DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31798--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 26, 2025, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I am not illiterate"
Yes, you are. Even PotatoChip noticed it:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31790/#msg31790
"Moreover, the existence of high-value, expensive areas creates
an incentive for the affluent class to adopt a condescending
attitude toward those from underprivileged backgrounds, merely
because the latter possess weaker purchasing power to consume
more expensive products and services."
Moreover, the existence of trousers creates an incentive for
those with legs to adopt a condescending attitude towards those
without legs, merely because the latter possess weaker modelling
power to wear trousers.
#Post#: 31799--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: December 26, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"I am not illiterate"[/quote]
Yes, you are. Even PotatoChip noticed it:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31790/#msg31790[/quote]
It is, in fact, your literacy that needs improvement. Historical
facts have been clearly laid out showing Hitler’s closeness to
command economic theory and Bolshevik thought, yet you reject
all of this. The historical evidence does not come solely from
foreign media outside Hitler’s regime at the time, but is also
demonstrated through Hitler’s own thinking over the years.
It is a falsehood for someone to claim to be a socialist and
spiritually aware while refusing to acknowledge the inherent
evils of capital accumulation and the laws of market mechanisms
that have prevailed throughout human history.
You cannot even provide an example of how workers could be
liberated from the practices of exploitation and extortion
carried out by the owners of the means of production if the
environment and economic activities continue to operate under
the laws of the market and so-called ‘free enterprise.
If you wish to understand socialism, then first acknowledge the
factual analyses presented in Das Kapital, which Hitler himself
also accepted and agreed with as a work by Marx
[quote][quote]"Moreover, the existence of high-value, expensive
areas creates an incentive for the affluent class to adopt a
condescending attitude toward those from underprivileged
backgrounds, merely because the latter possess weaker purchasing
power to consume more expensive products and services."[/quote]
Moreover, the existence of trousers creates an incentive for
those with legs to adopt a condescending attitude towards those
without legs, merely because the latter possess weaker modelling
power to wear trousers.[/quote]
Regulating and disciplining the middle class and the bourgeoisie
that generate social pathologies cannot be equated with an
analogy that compares able-bodied people with those who are
disabled. Disciplining them does not mean rendering the middle
class and the bourgeoisie disabled. It simply means that they
must not possess individual ownership; everything must be
regulated by those who are deemed to understand society—namely,
the vanguard ranks and the Führer (the head of state).
Recall :
Hitler's Hatred toward the bourgeoise
[quote]The position of the German bourgeoisie was always the
same, in that it opposed these attempts at reform and believed
it could turn back the hands of time ... Only a few years ago
the miners had a nine-hour day and wanted to reduce it to an
eight-hour day. The whole bourgeois press took the view that
this was impossible. When the miners then went on strike, it
went completely wild. Now I know very well that at the time
hundreds of thousands of those bourgeois joined in the shouting,
but only because they did not know what the real issue was. Had
they only gone down under the ground once for eight hours, nay
only for four hours, they would have said, no, nobody can stand
that. - Adolf Hitler, 26 March 1927 [1] [Page 205]
...
... the political German bourgeoisie has developed into one of
the greatest curses of the German nation. Had the revolution of
1918 only sent the bourgeois parties to the devil instead of the
nobility, the German nation could ultimately have honestly
thanked Marxism, because for the German nation today the old
Roman proverb, in an amended wording, applies more than ever
before: Lord protect Germany from its friends of the bourgeois
parties, one way or the other it will then be able to deal with
its Marxist enemies! - Adolf Hitler, 4 January 1930 [2] [Page
228]
...
On 28 June 1930 Hitler wrote in the Illustrierte Beobachter that
the bourgeois parties and their men ‘were capable of any
nastiness’, that everything ‘the bourgeois parties put their
hands on’ goes under. ‘Were Bolshevism not out to destroy the
best racial élite, but only to clean out the bourgeois party
vermin, one would almost be tempted to bless it.’ [3] [Page 228]
...
Many a bourgeois who condemns the worker’s striving for an
improvement in his economic situation with an outrage that is as
unwise as it is unjust would possibly suddenly think completely
differently if for only three weeks he would have had laid on
his shoulders the burden of the work demanded of the others.
