Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Make Palestine Great Again
Comments
-
It’s failed even before it’s announced. Just like every other trump “deal.” I’m sorry that this makes you upset.RaceBannon said:
Why are you declaring failure over something that hasn't been announced?CirrhosisDawg said:
If only anyone could govern. That would be great.RaceBannon said:Add Palis to the list of pawns the left is using for political purposes
Where is your party on any of this? Playing to simpletons like you that are Trump Deranged
That's where -
As student of history, I am much more concerned with whether or not a particular regime was totalitarian or not.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is kind of where you run into the limitation of even the political compass as a tool to locate people imo. Are the authoritarians wearing business suits or military uniforms? Does it even really matter? If the economy is in the hands of a few powerful people supported by the government then we aren't talking anything on the "right" of the economic spectrum even if they are technically in the "private sector". *shrug, it's mostly the semantics of political taxonomy.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. -
Link?CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s failed even before it’s announced. Just like every other trump “deal.” I’m sorry that this makes you upset.RaceBannon said:
Why are you declaring failure over something that hasn't been announced?CirrhosisDawg said:
If only anyone could govern. That would be great.RaceBannon said:Add Palis to the list of pawns the left is using for political purposes
Where is your party on any of this? Playing to simpletons like you that are Trump Deranged
That's where
That's what I thought
Deranged and angry -
EverySingleNewsOutletInTheWorld.comRaceBannon said:
Link?CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s failed even before it’s announced. Just like every other trump “deal.” I’m sorry that this makes you upset.RaceBannon said:
Why are you declaring failure over something that hasn't been announced?CirrhosisDawg said:
If only anyone could govern. That would be great.RaceBannon said:Add Palis to the list of pawns the left is using for political purposes
Where is your party on any of this? Playing to simpletons like you that are Trump Deranged
That's where
That's what I thought
Deranged and angry
I’m just the messenger race. The trump-Kushner “peace” deal is by far the biggest trump embarrassment — and that’s an achievement unto itself. It’s an international joke.
Better luck next time? -
Link?CirrhosisDawg said:
EverySingleNewsOutletInTheWorld.comRaceBannon said:
Link?CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s failed even before it’s announced. Just like every other trump “deal.” I’m sorry that this makes you upset.RaceBannon said:
Why are you declaring failure over something that hasn't been announced?CirrhosisDawg said:
If only anyone could govern. That would be great.RaceBannon said:Add Palis to the list of pawns the left is using for political purposes
Where is your party on any of this? Playing to simpletons like you that are Trump Deranged
That's where
That's what I thought
Deranged and angry
I’m just the messenger race. The trump-Kushner “peace” deal is by far the biggest trump embarrassment — and that’s an achievement unto itself. It’s an international joke.
Better luck next time?
The deranged angry white payday loan expert is melting down bigly -
Nazi's caked themselves socialists. All socialists/communist regimes are totalitarian. The difference between the Nazi's and say China is the Nazi's didn't Serbs a bill to your family for the bullet they executed you with if you didn't agree with them.
Break that Shit or you'll find many Americans will use the 4th type of voting. -
Not sure if this stage 1 or 2 of grief.RaceBannon said:
Link?CirrhosisDawg said:
EverySingleNewsOutletInTheWorld.comRaceBannon said:
Link?CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s failed even before it’s announced. Just like every other trump “deal.” I’m sorry that this makes you upset.RaceBannon said:
Why are you declaring failure over something that hasn't been announced?CirrhosisDawg said:
If only anyone could govern. That would be great.RaceBannon said:Add Palis to the list of pawns the left is using for political purposes
Where is your party on any of this? Playing to simpletons like you that are Trump Deranged
That's where
That's what I thought
Deranged and angry
I’m just the messenger race. The trump-Kushner “peace” deal is by far the biggest trump embarrassment — and that’s an achievement unto itself. It’s an international joke.
Better luck next time?
The deranged angry white payday loan expert is melting down bigly
Regardless: Abundance!
