Ajalugu Podcastid

Kui nats on paremäärmuslik partei, siis miks see on sotsialistlik?

Kui nats on paremäärmuslik partei, siis miks see on sotsialistlik?



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Natsipartei tähistab Saksa natsionaalsotsialistlik töölispartei (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), mis kõlab nagu kommunistliku partei nimi, miks peetakse seda paremäärmuslikuks parteiks? Kas see pole vasakäärmuslik partei või peeti sotsialismi tol ajal paremäärmuslikuks?


Natsipartei hävitas töölisklassi poliitilise aparatuuri, murdis ametiühinguliikumise ja andis majanduse üle Saksa kapitalistlikele monopolidele. "Sotsialism" hõlmas NSDAP -i meelest kas SA tänavavõitlusfantaasiat saksa rahva ümberkujundamisest parempoolse töötaja kuvandis; või NSDAP keskse aparaadi ettekujutus paindlikust aretusriigist. "Sotsialism" oli NSDAP jaoks etnilise rahva sundmobilisatsioon.

Paljud tollased sakslased, eriti parempoolsed sakslased, seostasid neid väärtusi bismarklaste parempoolse poliitikaga, mida nimetati "sotsialismiks" riigi pakutavate kaupade ja teenuste mõttes. Et seda tunnet poliitiliselt ära kasutada, nimetas NSDAP end "natsionaalsotsialistiks". NSDAP ei lootnud kapitalismi kaotamisele ega ka töötajate kontrollile.

Lisaks sellele majanduslikule positsioonile soovis NSDAP jõuga ühendada oma kujuteldava Saksa rahva; kehtestada sõja kaudu Euroopale Saksa käsk; ja kõrvaldada nende kujuteldav rassiline "teine".

Neid poliitikate kombinatsioone peetakse "parempoolseteks".

Tavalist sotsialismi, mis tähendab töötajate kontrolli tootmise üle, peeti toona vasakpoolseks.


Samal põhjusel, et "(Põhja) Korea Demokraatlik Rahvavabariik" on demokraatlik vabariik ... Ei olnud. Oli aeg, mil sotsialism tundus tõesti edasiviiv tee, karastades vaba ettevõtlust läbimõeldud reguleerimisega ja investeerides töötajaid tootmisvahenditesse. Nii nimetasid mittesotsialistid nagu natsid ja kommunistid end sotsialistideks, et pöörduda sõdadevahelise perioodi poliitiliste mõõdukate poole.

Tänapäeval on igaüks, kes võrdsustab sotsialismi kas natsimärgi fašismi või nõukogude kaubamärgiga kommunismiga, poliitiline propagandist, kes on tavaliselt seotud USA parempoolsete huvidega.


See ei olnud sotsialistlik ja tegelikult oli teravalt vastu tegelikele sotsialistidele/kommunistidele. Reichstagi tulekahju oli üks põhjusi, miks natsipartei võimu haaras ja see müüdi kommunistliku ülestõusu algusena.

Sotsialismi ei peetud 1930. aastate Euroopas parempoolseks. (Pidage meeles, et USA -s kasutatakse sõna „sotsialistlik” räpase sõnana. Euroopas see nii ei ole („sotsialistlik partei” on Euroopa Parlamendi suuruselt teine ​​jne). See võib värvida arutelu sõna üle).

Paljud riigid nimetavad end asjadeks, see ei tähenda, et need on need asjad. Nagu "Korea Demokraatlik Vabariik" jne.


See kõlas hästi turunduslikel eesmärkidel, keskmise tööstustöölise kaasamiseks ilma kommunismi revolutsioonilise pagasita.

Oluline on mõista, et kui rääkida statistikast, pole paremal ja vasakul nii suurt tähtsust. Kuigi nad esitavad erinevaid põhjuseid, miks nad teid aheldavad, orjastavad või mõrvavad, ja võib olla, et löögi või relvaga on kaasas erinevad inimesed, on lõpptulemus sama. Teisisõnu, kohtuge uue ülemusega, nagu vana ülemus.


Partei "natside" ALGAS Natsionaalsotsialistliku Saksa Töölisparteina, vasakpoolse, sotsialistliku kalduvusega.

See tähendab, kuni see registreeris "liikme number 7", ehk Adolf Hitleri, kellel oli muid ideid.