Even today there are still countless bourgeois elements who most
indignantly reject a demand for a wage of ten marks a month, and
especially any sharp support of this, as a ‘Marxist crime’, but
display complete incomprehension when faced with a demand to
also limit the excessive profits of certain individuals. - Adolf
Hitler, 1 November 1930 [4] [Page 206]
...
This democratization led to the state first falling into the
hands of certain social classes who identified themselves with
material possessions, with being employers. The broad masses
increasingly got the feeling that the state itself was not an
objective institution standing above mundane matters, above all
that it no longer embodied an objective authority, but that the
state itself was the product of the economic desires and the
business interests of certain groups within the nation, and that
the leadership of the state also justified such a claim. The
victory of the political bourgeoisie was after all nothing more
than the victory of a social class which had developed out of
the laws of business, which for its part did not fulfil even the
most minor conditions for a genuine political leadership, and
which, above all, made political leadership dependent on the
constantly fluctuating conditions of economic life and the
effects of this economic life in the areas of the influencing of
the masses, the preparing of public opinion and so forth. In
other words, the people quite rightly had the feeling that in
all sectors of life there was a natural selection going on,
always dependent on the suitability for this particular sector
of life, except in one sector: in the sector of political
leadership. In this sector of political leadership one suddenly
turned to that result of a selection which owed its existence to
a completely different process. - Adolf Hitler, 10 May 1933 [5]
[Page 224]
...
On 24 February 1940 Hitler declared that the
bourgeois-capitalist world had already collapsed, its age
already long outdated: This collapse must take place everywhere
in some form or other and it will not fail to materialize
anywhere.’ [6] The German nation could not, said Hitler, ‘live
with the bourgeois social order at all’. [7] In a conversation
with the Hungarian ‘Leader of the Nation’ Szálasi, Hitler
declared on 4 December 1944 that the ‘bourgeois European world’
would break down ever further and all that was left was the
alternative ‘that either a sensible social order were created on
a national level, or that Bolshevism would take over’. [8] [Page
230]
...
Hitler also sharply attacked the bourgeoisie in his table talks
and made it responsible for the development of Marxism and the
spread of Communism. On 2 August 1941, for example, he said:
It is no wonder that Communism had its strongest bulwark in
Saxony, and that we only won over the Saxon worker very
gradually, and also that he is now one of the most loyal: the
bourgeoisie there was of an almost imbecile bigotry. In the eyes
of Saxon business we were also Communists; whoever supports a
social equality for the masses is a Bolshevist! The sins
committed against the Saxon home workers are unimaginable. That
was a plutocracy such as in England today. In Saxony the
Wehrmacht had already detected a gradual decay of the human
material. I do not blame any one of the little people that he
was a Communist, I can only blame that on the intellectual: he
knew that for him the poverty was only a means to an end. If you
look at this vermin of a bourgeoisie, you still get red in the
face today. The masses followed the only way left open to them.
The worker took no part in national life. To the uncovering of a
Bismarck memorial, for example, or the launching of a ship, a
delegation of workers was never invited; all you saw there was
top hats and uniforms. For me the top hat is identical to the
bourgeoisie. - Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1941 [9][Page 207]
...