Don’t worry Race, your stage 5 of acceptance is coming this week. -
It was the conservatives who entered into a coalition government with the Nazis in 1933. Kinda like Daddy doing a hostile takeover of the GOP in 2016 and neutering the Republican so-called "conservatives".SFGbob said:
Sorry O'Keefed, the NAZIs weren't Conservatives what they wanted to do was radical and extreme and no amount of chicken fucking on your part no matter what the frequency is going to change that fact.HHusky said:
Make Germany Great Again! wasn't a conservative movement, according to blob.SFGbob said:
There were strains of Socialism in pretty much all of European Fascism. The Italian Fascist as well as the German Fascists both believed in central planning, heavy state subsidies, high government spending, massive social welfare programs, yes they rejected Communism but they didn't reject Socialism. The one thing for certain is that they weren't capitalists and they definitely weren't conservatives.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 capitalismand 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 true nationalists 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.
Conservatives do not support central planning and massive social welfare programs and state subsidies and high government spending. But you know who does? People on your side of the aisle O'Keefed. -
Conservative Nazi's. Who'd a thunk it? Were firearms involved?HHusky said:
It was the conservatives who entered into a coalition government with the Nazis in 1933. Kinda like Daddy doing a hostile takeover of the GOP in 2016 and neutering the Republican so-called "conservatives".SFGbob said:
Sorry O'Keefed, the NAZIs weren't Conservatives what they wanted to do was radical and extreme and no amount of chicken fucking on your part no matter what the frequency is going to change that fact.HHusky said:
Make Germany Great Again! wasn't a conservative movement, according to blob.SFGbob said:
There were strains of Socialism in pretty much all of European Fascism. The Italian Fascist as well as the German Fascists both believed in central planning, heavy state subsidies, high government spending, massive social welfare programs, yes they rejected Communism but they didn't reject Socialism. The one thing for certain is that they weren't capitalists and they definitely weren't conservatives.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 capitalismand 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 true nationalists 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.
Conservatives do not support central planning and massive social welfare programs and state subsidies and high government spending. But you know who does? People on your side of the aisle O'Keefed. -
You might find this an interesting article. https://mises.org/library/nazi-economic-policycreepycoug 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. -
[But in so acting, he illustrated a key point that Mises often stressed: any intervention in the free market necessitates further interventions, because the initial measure will fail to achieve its goals. If the interventions continue, full state control of the market will rapidly ensue. The end result will be not capitalism, but socialism.]MikeDamone said:
You might find this an interesting article. https://mises.org/library/nazi-economic-policycreepycoug 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.
Sounds familiar... -
The discussion of Nazi economic policy and the simultaneous shit slinging from the usual suspects is a fun dichotomy.
-
Good piece Damone. It certainly mucks up the issue a bit doesn't it? I wonder how things would have LIPO'd in Germany on this point outside of depression recovery and wartim measures. I go back to some passages from Hitler's conversations/debates with Otto Strasser, like the following (purposefully omitting some yammering for brevity's sake):UW_Doog_Bot said:
[But in so acting, he illustrated a key point that Mises often stressed: any intervention in the free market necessitates further interventions, because the initial measure will fail to achieve its goals. If the interventions continue, full state control of the market will rapidly ensue. The end result will be not capitalism, but socialism.]MikeDamone said:
You might find this an interesting article. https://mises.org/library/nazi-economic-policycreepycoug 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.
Sounds familiar...
But when Hitler defended the idea that the economy should obey the criteria of profitability, I interjected: “In this regard, National Socialism defends a completely opposite position!
On the demand of Mister Hitler, I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers.
Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.”
Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. ... The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions?
There's moar, but suffice it to say, at least at the time of this debate, Hitler seems to have maintained some belief in private property and an aversion to Marxist thought.
