We all know the attack line that “Trump is like Hitler without the mustache,” but does this hold any merit? Because as far as I know Nazi=socialism, which is more in line with Hillary’s proposed policies. However, I’ve read that he (Hitler)renounced and fought against it socialism. What are the facts here?
Socialism has the pretense of everyone being equal. Hitler was more like a dictator in that he & his people were in charge. Big difference in that way.
Hillary says that she believes in socialism but acts more like a crooked capitalist. I think that most people here in this country don’t really understand true socialism. They can see it for the masses but see themselves more in the vein of Hillary (they are in charge building great wealth). Take Bernie for instance. He believes he is a socialist but only gives 8% of his paycheck away. He just bought a $600,000 house. In real socialism he would have the same type house as everybody else & would give more like 50% of his earnings away. You see people that believe in socialism see themselves as leaders that deserve “more” than the masses. That’s why if we go the socialism route all we are doing is switching who the leaders are.
Yes an example after example has shown that when socialism is practiced the leaders always live a lot better than the ordinary people. Venezuela currently is experiencing this.
Hitler was a socialist. The Nazi stood for “National Socialist Party.”
So far as Hillary goes, she very similar to most every other socialist leader - capitalism for her, socialism for the people she rules. She sells influence and government perks and keeps most of the money for herself. She takes from the people to supply those who buy influence for her. In other words, she is a political vampine.
She is the worst, most dishonest major party candidate in history.
**Hitler was a socialist. The Nazi stood for “National Socialist Party.” **
I agree that he sold himself & his party that way, but not that he was one or practiced socialism.
Something that has always amazed me about people. I’ve talked here & other places about my hate of socialism. And I will generally quote the true cost of socialism to people, but I find it truly amazing that nobody else seems to address it. Dems talk (sell) about “free” stuff & there are a lot of examples out there of countries that have exactly what they are pushing. Yet those that believe in it don’t every bring up the cost other than saying that someone else will pay for it (like businesses or the rich). To me the idiocy is in the numbers & even a quick review of them & basic math skills tells the story. But nobody wants to address it. That I don’t understand.
This is the sloppiest sort of revisionism I’ve encountered so far.
Hitler ruled by whim. He didn’t bother nationalizing all businesses - he didn’t NEED to. They did what they were told or their management got sent to Auschwitz. Adam Opel, the German car maker, had been owned by GM in America for over a decade; but GM was unable to contact them, direct them, or receive the profits, if any, that company was making.
Daimler-Benz was Adolf’s favorite carmaker - and they surely wanted to avoid getting involved with a violent political move. They had no CHOICE - they were tapped to provide the basic engineering which led to Hitler’s KdF-wagen, later the Volkswagen Beetle.
And the Beetle, competition for Opel, Mercedes and other makers, WAS A GOVERNMENT PROJECT. A socialist enterprise, owned by the Nazi Party…which by that time was indistinguishable from the German government. Done, not for money and not to further the development of the private automobile, but for PARTY PROPAGANDA. A car that any good Nazi-party worker could own, by saving Party-issued stamps.
I. G. Farben, the drug maker owned partly by Bayer (a German company) was ordered (ORDERED!) to supply Zyklon B. EVEN THOUGH it was being used for mass murder. They had no choice. Attempts to hold Farben and Bayer responsible after the war, failed - and for obvious reasons.
Here is the difference summed up: Communism and other pure socialism forms require the government to own the Means to Produce.
Fascism and other collectivist forms that are not pure socialism, allow government absolute control over the means to produce, whether ostensibly owned by private interests or not.
Well said JustPassinThru. I didn’t take the time to go into detail because I had something I had to do.
Yup. The state controlled the means of production.
Whether the state owns the means of production or merely controls the means of production is a distinction without a difference. Hitler was a socialist with all of the unequal benefits due to the esteemed architect and hypocritical leader of a socialist state. I think our economy has more in common (not the same or as tyrannical) with national socialism than it does with Soviet-style socialism – and little in common with a capitalist, free-market society. When I listen to local political and business leaders applaud and pat themselves on their own backs for their public-private partnerships for moving our community forward, it drives me absolutely nuts. Not everything they do is rotten, but the underlying concepts they cling to are even if they only have the best of intentions.
even if they only have the best of intentions.
I wonder what has done more damage to this word, people with good intentions or people with bad intentions. Both do a lot of damage.
Hitler had beliefs that are reflected by both the modern Democratic, and Republican parties.