Even in his final speeches Hitler still expressed his
convictions about the necessary collapse of the bourgeois world,
of the ending of the historic mission of the bourgeoisie. In his
last New Year address on 1 January 1945 he prophesied that
... the bourgeois social order is no longer able to resist the
storms of today, let alone those of coming times; state after
state which does not find the way to a truly social
restructuring will descend into chaos. The liberal age has been
and gone. To believe one can oppose this storm of the nations by
parliamentary-democratic half measures is child*sh, just as
naive as Metternich’s methods were against the mutually
reinforcing efforts at national unification of the nineteenth
century. [10] [Page 230][/quote]
Source :
1. BA (Bundesarchiv Koblenz)/NS 26/54, f. 148, speech on 26
March 1927
2. IB (Illustrierter Beobachter), 5th year set, issue 1 of 4
January 1930, p. 7
3. Ibid., issue 26 of 28 June 1930, p. 405
4. IB (Illustrierter Beobachter), 5th year set, issue 44 of 1
November 1930, p. 765
5. Speech at the congress of the DAF on 10 May 1933, in ‘Young
Germany Wants Work and Peace ...’, p. 48 et seq
6. Bouhler I/II, p. 162, speech on 24 February 1940
7. Ibid., p. 164
8. Conversation with Szálasi on 4 December 1944, Hillgruber,
Statesmen II, p. 527
9. Monologues, p. 51, entry for 2 August 1941
HTML https://archive.org/details/monologe-im-fuehrerhauptquartier/page/36/mode/2up?q=da%C3%9F+der+Kommunismus+in+Sachsen
10. Domarus, p. 2183, speech on 1 January 1945
11. Hitler's National Socialism by Rainer Zitelmann Page 205,
228, 224, 230, 207, and 230
HTML https://ia801207.us.archive.org/13/items/adolf-hitler-archive/Hitler%27s%20National%20Socialism%202022.pdf
#Post#: 31800--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 26, 2025, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Historical facts have been clearly laid out showing Hitler’s
closeness to command economic theory and Bolshevik thought, yet
you reject all of this."
Of course I reject it! I have an entire topic encouraging
leftists to own firearms:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/firearms/
Does this mean I am more similar to rightists who like firearms
(and therefore own firearms) than to False Leftists who dislike
firearms (and therefore refuse to own firearms)? No, it means
that I am aware that rightists own firearms and therefore that
leftists will be defeated by rightists in civil war unless they
also own firearms! None of which implies that I have "closeness"
to firearms! I wish firearms had never been invented in the
first place FFS!
Your theory (that Hitler sincerely liked communism) cannot
account for Operation Barbarossa, whereas my theory (that Hitler
understood how dangerous communism was, which requires
acknowledging its strengths) would be surprised if Operation
Barbarossa had not happened.
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31790/#msg31790
"You cannot even provide an example of how workers could be
liberated from the practices of exploitation and extortion
carried out by the owners of the means of production if the
environment and economic activities continue to operate under
the laws of the market and so-called ‘free enterprise."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30564/#msg30564
[quote]You keep talking about workers being exploited by the
private sector, but the sufficient solution is for the state to
ensure that public sector jobs are readily available, so that
workers dissatisfied with their private sector jobs can easily
switch to public sector jobs. You, however, want to eliminate
private sector jobs altogether. Then what if the public sector
is exploitative? I want to maintain the private sector precisely
to guard against this possibility, so that workers dissatisfied
with their public sector jobs can also easily switch back to
private sector jobs. But what is your solution for workers
exploited by the public sector if no private sector exists as an
alternative?[/quote]
"If you wish to understand socialism, then first acknowledge the
factual analyses presented in Das Kapital"
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30607/?topicseen#msg30607
[quote]It looks like you missed Zea_mays' original point:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10612/#msg10612
[quote]The True Left must reframe the relationship to accurately
contextualize Marxist Socialism as merely one type of Socialism
among many(?) possibilities.[/quote][/quote]
#Post#: 31804--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: SodaPop Date: December 26, 2025, 11:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and
that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was
very slight. - Joseph Goebbels, The New York Times, “HITLERITE
RIOT IN BERLIN: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler
and Lenin,” (Nov. 28, 1925) p. 4. Note: according to Curt Riess,
journalist, author, and Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Germany,
Goebbels was “praising Lenin” and drawing “parallels between
Bolshevists and the Nazis.” By April of 1926, Hitler told him to
stop. (Joseph Goebbels: A Biography, Doubleday & Company, Garden
City, New York (1948) p. 31[/quote]
[quote]The red color of our posters alone attracted them into
our meeting-halls. The ordinary privileged class was quite
horrified to see us using the red of the Bolsheviks and regarded
it as very
Nationalists kept whispering to one another their suspicion that
basically, we were only a variation of
Marxists or some kind
have still not grasped the difference between Socialism and
Marxism. When they discovered that we omitted the standard
greeting “ladies and gentlemen” and instead used “comrades” and
that among ourselves we spoke only of “Party comrades”, many saw
this as proof
laughter at these simpleminded, scared privileged class
with their clever guesswork about our origin, our intentions,
and
page 346.[/quote]
Sounds familiar? Somethings never change. Well, on second
thought the "sacred privileged class rabbits" are no longer
capable of "clever guesswork" these days. ;D
#Post#: 31807--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: December 27, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Does this mean I am more similar to rightists who like
firearms (and therefore own firearms) than to False Leftists who
dislike firearms (and therefore refuse to own firearms)? No, it
means that I am aware that rightists own firearms and therefore
that leftists will be defeated by rightists in civil war unless
they also own firearms! None of which implies that I have
"closeness" to firearms! I wish firearms had never been invented
in the first place FFS!