Esimese maailmasõja veteran, Hitler arvas välja "Dolchstossi" legendi, idee, et Saksamaa oli võitnud I maailmasõja, kuni Hitleri vaenlased teda "selga torkasid", pluss relvastamine/revanche, oli enamiku jaoks atraktiivsem. Saksa rahvas kui idee "töölise paradiisist". See puudutas eriti paremat tiiba, kus Hitler sai suurema osa oma rahalisest toetusest.

Tegelikult oli natsiparteil korraga kaks tiiba, natsionalistlik tiib Hitleri all ja sotsialistlik tiib Gregor Strasseri all, kes pidas end Hitleri isiklikuks sõbraks.

See tähendab, kuni Hitler võttis peo üle ja mõrvas hiljem "Pika nugade öö" ajal oma "sõbra" Strasseri.


Ma arvan, et natsirežiim oli maailma ajaloos ainulaadne selle poolest, et erinevalt teistest režiimidest enne ja pärast oli tal kaks nägu: väliselt teeskles ta end vasaktsentristliku jõuna, vasaktsentristliku sotsialistliku pooldajana, edumeelse, töösturina, monarhistlik, religioonivastane, naiste poolt toetav, loomade pooldaja, kapitalistivastane, monarhistivastane, kolonialismivastane partei. Kuid tegelikkuses selgus, et natsism oli tegelikult palju õigem kui ükski monarhist, vene "must-sadas" ja konservatiiv. Rahva toetuse saavutamiseks varjas see mõnda aega oma ultraparemat nägu.

See duaalsus tõi kaasa palju vigu üksikisikute ja poliitikute poolt, kes tegid tehinguid natsipartei ja natsi -Saksamaaga. Saksa kristlased arvasid, et neil on võimalikud teod hääletades tegemist tsentristliku isamaalise erakonnaga. Vatikan arvas, et Hitler on üsna Mussolini moodi: mõõdukalt konservatiivne tsentrist. Stalin arvas, et tal on tegemist väikese kodanluse vasaktsentristliku parteiga. Etnilised vähemused arvasid ka, et natsid on rahvusmeelsed enesemääramine ja kultuuriline autonoomia.

Paljud juudid nägid, et natsid lubasid esimest korda 2000 aasta jooksul juutidel oma politsei, kiirabi, postiteenused, lastekodud ja isegi telefonijaamad. Nad ei teadnud, et lastekodud ja haiglad on loodud töövõimetute kiireks eraldamiseks. Keegi ei osanud ette kujutada, et natsid tapavad inimesi uutes säravates vormiriietustes, mille nad just juudi politseile kavandasid (ükski teine ​​režiim ei anna hukkamõistetud vaenlasele aumärgiga söödakübarat).

Paljud venelased ja ukrainlased uskusid, et sakslased loovad mõõduka sotsialismi vormi ilma kollektiviseerimise ja muude Nõukogude Liidu liialdusteta.

Paljud sakslased uskusid, et natsid kaitsevad loomade õigusi tõesti eetilistel põhjustel, mitte ainult selleks, et keelata juudi liha.

Tegelikkuses selgus, et isegi konservatiivsed vaimulikud nägid natsidega võrreldes välja nagu bolševikud.

See maskeraad sai võimalikuks seetõttu, et Hitler kaldus kõrvale varasematest traditsioonidest, mis olid tüüpilised ultraparematele, volkishe liikumistele. Esialgu kritiseeriti teda paremäärmuslikelt positsioonidelt isegi selle eest, et parempoolse „liiga“ „liikumise“ või „liidu“ traditsioonilise asemel kasutati sõna „partei“ ühtlaselt. Kuid Hitler oli targem. Ta loobus monarhismist piiramatu ülima diktatuuri kasuks. Ta tegeles vaimulikega, sest need olid talle liiga jäetud ja kristlikud põhimõtted olid liiga egalitaarsed ega piisavalt antisemiitlikud, kuigi ajalooliselt olid religioossed kristlased kõige antisemiitlikum rühmitus. Ta mõistis hukka aristokraatia ja sotsiaalsed valdused eugeenika kasuks. Ta mõistis parempoolsed hukka selle asemel, et edendada ultraparempoolset.


