Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
Mister D (06-21-2017)
Safety (06-20-2017)
Hitler was a conservative because he espoused conservative ideals which had nothing to do with economics. He was also an anti-Semite, a nationalist, and intolerant of anything that was not traditional. His idea of a perfect Germany was really a return to a form of peonage, economic isolationism and imperialism to fund the latter. He hated any form of internationalism, which included corporations with international stockholders, stock exchanges or essentially anything that took control of the German economy out of German control. His perfect economic model was a strict autocracy, with him in charge for life, but the model would scarcely conform to literal socialism. More like a structured class system with little to no mobility from the peasant class to the ruling class and a private enterprise that supports the ambitions of the state. In other words a basically medieval nation with a few perks like healthcare and education. Even the latter would stream by background and ability as it does now. I have no doubts that had he prevailed he would have denationalized businesses, but they would have had to conform to the German (Hitler's) master plan.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Hitler didn't even like the term socialist because it was a misnomer in terms of what he envisioned. The German people were inclined to socialism so the Nazi's appropriated the terminology and used socialist methods to restore economic stability to a country that was being sucked dry by reparations and a global depression. However, the Nazi party comprised both socialists and monarchists, more specifically the aristocracy of Germany, who absolutely endorsed an imperialist agenda and lebensraum. A political party can call itself anything that it wants to, but when you examine the specifics of its goals and aspirations it may be anything but what it claims to be.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Common Sense (06-20-2017)
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
Chris (06-21-2017)
Of course when we tend toward this sort of argumentation socialism (indeed, all isms) disappears entirely as a concrete, historical reality. It remains that ideal or Utopia that never failed because it has "never been tried".
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
Yes, a government can claim to be one thing and actually be another. But when the policies and dialectic of that government match up to the policies and dialectic of the thing they're claiming to be, it goes past simple rhetoric. The Nazis enacted a wide range of socialist POLICIES and used socialist dialectic to describe and explain the state's role in society. That makes them... wait for it... socialists.
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
Yes, the thinking seems to be that socialists cannot be racist or authoritarian. But socialism is largely about the economic practice of collectivizing and centrally planning the means of production via the state. As long as that criteria is met, it is entirely fair and accurate to describe it as socialism. That the powers that be may be using socialist policies for reasons other than a genuine love of socialism is neither here nor there.
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
Chris (06-21-2017)