Posted on 10/22/2023 12:51:47 AM PDT by grundle
Such is their bigotry that activists are willing to parade in 'solidarity' with the enemies of the rights of women and sexual minorities
When did anti-Semitism become a Left-wing thing? Not very long ago there was a more-or-less universal understanding that attacking Jews, and trying to eliminate them en masse, was an attitude specifically associated with movements of the extreme Right. Nazi Germany’s systematic attempt to find a “final solution” to the Jewish problem (which is to say, the problem of Jews continuing to exist) became the most infamous state crime in modern history.
One of the political justifications for this – as opposed to the mystical one of racial purity – was that Jews were aligned with international Communist agitators who were a threat to the German nation that had to be defeated. At the same time as being accused of Left-wing subversion, they were also, of course, being caricatured as global capitalist conspirators whose banking monopoly threatened the economies of sovereign countries. The contradiction at the heart of this Jew-hatred persists to this day and serves a useful purpose to the opportunist camps of Left and Right who can summon up either of the tropes whenever they suit the circumstances.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
That said, you don't believe Hitler was an opportunist?
Everyone who has studied Hitler knows full-well that he redefined "socialism" to fit his needs. It isn't socialism as you think it is.
Hitler had one plan...to establish a dictatorship with himself in charge (which for the most part, he accomplished). He had no plans--ZERO, ZIP, NADA--to create a socialist state with common ownership of property by the German people.
He was a tyrant, not an ideologue.
“Jew hatred has become a left/wing shibboleth.”
It always was. During the revolutions of 1848 and the rise of capitalism, Jew hatred was rampant in the pamphleteering. Jews were associated with greedy factory owners exploiting their workers and greedy bankers.
Karl Marx (on “The Jewish Problem”) was just a symptom.
Hitler’s idea of socialism was nationalism.
The two were inextricably bound in his view. There was no room for individual rights or indeed for the individual at all.
Sounds a lot like what the democrat party are working on now with all the radical changes.
and as I’ve said, you’re just dead wrong. Clearly it is you who is insecure about admitting the fact that Hitler was a Socialist.....a LEFTIST.
Sure Hitler took advantage of opportunities, but let’s not even pretend he had no firm ideology. He absolutely did. A lot of his actions make no sense at all without understanding how driven by his ideology he was.
You say Hitler redefined Socialism. So? Marx had a version. Lenin another. Mao another. Pol Pot another. Stalin another. Trotsky another. and Hitler yet another. They were all Socialists. They just had some variations on the theme. All of them believed in centralized government power and rejected decentralized power as well as the rights of the individual. All believed the people in their countries to be mere pawns who existed to advance the interests of the state. Several of them cared a great deal about their idea of their country or people but didn’t give a damn about the suffering they caused the people they ruled over in order to realize their vision of what the country or people could be.
Hitler had no plan to create a state in which the government would directly own the means of production. Government would let people run their businesses so long as they did the government’s bidding. He didn’t recognize any right those people had to own their businesses. The government would seize their businesses and property any time it wanted to or anytime they did not do the government’s bidding. He was willing to let them hold onto and manage what they had as a privilege only because it was more efficient to let them run their businesses. Get it? It was a TACTIC. It was not some belief on his part in their right to their own property.
You say he was a tyrant and not an ideologue. Every one I named was a tyrant or would be tyrant. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims in North Korea, Castro in Cuba, the Mambo Chimp in Venezuela, they were all tyrants. You can be a tyrant and an ideologue at the same time. They are not only not mutually exclusive, but they often go together hand in glove.
Even Lenin allowed some form of market economics with the NEP, because at the time it was politicially and economically expedient.
Hitler allowed private ownership of the means of production because he knew it was the best way to build his war machine, but once the war was over, there’s no question he would have eliminated the business class, because it didn’t fit into his vision of the “Thousand Year Reich”.
Hitler had no plan to create a state in which the government would directly own the means of production. Government would let people run their businesses so long as they did the government’s bidding.
https://cdn.mises.org/the_vampire_economy_20201022.pdf
It is an easy read. After reading it you will say, “that is my govt today”.
Shrill.
It wasn’t and still isn’t about ideology but those points are made in speeches etc to drive the real force toward totalitarianism. Elitism. Oligarchy. Use whatever you have to to trick masses into allowing you and your cronies to rule, enslave, and kill your subjects. It’s pretty simple.
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.