The article you linked also mentioned that Hitler was a bit of an ad hoc guy when it came to the economy, so maybe in the end he lacked a sophisticated economic philosophy of his own. Maybe Yella's right: it's probably moar important to focus on whether a party wants totalitarian control rather than their esoteric views on economis theory. And we know where the Nazi's stood there. That is, whatever it takes to secure control and victory (however defined), they'll do that. If in a given time that means government intervention in the economy, to whatever degree, then that's that and they'll take and control what they need to take and control. To that extent, then, I would view the Nazi's less as a pure example of a political body focused on wealth distribution and controlling the means of production, and more of a heavy nationalist group hell bent on making Germany the ruling power in the world, and (certain) Germans, the rulers. -
What the fuck did you mean to convey in this pile of English gibberish. Jesus old man. Get it together. Typos are one thing; this incomprehensible.Sledog said:
With libs sueing Trump at every turn and sending Kerry to illegally advise them to not foretaste because they'll get pier babble and will kiss everyone's as like Obama did why shouldn't they drag there feet? They are the roadblock blame your comrades and can I have your mom's meatloaf recipe?CirrhosisDawg said:
See? It’s not that hard to agree. Trump is incapable and lacks the competence to negotiate an agreement with anyone. Anywhere. On any Issue. You’re making progress ducktard but still have lots of issues to address.Bendintheriver said:
Yeah he should negotiate all his deals like BO did right? Bend over for Putin on missile defense and deliver 1.7 billion to the largest exporter of terrorism who turned right around and used some of those funds to further support that terrorism while we got zero in return except a stronger terrorist. I should remind you that congress determined that Obama lied about that deal but I know you don't care.CirrhosisDawg said:We are all terribly disappointed to learn trump can’t negotiate a deal. With anyone. Anywhere. On any issue.
You mean that kind of negotiating or are you daydreaming of something else you partisan simpleton? -
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? -
LEAVE!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? -
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. -
Airplane and a cell phone. Auto spell is really getting fucked up. Couldn't correct it.creepycoug said:
What the fuck did you mean to convey in this pile of English gibberish. Jesus old man. Get it together. Typos are one thing; this incomprehensible.Sledog said:
?CirrhosisDawg said:
See? It’s not that hard to agree. Trump is incapable and lacks the competence to negotiate an agreement with anyone. Anywhere. On any Issue. You’re making progress ducktard but still have lots of issues to address.Bendintheriver said:
Yeah he should negotiate all his deals like BO did right? Bend over for Putin on missile defense and deliver 1.7 billion to the largest exporter of terrorism who turned right around and used some of those funds to further support that terrorism while we got zero in return except a stronger terrorist. I should remind you that congress determined that Obama lied about that deal but I know you don't care.CirrhosisDawg said:We are all terribly disappointed to learn trump can’t negotiate a deal. With anyone. Anywhere. On any issue.
You mean that kind of negotiating or are you daydreaming of something else you partisan simpleton?
Should read:
With libs sueing Trump at every turn and sending Kerry to illegally advise them to not agree to anything because dems will get power and will kiss everyone's ass like Obama did. Why shouldn't they drag there feet? They are the roadblock blame your comrades and can I have your mom's meatloaf recipe? -
That didn't clear anything up in your post.Sledog said:
Airplane and a cell phone. Auto spell is really getting fucked up. Couldn't correct it.creepycoug said:
What the fuck did you mean to convey in this pile of English gibberish. Jesus old man. Get it together. Typos are one thing; this incomprehensible.Sledog said:
?CirrhosisDawg said:
See? It’s not that hard to agree. Trump is incapable and lacks the competence to negotiate an agreement with anyone. Anywhere. On any Issue. You’re making progress ducktard but still have lots of issues to address.Bendintheriver said:
Yeah he should negotiate all his deals like BO did right? Bend over for Putin on missile defense and deliver 1.7 billion to the largest exporter of terrorism who turned right around and used some of those funds to further support that terrorism while we got zero in return except a stronger terrorist. I should remind you that congress determined that Obama lied about that deal but I know you don't care.CirrhosisDawg said:We are all terribly disappointed to learn trump can’t negotiate a deal. With anyone. Anywhere. On any issue.
You mean that kind of negotiating or are you daydreaming of something else you partisan simpleton?
Should read:
With libs sueing Trump at every turn and sending Kerry to illegally advise them to not agree to anything because dems will get power and will kiss everyone's ass like Obama did. Why shouldn't they drag there feet? They are the roadblock blame your comrades and can I have your mom's meatloaf recipe? -
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 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".
