Nazism vs communism.

#29
#29
nbakerld said:
They borrowed money to employ people so it was fake temporary wealth. He gets credit by Keynesian's for public works programs, but truth be told his greatest contribution was in the stuff he left alone. There was no minimum wage, for instance. All things considered, he had a socialist policy, much like FDR.



Hitler's Economics by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

As for the other things you credit him with....forget about the holocaust and WWII, I don't think that's a very impressive resume.
Click to expand...

I would say that FDR had a fascist policy like Hitler as opposed to the Hitler having a socialist policy like FDR.

In both cases, ownership was left in private hands. It was the government that controlled what was made and what it was sold for and what people were paid. In socialism, the government owns the means of production, doesn't it?
 
#30
#30
RespectTradition said:
In socialism, the government owns the means of production, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

In the purest forms of socialism (not communism; the two have a rectangle-square type of relationship) there is no private property. Yes, the state does own the means of production in socialism and controls supply and demand.

Though fascism does promote proletarian ideals, it is distinctly opposed to socialism and liberalism entirely because it rejects class structure on a basis of nationality, race, etc. People tend to want to quantify ideologies on a left-right scale in the scope of economic control, but fascism's very existence defies this. The state has complete social control, yet it allows for private ownership of property and means of production in so far as it contributes to the nation and proves efficient.
 
#34
#34
nbakerld said:
Totalitarianism = Totalitarianism, no matter what kind of fancy names we want to ascribe them for their minor differences.
Click to expand...

That was the point of my post.

A lot of people think of nazism and communism as being the two opposite ends of the political spectrum and that just isn't the case.

They are both at the same end, the differences between the two are mostly cosmetic.

Both are statist solutions and ultimately end up being totalitarian.




RespectTradition said:
I would say that FDR had a fascist policy like Hitler as opposed to the Hitler having a socialist policy like FDR.

In both cases, ownership was left in private hands. It was the government that controlled what was made and what it was sold for and what people were paid. In socialism, the government owns the means of production, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Both Hitler and Musolinni admired the way FDR seized control and FDR admired Stalin.

All four were comitted socialists.

If what you say is true (and I believe you are mostly right), then would BHO's fair profits board not be fascist??

The point where we differ is that you seem to think that the government must own everything for it to be socialism.

What about the many many socialist governmental policies that exist all over the world where the government doesn't own everything but control health care etc etc etc.




milohimself said:
In the purest forms of socialism (not communism; the two have a rectangle-square type of relationship) there is no private property. Yes, the state does own the means of production in socialism and controls supply and demand.

Though fascism does promote proletarian ideals, it is distinctly opposed to socialism and liberalism entirely because it rejects class structure on a basis of nationality, race, etc. People tend to want to quantify ideologies on a left-right scale in the scope of economic control, but fascism's very existence defies this. The state has complete social control, yet it allows for private ownership of property and means of production in so far as it contributes to the nation and proves efficient.
Click to expand...

So ultimately you mean to say the national socialist (nazi) party wasn't really socialist?
 
#35
#35
No, I'm saying that fascism does not necessarily mean state control of property and means of production. The Italian Fascist Government actually adopted a number of classical liberal principles including the abolition of estate tax, luxury tax, various capital taxes, privatization of communications, etc.

There definitely were state takeovers of particular resources, most notably much heavy industry and agriculture, but pure socialism and fascism, while both totalitarian, are distinct. The goal of fascism was preservation of the nation and the party, and people were free to own property in a limited, defined nature so long as productiveness was parallel with the interests of the party. The Third Reich, on the other hand, started with and for a short while leaned towards a free market system, but took over most industry in the effort to grow the army.
 
#39
#39
Mussolini got his start as a socialist thug and considered himself a good socialist his whole life. Hitler said that if you removed the national and racial aspects of nazisim it wasn't all that different from marxism. They both liked what the Soviets were doing (and FDR) but didn't think it would work on an international level with everyone answering to Moscow, instead it should be state specific to meet the needs of the that specific county.
 
#41
#41
If you're going to jumble your bogeymen together, the least you could do is be slightly accurate about it: The routes that fascist governments wound up taking with their economic policies was much closer to Keynesian than it was to Marxism (which isn't even an economic philosophy).
 
#47
#47
Communism killed more, many more.

But in reality the only difference is that Nazism was national socialism and Communism was international socialism.

Both agreed that certain groups needed to be killed. But the Nazis wanted those groups based on race (jews/gypsies), Communism wanted those groups based on class (kulaks/middle class). They were both very efficient at killing innocents.

Never forget, until Hitler invaded Russia, they were like two peas in a pod.
 
#48
#48
Negateer said:
Communism killed more, many more.

But in reality the only difference is that Nazism was national socialism and Communism was international socialism.

Both agreed that certain groups needed to be killed. But the Nazis wanted those groups based on race (jews/gypsies), Communism wanted those groups based on class (kulaks/middle class). They were both very efficient at killing innocents.

Never forget, until Hitler invaded Russia, they were like two peas in a pod.
Click to expand...

the only reason Hitler had a non aggression pact with Russia was to keep them out of the way while they fought France and Britian in the west. Hitler hated Stalin and communism
 
#50
#50
TSwafford said:
he united all of germany again like never before and brought a sense of pride back to germans after their defeat in ww1, he wanted every german to have an automobile whether rich or poor so they created Volkswagen(people's car).. before he came into power in 1933 unemployment crippled the german economy and he put everybody back to work and brought them out the depression. Hitler had alot of do with the modern highway systems we use today because theyre modeled after the Autobahn. the Olympic torch lighting ceremony was Hitlers idea for the 1936 Olympics and we still use it today. and not even counting the technology advancements from Hitler's germany that we still use today. the fact is Hitler(before the war) did more for his people than any US president does for us.
Click to expand...

obama-hitler-adolf-barack-vs-der-volkswagen-the-peoples-car-looks-like-sad-hill-news.jpg


I prefer to call it the 'Voltswagon'.




milohimself said:
So if wwii didn't really end until the fall of communism, does reagan get credit for winning wwii now?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It might have if he hadn't wussed out in Lebanon.





Volst53 said:
That hurt
Click to expand...

Butthurtalertwi6.jpg





RespectTradition said:
I would say that FDR had a fascist policy like Hitler as opposed to the Hitler having a socialist policy like FDR.

In both cases, ownership was left in private hands. It was the government that controlled what was made and what it was sold for and what people were paid. In socialism, the government owns the means of production, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

FDR's farm cooperatives were government owned, that aspect was more like his idol Stalin.

No, in socialism ownership may belong to private corporations as long as government controls production.

What most people don't understand is that ultimately socialism is only feudalism in sheeps clothing, control is maintained by private entities and the public face of socialism (such as Obama) is controlled by those who pull the strings of their puppet.




milohimself said:
No, I'm saying that fascism does not necessarily mean state control of property and means of production. The Italian Fascist Government actually adopted a number of classical liberal principles including the abolition of estate tax, luxury tax, various capital taxes, privatization of communications, etc.

There definitely were state takeovers of particular resources, most notably much heavy industry and agriculture, but pure socialism and fascism, while both totalitarian, are distinct. The goal of fascism was preservation of the nation and the party, and people were free to own property in a limited, defined nature so long as productiveness was parallel with the interests of the party. The Third Reich, on the other hand, started with and for a short while leaned towards a free market system, but took over most industry in the effort to grow the army.
Click to expand...

While the fascist and communist concepts of socialism may be distinctly different, they are both on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the conservative free market, personal sovereignty, political thought concept which is very well recorded in the constitution of the United States of America.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top