Adolf Hitler natslikust sotsialismivormist ’ (1932)

Natsismi ja sotsialismi suhe on tekitanud palju arutelusid. Enamik ajaloolasi väidab, et natsism asub Itaalia fašismi kõrval poliitilise spektri parempoolsel küljel. Nad väidavad, et natsid olid hüpernatsionalistid, kes olid kinnisideeks sõjalisele ja riigivõimule ning sotsiaalsele kontrollile. Erinevalt marksistidest ei taotlenud natsipoliitika majanduslikku tasandamist, klassi- või eraomandi likvideerimist ega rikkuse ümberjaotamist.

Sellest hoolimata väidavad mõned konservatiivsed ajaloolased, et natsism on sotsialismi kildkondlik võrse või häbiväärne vorm. Nad viitavad nomenklatuurile (“Natsionaalsotsialism ”), Saksa majanduse natsikontrollile ja -regulatsioonile ning nende tohututele avaliku sektori kulutuste programmidele. Seda argumenti on viimasel ajal kordanud paljud konservatiivsed ja paremäärmuslikud poliitilised asjatundjad.

Adolf Hitler, pildistatud koos Saksa lastega oma 1932. aasta presidendikampaania ajal

Järgmine dokument sisaldab Adolf Hitleri selgitust natsistliku sotsialismi vormi kohta. See pärineb Saksa-Ameerika kirjaniku ja natside poolehoidja George Sylvester Vierecki intervjuust Hitleriga. Intervjuu ilmus aastal Liberty ajakiri 9. juulil 1932:

“ ‘Kui asun Saksamaad juhtima, lõpetan välismaal austusavaldused ja bolševismi kodus. ’

Adolf Hitler tühjendas tassi nii, nagu see ei sisaldaks teed, vaid bolševismi elujõudu.

‘Bolševism ’, pruunsärkide pealik, jätkasid Saksamaa fašistid, ja#8216 on meie suurim oht. Tapke bolševism Saksamaal ja taastate võimule 70 miljonit inimest. Prantsusmaa võlgneb oma jõu mitte oma armeedele, vaid bolševismi ja lahkarvamuste jõududele meie keskel ’ …

Kohtasin Hitlerit mitte tema peakorteris, Müncheni Pruunimajas, vaid eramajas, Saksa mereväe endise admirali eluruumis. Arutasime teetasside üle Saksamaa saatust.

‘Miks ’, küsisin ma Hitleri käest, ja kas te nimetate end natsionaalsotsialistiks, kuna teie parteiprogramm on just see, mis tavaliselt sotsialismile akrediteeritakse? ’

‘Sotsialism ’, vastas ta, pannes tassi teed maha, ja#8216 on teadus, kuidas tegeleda ühise heaoluga [tervis või heaolu]. Kommunism ei ole sotsialism. Marksism ei ole sotsialism. Markslased on selle mõiste varastanud ja selle tähenduse segi ajanud. Võtan sotsialistidelt sotsialismi ära.

‘Sotsialism on iidne aaria germaani institutsioon. Meie Saksa esivanematel olid teatud maad ühised. Nad viljelesid ühise jõukuse ideed. Marksismil pole õigust maskeeruda sotsialismiks. Sotsialism, erinevalt marksismist, ei eita eraomandit. Erinevalt marksismist ei hõlma see isiksuse eitamist ja erinevalt marksismist on see isamaaline.

‘Võiksime end nimetada Vabaerakonnaks. Valisime end natsionaalsotsialistideks. Me ei ole internatsionalistid. Meie sotsialism on rahvuslik. Nõuame, et riik täidaks rassilise solidaarsuse alusel tootlike klasside õiglased väited. Meie jaoks on riik ja rass üks ja#8230

‘Mis ’, jätkasin ristküsitlust ja kas teie platvormi põhiplaanid on?

‘Me usume tervislikku vaimu, tervislikku kehasse. Keha poliitiline peab olema terve, et hing oleks terve. Moraalne ja füüsiline tervis on sünonüümid. ’

‘Mussolini ’, sekkusin vahele, ‘ ütlesin sama mulle ’. Hitler säras.

