepycoug said:
I think what we've decided here is that it's inaccurate to say that the Nazis "had nothing to do with socialism", but that it wasn't their driving philosophy, at least insofar as Hitler was concerned; and when it comes to the Third Reich, I'm not really all that interested in what anybody other than Hitler thought, because they all lined up directly behind him. By the time they were full on into their thing, he and all his henchmen were much more preoccupied with racial politics and nationalist goals than they were in debating economic theory. I think @UW_Doog_Bot has right: there was likely no real developed economic platform (other than the rejection of Bolshevism). Rather, they did whatever was convenient at the time to keep the machine running. Damone's article points out that, Hitler at least, was a little all over the place on economic decisions.Bendintheriver said:Hey would one of you democrats on here be a real pal and spend some time telling us how Hitler and the Nazi's had nothing to do with socialism? I really would appreciate it and to be honest I find it really, really funny reading all of your historical revisions and attempts to avoid the truth. Thanks again. I will sit back and read your responses now without interruption.
To me, it's just that, another failed example of the center left and "moderate restraint of the free market".
