reddogblitz Posted Monday at 07:15 PM Posted Monday at 07:15 PM (edited) On 6/1/2025 at 5:22 AM, K D said: Nationalization of Industry: The Nazi Party platform included calls for the nationalization of certain industries and profit-sharing. State Control of Welfare: They expanded social welfare programs, although these benefits were primarily directed towards "Aryan" Germans. Anti-Capitalist Rhetoric: Nazi propaganda frequently criticized "capitalists," particularly those associated with Jewish people or international finance. Their overall goal was a one world government just like what the Dems push for today. Maybe they did have some socialism cross over just as the US does (SS/MediCare/Medicaid/Student Loan forgiveness/SNAP/WiC/Space program/etc) but that doesn't make us socialist I wouldn't think. You're mileage may vary. The reason this caught my eye is I'm currently reading The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans. All of this talk about Hitler and Nazis made me interested in studying up a little on the subject. Richard makes the case the Nazis weren't socialists. It was all about racism and the Aryan race and power. Also the total and utter disfunction of Germany and it's governments after WWI and played a huge factor as well. Anyway, I suppose we can all have opinions on it. I'm gonna lend a little more credence to Richard who researched and wrote a 3 volume account of the Nazis over some guy on the internet. Quote Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism Richard Evans, in his magisterial three-volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German. Edited Monday at 07:17 PM by reddogblitz
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Monday at 07:20 PM Posted Monday at 07:20 PM 3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: Maybe they did have some socialism cross over just as the US does (SS/MediCare/Medicaid/Student Loan forgiveness/SNAP/WiC/Space program/etc) but that doesn't make us socialist I wouldn't think. You're mileage may vary. The reason this caught my eye is I'm currently reading The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans. All of this talk about Hitler and Nazis made me interested in studying up a little on the subject. Richard makes the case the Nazis weren't socialists. It was all about racism and the Aryan race and power. Also the total and utter disfunction of Germany and it's governments after WWI and played a huge factor as well. Anyway, I suppose we can all have opinions on it. I'm gonna lend a little more credence to Richard who researched and wrote a 3 volume account of the Nazis over some guy on the internet. @The Frankish Reich is the 4th or 5th Reich? This is really confusing. 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago 19 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: To the bolded font, in order: 1. Calls for speculation some 90 years hence. Overruled. 2. You seem to be implying there is only one true version of socialism. I reject that. 3. Socialist branding. Exactly, thank you. 4. Because the enough of the citizenry accepted the approach to socialism as offered by Hitler and crew. I see no need for caution here, Kay, stop being such a fraidy cat. Oh rest assured, 100% of the fear distribution is with the mousy prey. You have entered a lion’s den that is the history of political philosophy. This is well within my PURRRview. I FEEL I KNow a very significant amount on this topic. And my legendary posting stamina can render you CATatonic. I don’t KNEAD to massage your ego, either, as your predictable fate was of your own volition. So now hear ME OUt: 1. This is the consensus opinion of credible academic historians, based on all sorts of well-researched evidence. You’re overruling them?? 2. There are many versions of socialism, but all with one common denominator: workers owning the means of production. I reject your rejection. 3. Yes, branding, which is quite distinct from ACTUALLY BEING. 4. No, that was a reference to the fact that the Nazis quickly moved to crush all political opposition soon after taking control. Hitler offered no approach to socialism (see: point #2). He governed in accordance with fascism. I’m sure some of his early supporters who wanted socialism also liked his ultranationalism, calls for a strong centralized government, and hatred of Jews. None of that, however, are necessary features of socialism. Again…I know plenty of actual card-carrying DSA members. They all seem to be anti-nationalists, federalists, and humanists of some type. << Narrator: Kay carefully licks the backs of her hands, saunters over to a corner of her bedroom, curls up in a curious ball, and proceeds to sleep for the next eighteen hours. >>