‘Lummud ’, lisas ta, ja#8216 vastutavad üheksa kümnendiku eest, alkohol moodustab ühe kümnendiku kogu inimtegevusest. Ükski terve mees pole marksist. Terved mehed tunnistavad isiksuse väärtust. Me võitleme katastroofide ja degeneratsiooni jõudude vastu. Baieri on suhteliselt tervislik, sest see ei ole täielikult industrialiseeritud ja kui tahame Saksamaad päästa, peame hoolitsema selle eest, et meie põllumehed jääksid maale truuks. Selleks peab neil olema ruumi hingamiseks ja ruumi töötamiseks. ’

‘Kust leiate ruumi töötamiseks? ’

‘Me peame säilitama oma kolooniad ja laienema itta. Oli aeg, mil oleksime võinud Inglismaaga jagada maailma domineerimist. Nüüd peame oma kitsad jäsemed sirutama ainult ida poole. Läänemeri on tingimata Saksa järv. '”


Saksa natsionaalsotsialistlik töölispartei

Kuigi see tundub väga sotsialistlik nimi, on probleemiks see, et natsionaalsotsialism pole sotsialism, vaid teistsugune fašistlik ideoloogia. Hitler oli algselt liitunud, kui parteid nimetati Saksa töölisparteiks, ja ta oli seal spioonina, et sellel silma peal hoida. See ei olnud, nagu nimigi ütleb, pühendunud vasakpoolne rühmitus, vaid ühel Hitleri mõttel oli potentsiaali ning kui Hitleri kõnekunst sai populaarseks, kasvas partei ja Hitlerist sai juhtfiguur.

Sel hetkel oli „natsionaalsotsialism” segane ideede segamine mitme pooldajaga, kes väitsid natsionalismi, antisemitismi ja jah, teatud sotsialismi. Parteiprotokollid nimevahetust ei salvesta, kuid üldiselt arvatakse, et partei nimetati ümber inimeste ligimeelitamiseks ja osaliselt sidemete loomiseks teiste natsionaalsotsialistlike parteidega. Koosolekuid hakati reklaamima punastel bänneritel ja plakatitel, lootuses, et sotsialistid tulevad sisse ja seejärel vastamisi, vahel vägivaldselt: erakonna eesmärk oli äratada võimalikult palju tähelepanu ja tuntust. Kuid nimi ei olnud sotsialism, vaid natsionaalsotsialism ning 20ndate ja 30ndate edenedes sai sellest ideoloogia, mida Hitler pikalt selgitab ja millel, kui ta kontrolli üle võttis, ei olnud enam mingit pistmist sotsialismiga.


Teadmatus või vääritus?

Senaator Paul alustab vasakpoolsete naeruvääristamisega, kuna nad eitasid, et natsid olid sotsialistid: „Niisiis, hoolimata sellest, et natsidel oli sõna otseses mõttes nimes„ sotsialist ” - natsionaalsotsialistlik Saksa töölispartei - on vasakpoolsed teinud ühiseid jõupingutusi, et natsideks nimetada paremäärmuslased. ””

Pauluse argument läheb siin vaieldamatust eeldusest, et natside nimes oli “sotsialist”, järelduseni, et natsid olid tegelikult sotsialistid. Selle järelduse toimimiseks vajab Paulus järgmist eeldust: Kui organisatsiooni nimes on omadussõna, kirjeldab organisatsioon seda omadussõna õigesti.

Aga kui senaator Paul seda tõesti usuks, oleks ta sunnitud järeldama, et kommunistlik Ida-Saksamaa ja praegune Põhja-Korea on demokraatlikud riigid. Saksa Demokraatlik Vabariik ja Põhja -Korea Rahvademokraatlik Vabariik mõlema nime osana on omadussõna “demokraatlik”. Ma ei usu, et ta seda usub.

Seejärel osutab senaator Paul veel kolmele tõendile. Esiteks tsiteerib Paul kahekümne viie punkti plaani, mille algaja natsipartei koostas 1920. aastal. Ta alustab sellest punktist: „Nõuame kõigi (varasemate) seotud tööstusharude (usaldusfondide) riigistamist. (Sotsialismi olemus - riigi omamine tootmisvahenditele.)”

Pärast seda punkti kaldkirjas olevad sõnad on Pauluse enda sõnad, mille ta lisas kommentaariks, mis viitab sellele, et natsid pooldasid tootmisvahendite ulatuslikku omamist riigile. Kuid algse saksa keele otsesem tõlge oleks: "Nõuame kõigi varem sotsialiseeritud (usaldus) ettevõtete riigistamist."

