I see, so I'm right: there have never been nor will there ever be any true "socialist" nations. What kind of definition of "socialism" is that?
Well I agree that you would be hard pressed to find a socialist state. You usually find a mixed bag.
Okay then. Well you see, that just proves your definition isn't very meaningful. We're trying to discuss who is socialist and who isn't, and to what extent. You coming along with a definition of "socialist" which is impossible to satisfy isn't very helpful. My response is to nod my head, say "I see, thanks for the proposed definition, and you've answered our question - No One Is Ever Socialist. Now goodbye." and continue the discussion using a more realistic definition of "socialist".
[replace "Nazi" with "Communist" and description is equally valid] Well that is an over simplification. They were both totalitarian but they were also ideologically opposed AND mortal enemies.
You're absolutely right. They were both totalitarian, they were ideologically opposed to each other (as were the "Mensheviks" and "Bolsheviks" - both socialists, you will notice), and they were mortal enemies.
And they were both socialist too.
[[eugenics over freedom of reproduction,]] > > See Sweden, as recently as the 1970's.... ] See the US 20/30's
Agreed, another good counterexample. The US, under leftists like Wilson, and activist judges like Holmes, also had a strong eugenics movement.
[ Hitler advocated "merit"? Except for Jews, I guess. Stalin advocated "equality"? Except for kulaks, Ukrainians, other useless eaters, I guess. ] That's right. If you weren't a german it didn't matter.
Exactly my point - you (or rather, your quote) claimed that rightists advocated "merit over equality". But Hitler, as you admit, didn't advocate "merit" at all. If you were German, it didn't matter. Thus Hitler was on the left (since he wanted equality for all true German folk). I'm glad we now agree.
Let's stay on topic, we are talking about the politics of nazism. And btw they are NOT socialist.
Yes, they are. Quite a bit.
[ dictatorship over democracy,] So unlike leftists. Socialism not tyrants
I'm starting to understand. A guy can be a socialist, call himself a socialist, advocate socialist ideas, gain socialist followers, and then rise to power. But if he does anything bad or unpopular, then he's "not a socialist", he's "a tyrant", and I'm not allowed to use him as an example of a socialist anymore.
Socialists, apparently, can only do good and nice things. Anything bad done by any socialist automatically kicks them out of the socialist club. So you can never use any bad socialist behavior to discredit socialists. Only good and perfect beautiful socialist behavior. The definition of socialists excludes all bad behavior and only includes utopian behavior.
I understand now. What I understand is that it's a loaded definition, and a propagandandistic one, designed only to help socialists advance their cause. What I don't understand is why you buy into it and are promulgating it. Are you a socialist?
[...several times] Stay on topic.
You keep telling me to stay on topic. You put forth a list designed to prove that Hitler was on the right, I knocked down every item on that list by showing either that the claim was wrong or that it could equally apply to well-know leftists. That's completely on topic, whether you realize it or not.
Again, you go off to the USSR. We are talking about the NAZI PARTY and how they MORE resemble the FAR RIGHT!
Yes, and what you don't understand is that they don't "MORE resemble the FAR RIGHT", they more resemble the USSR, which is acknowledged to be on the far left.
And that's why I kept bringing up the USSR. Don't you understand that? Apparently not.