Your theory (that Hitler sincerely liked communism) cannot
account for Operation Barbarossa, whereas my theory (that Hitler
understood how dangerous communism was, which requires
acknowledging its strengths) would be surprised if Operation
Barbarossa had not happened.[/quote]
It is inaccurate for you to assume that my conclusion is that
Hitler was close to and sympathetic toward Bolshevism, or that
‘Hitler was a Bolshevik.’ I am merely stating that the socialist
society led by Hitler employed mechanisms of governance and an
economic system similar to those implemented by Lenin and the
vanguard of the Bolshevik Party. However, Hitler applied
socialism with the additional implantation of so-called
universal spiritual values and rejected the advancement of
stages of industrialization, as well as rejecting the
development of social consciousness based on the theory of
dialectical materialism.
Furthermore, Hitler attacked Russia not because it was ruled by
communists, but due to his desire to expand territorial power
and his anti-Slavic sentiment. He also believed that in order to
implement an ideal society, forces adhering to different
ideologies had to have their power destroyed; this was likewise
a cause behind Hitler’s attacks on Russia and on capitalist
states across the European continent. Moreover, toward the end
of the war, Hitler stated that he had found it difficult to
decide whether to launch an attack on Russia.
[quote]For me, the most difficult decision in this war was the
order to attack Russia. I have always believed that Germany must
never fight on two fronts, and no one should doubt that I
studied and reflected upon Napoleon’s experience in Russia more
than anyone else. So, why was there a war against Russia? Why
did I choose that path at the time?
There was no longer any hope for us to end the war in the West
by attacking the British Isles. That country—led by fools—would
refuse to recognize our leadership and reject an honest peace
agreement as long as the powers within Europe that were
essentially hostile to the Reich remained undefeated. The war
would have to continue indefinitely; a war in which America was
becoming increasingly involved behind the scenes. The human and
material potential of the United States, its constant growth in
military technology and new weapons—both on the enemy’s side and
on ours—and the threatening proximity of the English coast—all
of this forced us to try to prevent a prolonged war by every
possible means. Time—always time!—would inevitably work against
us at an ever-increasing pace.
The only way to force Britain to make peace was to destroy the
Red Army and thereby eliminate their hope of opposing us on the
continent with an equal adversary. We had no choice but to
remove the Russian factor from the balance of power in Europe.
There was a second reason of equal weight, which on its own
would have been sufficient to justify this action: the latent
danger posed by the existence of Bolshevism. An attack from that
direction was certain to occur one day.
Our only chance to win a victory over Russia lay in anticipating
their assault; for a defensive war against the Soviet Union was
impossible for us. Under no circumstances could we allow the Red
Army to enjoy the advantage of our terrain—our open ground
suited for tank warfare, our highways ideal for the movement of
their armored units, and our railways suitable for transporting
their troops and materials. We could defeat the Bolsheviks in
their forests, swamps, and open steppes if we acted in time—but
we could never defeat them on terrain favorable to traffic and
maneuver, such as our own lands. To wait for their attack would
have meant opening the road for the enemy to march into Europe.
— Adolf Hitler, 15 February 1945[/quote]
Source :
Hitlers politisches Testament die Bormann Diktate vom Februar
und April 1945 Page 28
Hitler's plan to attack Europe, written by Hermann Rauschning,
the German politician and author, adherent of the Conservative
Revolution movement who briefly joined the NSDAP movement before
breaking with it.