Taro T Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago On 6/2/2025 at 7:22 AM, ComradeKayAdams said: You’re conflating “socialism” with “dirigisme.” The simple question regarding socialism is whether or not “the workers own the means of production.” You appear to be acknowledging that wealthy capitalists dominated the economic landscape of Nazi Germany, and that any collective bargaining was severely restricted under Nazi rule. So there’s your answer… Imprisoning one’s political opponents isn’t any defining feature of socialism. All types of governments throughout history have done this or not done this. It IS, however, a definitional component of far-right fascism. Reddogblitz is 100% correct. The “socialist” in “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” was rhetorical propaganda meant to appeal to the German proletariat in the earliest years of Nazism. Hitler and the Nazis then waged an all-out war with any and all left-leaning German political opponents. It is also a definitional component of far-left communism. Authoritarianism in any form gets those that don't go along with the program imprisoned if they're lucky. Mostly, those that don't go along simply end up in unmarked graves.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago On 5/31/2025 at 6:32 PM, BillsFanNC said: 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago (edited) 6 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: Oh rest assured, 100% of the fear distribution is with the mousy prey. You have entered a lion’s den that is the history of political philosophy. This is well within my PURRRview. I FEEL I KNow a very significant amount on this topic. And my legendary posting stamina can render you CATatonic. I don’t KNEAD to massage your ego, either, as your predictable fate was of your own volition. So now hear ME OUt: I see the feline play here, I don't see the connection---I see you less a 'stalk your prey' poster, more of a Stewie from Family Guy player. As for your posting stamina--I appreciate all that, but to quote an old friend during a very difficult stretch at a stressful job..."Hey, we can stand on our head for a year if need be.". The more likely outcome is I lose interest in the subject matter, though certainly remain appreciative for the hard, dirty work you put in. 6 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 1. This is the consensus opinion of credible academic historians, based on all sorts of well-researched evidence. You’re overruling them?? How I would overrule historians? What does this mean? Swing and a miss, Miss. 6 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 2. There are many versions of socialism, but all with one common denominator: workers owning the means of production. I reject your rejection. There are many versions of socialism, yes. Thank you, we could stop here and agree. Again, I acknowledged that I thought you were approaching this from a textbook perspective (no criticism intended), in my original post--my quick review of the subject matter suggests that 'worker owning' is often substituted with 'government representing the collective'. 6 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 3. Yes, branding, which is quite distinct from ACTUALLY BEING. Yes, branding, we agree. Thank you. 6 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 4. No, that was a reference to the fact that the Nazis quickly moved to crush all political opposition soon after taking control. Hitler offered no approach to socialism (see: point #2). He governed in accordance with fascism. I’m sure some of his early supporters who wanted socialism also liked his ultranationalism, calls for a strong centralized government, and hatred of Jews. None of that, however, are necessary features of socialism. Again…I know plenty of actual card-carrying DSA members. They all seem to be anti-nationalists, federalists, and humanists of some type. Point 2 has been addressed. That there was overlap with fascist tendencies is obvious. I feel like there is spillover when discussing any of these situations. As for 'some of his supporters', sure. Some rejected his approach. Some were full-throated supporters of his theory of social welfare and strong government , abhorrent though it was. Some went along for the ride. 6 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: << Narrator: Kay carefully licks the backs of her hands, saunters over to a corner of her bedroom, curls up in a curious ball, and proceeds to sleep for the next eighteen hours. >> There is a Garfield joke in here somewhere, but I'm too much of a gentleperson to flush it out. Edited 17 hours ago by leh-nerd skin-erd
ComradeKayAdams Posted 13 hours ago Posted 13 hours ago 6 hours ago, Taro T said: It is also a definitional component of far-left communism. Authoritarianism in any form gets those that don't go along with the program imprisoned if they're lucky. Mostly, those that don't go along simply end up in unmarked graves. It’s technically not a definitional component of communism, either. Authoritarianism has historically accompanied communism** because of the difficulty in scaling communism up to fit a society any larger and more diverse than what you’d likely find on a hippie commune. Any system of governance that poorly models collective human behavior will devolve into extreme violence. Anarcho-capitalism is on the opposite side of that same communist coin. ** - While we’re being super technical here…I should note that the historical/practical instances of communism failed in coming close to matching the academic/theoretical definition of communism. 