So we don't have to examine the platform of Hitler's party and see its socialistic planks because Hitler just chose the name socialist because it had a shiny bright reputation before Hitler put it into practice?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The joys of living under socialism
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
Yes, the Nazi party plank (The 25 Points) had many policies that could be considered socialistic in nature, and it had many that could not be considered to be so. The idea of empowering the worker was a huge voter attraction in post WWI Europe. Political parties catered to that demographic, to the point of putting the word Socialist in their party name.
Does socialism allow for private ownership of land? Profiting by owning land? Then explain how Hitler's policy of Reichserbhofgestz was socialistic in nature.
So are you saying that Hitler was a capitalist?
...and also explain why the first people to go into the concentration camps (Dachau, the first one) were KPD (communist) and SPD (socialist) party members and supporters?
Well he was very chummy with the big industrialists and landowners like the Krupps. In fact, that was his appeal: he promised them that he would sort out the communists who were threatening to seize their factories and land and they - with the army - threw their weight behind him to help him into power.
No. Hitler used capitalistic ideas and socialistic ideas. But make no mistake about it--he was in favor of smashing Socialism and Communism.
And promised full employment while lowering wages in order to make it palatable to industrialists that were profiting by making weapons.
The British stood up to Hitler in what was perhaps their finest hour morally, but it is difficult to assume that a man who called himself a socialist was not a socialist. I really don't know where you are going with that statement. If you look at modern-day USA, you will see that many corporate leaders such as those of Silicon Valley favor socialism so the Krupps are hardly unique in European history.
I know the San Andreas fault keeps moving but I hadn't realised it had transported Silicon Valley to Europe!
'Socialist' in the European context historically has not been a euphemism for communist nor even left-wing necessarily, but rather has had a more literal meaning of 'pertaining to the whole of society', with the authoritarian, totalitarian connotations that go with that. Thus the Christian Socialists of Austria were conservative Catholics opposed - often violently - to the leftist Social Democrats in that country between the world wars (the nearest US modern day equivalent would be the similarly theocratic Dominionist Movement). Similarly, the Christian Social Union in Bavaria is the conservative Catholic sister party of the centre-right Christian Democrats in Germany. Therefore, a European calling himself a socialist does not mean that he is a socialist in the more Anglo-Saxon sense of the word...
'Socialist' in the European context historically has not been a euphemism for communist nor even left-wing necessarily, but rather has had a more literal meaning of 'pertaining to the whole of society', with the authoritarian, totalitarian connotations that go with that. Thus the Christian Socialists of Austria were conservative Catholics opposed - often violently - to the leftist Social Democrats in that country between the world wars (the nearest US modern day equivalent would be the similarly theocratic Dominionist Movement). Similarly, the Christian Social Union in Bavaria is the conservative Catholic sister party of the centre-right Christian Democrats in Germany. Therefore, a European calling himself a socialist does not mean that he is a socialist in the more Anglo-Saxon sense of the word...
I don't think that an Anglo-Saxon definition can give a clean bill of health to Venezuela and Cuba and Germany and Russia and China and Italy and so forth.
A lot of very different countries with very different economic performances lumped together there.
I don't know how many times I have to say it. Hitler adopted the "socialist" moniker because it was politically expedient. He used it to fool people into thinking he was for the working man. He used it to drain votes from other German Weimar Republic political parties that had "socialist" in their names and were more popular than the German National Workers Party.
OK, name a couple of these corporate leaders that favor socialism.
Fake History.
Yes. Any facts that dispute your unsupported presupposition is "fake."
You are allowed your own opinions. You are NOT allowed your own facts.
Hitler published a secret booklet in 1927, "The Road to Resurgence" that was distributed to German industrialists. In the booklet he stated his socialistic stances regarding worker's rights and wealth redistribution were merely ruses used for political purposes to drum up support among the working class.
Furthermore, the Night of Long Knives was a purge by Hitler of, among other factions, the leftist wing of the Nazi party. Ernst Rohm, Gregor Strasser, Otto Strasser and other pro-socialist and pro-worker factions in the Nazi party were either outright killed or booted out of the party for being too socialistic.
Once again, fascists are the far right.
The night of the long knives was to rid Hitler of the SA and their homosexual leadership to placate the military and eliminate a threat to Hitler himself. Fascism is just the name of the Italian socialist party under Benito Mussolini--when Italian socialism was copied in Argentina, it was called Peronism, which is still in power in Argentina and the new Pope is considered a socialist Peronist due to his re-instatement of communist priests in Latin America and his advocacy of liberation theology considered to be a KGB product.