[quote]Hitler : "I shall do everything in my power to prevent
cooperation between Britain and France. If I succeed in bringing
in Italy and Britain on our side, the first part of our struggle
for power will be greatly facilitated. Anyhow, we don't for a
moment pretend to believe that this degenerate Jewish democracy
has any more vitality than France or the United States. It will
be my mission to see that at least an effort is made to inherit
this disintegrating empire peacefully, so that conflict can be
avoided entirely. But I shall not shrink from war with Britain
if it is necessary. Where Napoleon failed, I shall succeed.
Today there is no such thing as an island. I shall land on the
shores of Britain. I shall destroy her towns from the mainland.
Britain does not yet know how vulnerable she is today."
Hermann Rauschning : "But supposing Britain, France and Russia
make an alliance?"
"That would be the end. But even if we could not conquer then,
we should drag half the world into destruction with us, and
leave no one to triumph over Germany. There will not be another
1918. We shall not surrender."
...
Hitler : "We need space to make us independent of every possible
political grouping and alliance. In the east, we must have the
mastery as far as the Caucasus and Iran. In the west, we need
the French coast. We need Flanders and Holland. Above all we
need Sweden. We must become a colonial power. We must have a sea
power equal to that of Britain. The material basis for
independence grows with the increasing demands of technique and
armaments. We cannot, like Bismarck, limit ourselves to national
aims. We must rule Europe or fall apart as a nation, fall back
into the chaos of small states. Now do you understand why I
cannot be limited, either in the east or in the west?"
...
"In the center I shall place the steely core of a Greater
Germany welded into an indissoluble unity. Then Austria,
Bohemia, and Moravia, western Poland. A block of one hundred
million, indestructible, without a flaw, without an alien
element, the firm foundation of our power. Then an Eastern
alliance: Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, the Balkan states,
the Ukraine, the Volga basin, Georgia. An alliance, but not of
equal partners; it will be an alliance of vassal states, with no
army, no separate policy, no separate economy. I have no
intention of making concessions on sentimental grounds, such as
re-establishing Hungary, for example. I make no distinction
between friends and enemies. The day of small states is past, in
the west as well. I shall have a Western Union too, of Holland,
Flanders, Northern France, and a Northern Union of Denmark,
Sweden and Norway."
Raushcning writes on Voice of Destruction : Hitler's imagination
ranged over the entire world. He would attack Britain at all its
weakest points, India no less than Canada. He planned the
occupation of Sweden as well as Holland. The latter country, in
particular, seemed to him valuable jumping-off ground for air
and underwater attacks on England.
Hitler : "In less than eight hours we shall break through to
their coast, if they don't like it, they can try to drive me
out. In any case they will have to bear the main burden of
attack. The day of Britain's might at sea is past. Aircraft and
the U-boat have turned surface fleets into the obsolete
playthings of the wealthy democracies. They are no longer a
serious weapon in decisive warfare."[/quote]
Source :
The Voice Of Destruction by Hermann Rauschning page 120 - 126
HTML https://archive.org/details/voiceofdestructi027169mbp/page/n129/mode/2up
[quote][quote]"You cannot even provide an example of how workers
could be liberated from the practices of exploitation and
extortion carried out by the owners of the means of production
if the environment and economic activities continue to operate
under the laws of the market and so-called ‘free
enterprise."[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30564/#msg30564
You keep talking about workers being exploited by the private
sector, but the sufficient solution is for the state to ensure
that public sector jobs are readily available, so that workers
dissatisfied with their private sector jobs can easily switch to
public sector jobs. You, however, want to eliminate private
sector jobs altogether. Then what if the public sector is
exploitative? I want to maintain the private sector precisely to
guard against this possibility, so that workers dissatisfied
with their public sector jobs can also easily switch back to
private sector jobs. But what is your solution for workers
exploited by the public sector if no private sector exists as an
alternative?[/quote]
Competitive labor sectors that operate according to market laws
tend to enable aggressive and manipulative individuals to
flourish and have their instincts satisfied; therefore, such
competitive labor sectors should be confined by the state to the
private sphere and subjected to proper oversight. Individuals
with high IQs tend to adapt easily to competitive work
environments, yet they are often unable or unwilling to
recognize that such conditions give rise to social violence,
spiritual and psychological degradation, and systemic racism. If
we continue to allow society to operate democratically and
competitive on public domain, both in social interactions and
economic activity, then degeneration will persist, and high-IQ
groups such as the white race and Jews will tend to obstruct
easily the enforcement of socialism and what is regarded as
cultivation of original nobility.