Hitler did believe healthcare was a right, and believed strongly in animal rights. On the flipside, he was strongly nationalistic believing that Germany was the greatest country in the world, and that it needed to take a tough stand on unlawful behavior. Hitler was extremely homophobic, but simultaneously pushed for gender equality. He was fond of manufacturing and industrial production, as well as worker’s rights, but was vary wary of banks and old money. He fought to build a strong and modern military, but he also preached against a wealth gap and income inequality.
Hitler doesn’t slot well into modern American politics, and to what extend he does, he’s a Centrist. Not so much that he straddles the middle, but because he takes a lot of positions from both the Liberal Left, and the Conservative Right.
Hitler did not believe that State medical care was a right.
Not a right…to the “CITIZENS.” He wanted it as a lever of CONTROL. Freedom was anathema to him. His was a dictatorship - and absolute power requires absolute control. There had to be ways of herding unruly, unwilling subject-serfs.
NOBODY had rights in Hitler’s Germany. Only Adolf had rights.
Hitler was a Socialist. Many like to deny this and they so so because the far left leaped upon Hitler after WWII loud and strong. They did so for various reasons by key was to distance the Nazi regime from Communism, which is what they touted, so they blathered that Hitler was the FAR RIGHT. He was NOT the far right, but now it starts to get very complex, so lets clear the air…
Hitler hated the Ruskys and it was the Ruskys who ‘invented’ communism! What were the chances of Hitler jumping on the Rusky-commie bandwagon? Startin to smell the coffee?
Besides, he had other plans and the Trophy was the world. Any study of the 10 years leading up to WWII you could see the socialist and communist planks in his structure. One also has to remember he had to get the Jerry’s on his side. He came out of prison and then became the big kunha on the block and NEVER forget that he was ELECTED and ELECTED Dictator!. In order to consolidate his base he went at it 3 ways. Nationalism of der fatherland, the internal enemy the Jews and his Storm Troopers who kept the non believers in line or they disappeared. [for those of you who like do study and analysis, we see this in America today: ANTI-nationalism and pride in being black, brown etc, the enemy, white males, and of course DHS].
So we 10 years leading up to war and NO COUNTRY can go to war without the engine of capitalism, socialism lacks the horsepower to support the Armies and machines of war. But what Hitler did was smart, real smart is co-opted the German industrial base and integrated his Army with the civilian labor force. He created a fine and well oiled quasi capitalist-socialist war footing based economy and it worked and worked well. Now I am going to go out on a limb and I think it a good one. Hitler knew what he was doing and he a socialist and had he won the war he would have co-opted the Rusky model into his and call it his, which is why he went after the Ruskys. Never forget he was a dictator and as a general rule that are extreme narcism. [look at Obama and the Klintons]. Hitler died and he was worth about (as much) as a Billion $$$. In fact the upper Nazi Elite became FABULOUSLY wealthy off the govt as they were the ones running many of the Nazi war machines and the company was getting paid by the govt (Klintons are worth about $1.4 BILLION].
Yes any study will see where Hitler was headed, he was a Socialist for sure, but he like to many aggressive dictators was taken down by his own narcism which would not allow him to accept his own failure. Virtually ALL dictators are socialists (NOTE I did not say they were successful at it) but in order to co-opt the populace you have to offer them something, so you offer free - equality (Obama’s hope and change), the people suck it up seeing a better life ahead so they overlook reality and the truth to see to it their rice bowl gets filled…
> had he won the war he would have co-opted the Rusky model into his and call it his
I believe that had he won, he would have forced everyone to wear silly hats and dance to polka music :yes:
Your pseudo-“analysis” of Hitler’s politics would be true IF what you say about his various positions were anywhere close to the truth. 1. Hitler didn’t believe healthcare was a “right”–unless you were one of his supporters and a non-Jew. He didn’t give a tinker’s dam about “animal rights.” His “strong stand” on “unlawful behavior” was only “strong” towards those who “behaved unlawfully” towards HIS edicts, unless you were one of his elitists. He had NO interest in “gender equality,” believing that women’s sole function in society was to bear more soldiers. He actually gave cash awards to women who bore more than 5 children–mostly boys. The only thing Hitler disliked about the “wealth gap” was that he wasn’t in the upper tier–to begin with. Hitler in the U.S. would definitely be a Democrat…without question.
You’re so right, Dave. Democrats primarily want women to stay at home while their husbands work, and have lots of boys, because the Democratic Party of 2016 is strongly pro-family and pro-man.
Hitler set up camps where they brought boys and girls together for the purpose of mating. Their ages were as young as 12 and the goal was to get’um prego…
And YOU believe that Democrats’ interest in women is MORE than their votes? Democrats are ALL sexist and racist, which is why they promise “free stuff” to women and minorities in order to keep them all on the plantation.
I think Nazis are socialists that borrowed the worst elements of nationalistic thought sprinkled in there.