Whatever its platform was initially, Hitler and Ernst Rohm had perverted the political party to their own ends, and those ends were not Lenin, Marx and Engles.
The spectrum for state vs. individual rights goes from anarchy (nobody can decide anything for anybody else) to absolute monarchy (one person decides everything for everybody). Socialism, Communism and Monarchy are really quite similar. There is also the function of how the government is selected from democracy to birth-right.
When you start looking at our Constitution in the light of People vs. State, you realize how brilliant the Founding Fathers were.
The difference in "socialism" between the economic programs of the Nazis and the Communists lay in whom they'd allow the ownership of the means of production - the Communists wanted the state to own all of them; the Nazis were content to control them and allow the owners (Krupp, e.g.) to maintain nominal ownership. If that's "socialism" then yes, they were socialists too.
Political demonizing at work. Guess the right(bad) or left(good) depends on who is doing and who is the victim of the genocide. OK for the left but not OK for the right. Then there is the human genocide of birth control and abortion - now is that left or right?
Merry Christmas
All genocidal tyrants of the past and current century were/are left-wing/socialists. The left and the right are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The further left you go, the more "big government" you will find. The further right you go, the lesser "government" you will find. An "extreme right wing" ideology can most accurately be described as libertarian.
Soviet Communist, Chinese Maoists, Nazi Fascism, Cuban Communist-dictatorship, North Korea's f&cked-version, European socialism-lite, American Liberalism.There's alway's a do gooder out there who will be duped into trying one of these flavors. Socialism looks sweet, but ends up tasting rotten.
Genocide is needed to maintain the control, the victim is irrelevant, it is usually the Facist if the Communist are in power, and vice versa. Hitler used race because it was already in the Nationalist Party Platform, but he also targeted the Communist in Russia and Eastern Europe. Class has also be used. Any division can be utilized, as the ends justify the means.
Rarely do you ever hear that Nazism only became possible as an outgrowth of Communism and totalitarian politics.
No. Most so called rightists have known this all along. The author sounds like a liberal who is just now seeing the light.
The author speaks of socialism/communism in the past tense. It is alive and well.
He also talks of socialism/communism purely in political terms. Until people realize that communism is a RELIGION they will never understand why it is so hard to defeat.
As for hitler being a socialist in the true sense of what socialism/communism stands for he wasn't.
He was a nationalist first and foremost which didn't fit in with the true communist agenda which was/is no borders, no countries, no seperate identities. Eliminate capitalism and the bourgeois.
There were many apologists for the evils of communism in Russia. They knew what was happening but truly believed it was for the good. All of the writers, the theorists, of communism advocated killing a majority of the population to allow the birth of their communist heaven on earth. Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky all believed in those means of achieving that end. The writer Tkachev read by Stalin, Lenin etc. said "the majority of the population must be exterminated" to achieve the communist dream.
Bakunin and Nechaev espoused the ideals of "universal destruction." These beliefs are what caused the deaths of so many millions in the soviet union. It was intentional.
FA Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".
From the jacket cover:
...remains one of the all time classics of 20th Century intellectual thought...Hayek argues convincingly that, while socialist ideals may be tempting, they cannot be accomplished except by means that few would approve of. Addressing economics, fascism, history, socialism and the Holocaust, Hayek unwraps the trappings of socialist ideology. He reveals to the world that little can result from such ideas except oppression and tyranny...
It was first published in 1944 and it really breaks it down for you. It's a good book to read if you're looking for more ammo against the lefties and it provides answers as to why the Nazis were ideologically on the left.
Personally, I thought the term "left" in politics was first ascribed to a radical group in French Parliment long ago, the reason being- they sat on the left of the room. Left and Right seem a bit misleading to me. I've always been of the notion that there was "Freedom/Rights of Man" and "Anti- Freedom/anti- rights of man". It's either one or the other and I don't care if a person likes to feel "left", "right" or upside down, you're either for acknowledging the rights of the individual or you aint. All else flows from that. Quite obviously, neither the Communists nor the Nazis had any respect for the rights of man. Myself, I lump 'em all together with radical Islamists, Democrats, Greens and Banana Republic dictators.
The bourgeois world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people – that is to say, the bourgeoisie – being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews.
(Yes, I know, he's got a hang-up about Jews. This is just a quote.)
Anyway, the salient point - a valid one, IMO, is that any form of Marxism is fundamentally economic, and deals with economic classes. This is what the liberals in this country aim at. So they tear down the "rich" for the greater good of...the community...or the country...or all mankind.
Now, consider this as well, same source, Vol. 1, Chapter 11:
The constructive powers of the Aryan and that peculiar ability he has for the building up of a culture are not grounded in his intellectual gifts alone. If that were so they might only be destructive and could never have the ability to organize; for the latter essentially depends on the readiness of the individual to renounce his own personal opinions and interests and to lay both at the service of the human group. By serving the common weal he receives his reward in return. For example, he does not work directly for himself but makes his productive work a part of the activity of the group to which he belongs, not only for his own benefit but for the general. The spirit underlying this attitude is expressed by the word: WORK, which to him does not at all signify a means of earning one’s daily livelihood but rather a productive activity which cannot clash with the interests of the community. Whenever human activity is directed exclusively to the service of the instinct for self-preservation it is called theft or usury, robbery or burglary, etc.
Notice that he clearly advocates subordination of personal interests to the so-called common good.
So, as I said earlier, I believe that it really is socialism. Anytime a person is told to put their interests aside for the purported good of a group, I smell the rot of socialism. And whether the group waves a hammer and sickle banner...or something else...the simple truth is that one's labor and the fruits thereof are being taken away.