@SodaPop
[quote][quote]Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler,
and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith
was very slight. - Joseph Goebbels, The New York Times,
“HITLERITE RIOT IN BERLIN: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker
Compares Hitler and Lenin,” (Nov. 28, 1925) p. 4. Note:
according to Curt Riess, journalist, author, and Jewish refugee
who fled Nazi Germany, Goebbels was “praising Lenin” and drawing
“parallels between Bolshevists and the Nazis.” By April of 1926,
Hitler told him to stop. (Joseph Goebbels: A Biography,
Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York (1948) p. 31[/quote]
[quote]The red color of our posters alone attracted them into
our meeting-halls. The ordinary privileged class was quite
horrified to see us using the red of the Bolsheviks and regarded
it as very curious scandal. The spirits among German
Nationalists kept whispering to one another their suspicion that
basically, we were only a variation of Marxism, maybe even
Marxists or some kind of Socialists in disguise. These brains
have still not grasped the difference between Socialism and
Marxism. When they discovered that we omitted the standard
greeting “ladies and gentlemen” and instead used “comrades” and
that among ourselves we spoke only of “Party comrades”, many saw
this as proof of the Marxist ghost. How often we shook with
laughter at these simpleminded, scared privileged class
rabbits with their clever guesswork about our origin, our
intentions, and our aim... - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ford
Translation, page 346.[/quote]
Sounds familiar? Somethings never change. Well, on second
thought the "sacred privileged class rabbits" are no longer
capable of "clever guesswork" these days. ;D[/quote]
Once again, I am explaining that stating Hitler was inspired by
Marxist thought and the Bolshevik Party does not mean that I
regard him as a leader who struggled to achieve the objectives
of those two ideologies
#Post#: 31808--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 27, 2025, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"It is inaccurate for you to assume that my conclusion is that
Hitler was close to and sympathetic toward Bolshevism"
Also you:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31800/#msg31800
[quote]Historical facts have been clearly laid out showing
Hitler’s closeness to command economic theory and Bolshevik
thought, yet you reject all of this.[/quote]
"competitive labor sectors should be confined by the state to
the private sphere and subjected to proper oversight."
Pick one.
#Post#: 31809--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: December 27, 2025, 6:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]"It is inaccurate for you to assume that my conclusion is
that Hitler was close to and sympathetic toward Bolshevism"
Also you:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31800/#msg31800
[quote]Historical facts have been clearly laid out showing
Hitler’s closeness to command economic theory and Bolshevik
thought, yet you reject all of this.[/quote][/quote]
Hitler was only close to Bolshevik thought, not sympathetic to
or supportive of the Bolshevik objective of achieving global
communism. His support for a planned economy, a one-party state,
and the confiscation of assets from the middle class, capital
owners (the bourgeoisie), businesspeople, and landlords reflects
a line of thinking that imitated the Bolsheviks and the ideas of
Vladimir Lenin. However, Hitler’s leadership also embodied goals
and life values that were more spiritual in nature,
anti-humanistic, and dualistic—values that are absent from
Marxist socialist thought
[quote][quote]"competitive labor sectors should be confined by
the state to the private sphere and subjected to proper
oversight."[/quote]
Pick one.[/quote]
If restricting competitive activities to only limited areas
within the overall territory of the state constitutes a form of
oversight, then I support ‘proper oversight. For me, such
restrictive measures are referred to as ensuring that
competitive activities within society are confined to limited
private domains and are not carried out across the entire
territory of the state.
#Post#: 31810--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 27, 2025, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You are just making meaningless statements in order to avoid
admitting you have no clue what you are talking about.
#Post#: 31812--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: December 27, 2025, 8:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]You are just making meaningless statements in order to
avoid admitting you have no clue what you are talking
about.[/quote]
In other words, because of your stance, I believe you remain
unwilling to accept my constructive arguments. There is no true
freedom as long as we fail to recognize that national
bourgeoisification and the enforcement of market laws in social
life are the primary obstacles on the path toward liberation
#Post#: 31813--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 27, 2025, 9:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"enforcement of market laws"
Pick one.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page