Nazi's are left-wing socialists

Nazi's are left-wing socialists.

Other urls found in this thread:

freerepublic.com/focus/news/630472/posts
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

freerepublic.com/focus/news/630472/posts

They were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist ``exploitation'' by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it.

Richard Poe, editor of Frontpage Magazine, sets the record straight:

Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

Yep

Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was ``socialist'' and that its enemies were the ``bourgeoisie'' and the ``plutocrats'' (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.

The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets ``internationalists'' and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard ``national'' socialism as the scourge of humanity consider ``international'' socialism a benign or even superior form of government.

Good
As it should be

Hi Bernie.

I'd like a source on Nazis encouraging pornography.

OP is an autist.

That's what Dinesh D'Pooza says anyways. Maybe he's right! I'm a right wing Neo-Nazi capitalist.

So then what was strasserism?

It only works if everyone is white.

>Hardline Communist Benito Mussolini
Now I know you're lying. After the first war he did a total 180 when he left Avanti. Mussolini saw the idealism within Leftist thought but he also saw the naivete and stupidity, and the Jewishness.
>nationalism obscures socialism in national socialism
Whhhat?
The Nazis were against pornography in every way, just read the book "Nazi Culture", I think its called "Critique of Nazi Culture" or something.
Capitalism to them was brutal corporatism and not true capitalism. The Nazis encouraged small and local private property, they were true capitalists, they were forcing the corporations to be subject to the state.

And? Left wing and Right wing is not something that is given any attention if you ever come to the national socialist general threads.

A commitment to any economic ideology is not important. This makes us more versatile than libertarianism and communism.

What's more is that the goal is the strengthening and preservation of race. Economics are simply a means to this. Someone in your position considers materialistic existences as the main goal and hence you can only see economics as an ideology.

They operate outside of your 2dimensional sphere.

>Left wing and Right wing is not something that is given any attention
>A commitment to any economic ideology is not important
>Economics are simply a means to this
When will you guys admit that you just don't know a lot about economics?

Socialism works for civilized white people.

Conservacuck propaganda to keep whites from looking up to Uncle Adolf. I read Liberal Fascism. The author actually says Hitler was left wing simply because he was revolutionary. I guess George Washington was a leftist then? What a joke.

this. Bernie never seemed to understand that when pointing to Scandinavia as a successful example of socialism. The chinks can't even get it right without a famine here and there

Are you retarded. Look at the Mussolinis party symbols. It's literally a sickle and hammer. You can read his long ass essays and speeches on fascism. He created fascism because of the weakness he saw in communism. That doesn't really make fascism all that much different. It's just tweaked communism

The Nazis were socialist in terms of economics. But they were traditionalist, nationalist and very socially conservative at the same time.
So National Socialism is what you would call right wing socialism.

No. They were actually middle-of-the-road authoritarians.

The Fasces date back thousands of years. Il Duce started as a Marxist, correct, but he didn't exhibit any Marxist qualities as Prime Minister of Italy. He sided with Hitler, for fucks sake

What is the implication? Any government will have many many economic advisers. It seems ignorant on your part to believe some civilian " knows it all".
I would put trust in any national socialist government to have many varying economic advisers whether they be on behalf of the corporate sector and others on behalf of the people.
It gets filtered and the Leader makes the decision whether the private sector needs more rights, or rights taken away, etc.

A problem with communism or libertarianism is they are committed to either economic ideology. A man liek ted cruz will stick to " small government " or worse even if its obvious in certain periods this won't work. Similarly a nation like north korea will not give the private sector a single chance.

Ford was an Eugenist. An notable anti-semite.

Through the foundation of his name he paid for the Kinsey Institute, wich is the origin of gay, porno and trans right but also sexual education.

Ex nazi collaborators, and their legacy are still affecting our world. And the libtards are proto nazis and they don't want to know.

Hitler was funded

HITLER WANTED PRIVATE PROPERTY YOU FUCKS THIS IS DISINFO THREAD

lol you don't know about the Ford foundation yet eh?
Hint- Ford has nothing to do with it. It's been hijacked by cucks. Obviously.
>we must attone for da sins of da past

>It seems ignorant on your part to believe some civilian " knows it all".
It seems even more ignorant on your part to believe that a small group of politicians know more about the entire economy than millions of civilians who specialise in certain skills to the extent that they earn a living by using those skills. Economic advisers do not have more knowledge on the economy than all of the millions of participants in the economy. This is why centrally planned socialist societies have wild shortages, surpluses and eventual widespread poverty.
>I would put trust in any national socialist government to have many varying economic advisers whether they be on behalf of the corporate sector and others on behalf of the people.
That doesn't make any sense, why would you strive for diversity of economic policy? Two different ideas that claim to be better than each other can't both be right. Either one is wrong or they're both wrong. What you're essentially saying is that we need to ensure that our government has advisers that are wrong. More likely than not, they'll all be wrong.
>It gets filtered and the Leader makes the decision whether the private sector needs more rights, or rights taken away, etc.
So 1 person knows more about the entire economy than the entire private sector? How is this efficient?
>A problem with communism or libertarianism is they are committed to either economic ideology.
Do you mean they are committed to principles? What is wrong with principles? You're saying that your ideology is more correct because it doesn't care about being correct. You're saying that you're not wrong because it's bad to be right. If you truly knew economics you would be able to propose economic policies and tell me why they are better than all others. But you can't do that, because you are committed to an ideology that is only concerned with identity politics and coercion. You don't have principles. You're a relativist.