4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I see the feline play here, I don't see the connection---I see you less a 'stalk your prey' poster, more of a Stewie from Family Guy player. As for your posting stamina--I appreciate all that, but to quote an old friend during a very difficult stretch at a stressful job..."Hey, we can stand on our head for a year if need be.". The more likely outcome is I lose interest in the subject matter, though certainly remain appreciative for the hard, dirty work you put in. How I would overrule historians? What does this mean? Swing and a miss, Miss. There are many versions of socialism, yes. Thank you, we could stop here and agree. Again, I acknowledged that I thought you were approaching this from a textbook perspective (no criticism intended), in my original post--my quick review of the subject matter suggests that 'worker owning' is often substituted with 'government representing the collective'. Yes, branding, we agree. Thank you. Point 2 has been addressed. That there was overlap with fascist tendencies is obvious. I feel like there is spillover when discussing any of these situations. As for 'some of his supporters', sure. Some rejected his approach. Some were full-throated supporters of his theory of social welfare and strong government , abhorrent though it was. Some went along for the ride. There is a Garfield joke in here somewhere, but I'm too much of a gentleperson to flush it out. Don’t get cute with me, Leh-nerd. You’re the one who called me a cat. Now you think of me more as someone who is youthful, adorable, persistent, brilliant, self-confident, and always able to declare victory. Hmmm…yes, let’s roll with Stewie! 1. You’re getting cute with me, Leh-nerd. YOU “overruled” ME. I was simply regurgitating the consensus thoughts of credible academic HISTORIANS. Therefore, YOU are overruling (i.e. disagreeing with) the HISTORIANS. Transitive property, bruh. 2. True. Direct government management has historically been far more common than worker cooperatives. 3. You’re very welcome! 4. I see where you’re going with this, but I will easily argue that modern American conservatives have far more overlap with historical fascists than do my democratic socialist comrades. Regarding your aborted Garfield remark: Let’s go ahead and “flesh it out” before we “flush it out.” Garfield is known for being lazy, fat, and a lover of lasagna. I am a workaholic, have a 19.3 BMI, and have been a 100% vegan for many years now. Diagnosis: FAIL. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 40 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: Don’t get cute with me, Leh-nerd. You’re the one who called me a cat. Now you think of me more as someone who is youthful, adorable, persistent, brilliant, self-confident, and always able to declare victory. Hmmm…yes, let’s roll with Stewie! Ah, I forgot I labelled you a 'fraidy cat. At least we agree on your Stewie moniker. We can roll with that. 40 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 1. You’re getting cute with me, Leh-nerd. YOU “overruled” ME. I was simply regurgitating the consensus thoughts of credible academic HISTORIANS. Therefore, YOU are overruling (i.e. disagreeing with) the HISTORIANS. Transitive property, bruh. It was not my intent to overrule you, again, not even certain how one obviously cute (I didn't want to say it, but it's true and thank you ☺️) old timer could overrule anyone. I actually thought I handled that respectfully, I didn't knock your post, and included a tag so it would not appear I was talking behind your back. I think you're being overly sensitive. To boot, you initially suggested I was overruling historians, then prest-o change-o you changed it to me overruling you. Trés confusing. 40 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 2. True. Direct government management has historically been far more common than worker cooperatives. ✊ Before, you didn't seem inclined to acknowledge this. Why hold the line on that particular issue in an attempt to win a point only to abandon it one post later? I guess it's like that old lady said in "Titanic", a woman's heart is indeed a deep ocean. 40 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 3. You’re very welcome! 🫡 40 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 4. I see where you’re going with this, but I will easily argue that modern American conservatives have far more overlap with historical fascists than do my democratic socialist comrades. Argue as you see fit, reasonable people can disagree reasonably. To me, that sort of interaction sounds an awful lot like arguing over who is tougher, Spider or Batman. Besides, Stevie Wonder could see where I was going with that. I'm a simple man, really, and don't really see much value there. 40 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: Regarding your aborted Garfield remark: Let’s go ahead and “flesh it out” before we “flush it out.” Garfield is known for being lazy, fat, and a lover of lasagna. I am a workaholic, have a 19.3 BMI, and have been a 100% vegan for many years now. Diagnosis: FAIL. OMG you lied about the 18 hour cat nap? Did you even lick the back of your pawhands, or is everything about our relationship a lie? My only failure was in trusting, apparently. 40 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: #mean
Recommended Posts