Niisiis, selle asemel, et kõik ettevõtted natsionaliseerida, räägitakse dokumendis ainult teatud tüüpi usaldusfondidest, ilma et see oleks nende üksuste olemuse või ulatuse osas väga selgesõnaline. Raske on täpselt öelda, mida natsid siin silmas pidasid, kuid see ei olnud üleskutse tootmisvahendite ulatuslikule riigi omandile.

Viimane Pauluse tsiteeritud punkt on kahekümne viiest punktist seitseteist ja see tundub olla kõige selgesõnalisemalt sotsialistlik: "Nõuame meie vajadustele sobivat maareformi, seaduse kehtestamist maa vabaks võõrandamiseks ühiskondlikuks otstarbeks, maamaksude kaotamist ja igasuguse maaga spekuleerimise ärahoidmist."

Kuid Hitleri enda allkirjastatud dokumendis lisasid natsid selgesõnaliselt selgitava punkti 1930. aastal. Veel enne võimu saavutamist on selles lahtiütluses natside seisukoha tuum (originaalis on tõlge minu oma):

Partei oponentide ebaausa tõlgenduse tõttu punkti 17 kohta on vajalik järgmine avaldus: Kuna NSDAP seisab eraomandi alusel, on iseenesestmõistetav, et fraas „vaba sundvõõrandamine” viitab üksnes seadusliku võimaluse loomisele vajadusel võõrandada aastal omandatud maad. ebaõiglane viisil või seda ei hallata ühise hüve huvidega. Sellest tulenevalt on see suunatud eelkõige juutide kinnisvaraspekulatsioonifirmade vastu.

Kui natsid rääkisid sundvõõrandamisest, pidasid nad silmas vara kuulumist juutidele nad olid üsna eraomandi poolt teistele.

Võimalik, et senaator Paul lihtsalt ei teadnud seda teksti olulist lisa. Või ehk teadis ta seda, teadis, et see õõnestab tema põhiargumenti, kuid otsustas lihtsalt seda mitte mainida.

Senaator Pauli teine ​​tõestusmaterjal näib pärinevat mõni aasta tagasi konservatiivsetes ringkondades levinud meemist, millel on pilt Hitlerist, mille väidetav tsitaat algab „Me oleme sotsialistid…”. see on vale, osaliselt põhjusel, et tsitaat ei tulnud üldse Hitleri käest, vaid Gregor Strasserilt.

Paul saab sellest palju aru, kuid kasutab siiski sama teksti meemist ja ütleb: „Samamoodi rääkis nats Gregory Strasser oma kaaskannatajatest järgmiselt:„ Me oleme sotsialistid. Oleme vaenlased, surelikud vaenlased, praegusele kapitalistlikule majandussüsteemile, kus kasutatakse ära majanduslikult nõrku, ebaõiglast palka, isikute ebamoraalset hindamist rikkuse ja raha, mitte vastutuse ja saavutuste asemel, ning oleme kindlameelsed asjaolud selle süsteemi kaotamiseks! ””

Kuid nagu snopes.com postitus veel märgib, on Gregor Strasser omapärane nats, kes seda või mõnda muud punkti tsiteerib.

Strasser oli tõepoolest nats, põhjalikult taunitavate natsionalistlike ja antisemiitlike vaadetega, mille ta segas kokku mõne traditsiooniliselt vasakpoolse majandusliku ideega. Ja ta oli kõrgel kohal, juhtides mõnda aega nii partei kui ka propaganda osakonda ja selle igapäevast tegevust.

Kuid kõik vasakpoolsed ideed, mis tal olid, olid 1920. aastate lõpuks Hitleri poolt põhjalikult tagasi lükatud. Strasser loobus erakonna mis tahes võimupositsioonist 1932. aasta lõpuks, enne natside võimuletulekut 1933. aastal, ning ta natsid mõrvasid sõna otseses mõttes „Pikkade nugade ööl” 1934. aasta alguses, kui Hitleril oli sadu. kohtuväliselt hukatud poliitilisi vastaseid - sealhulgas Strasseri ja kogu partei tiib.

Kui parim senaator Paul saab natside sotsialistlikuna esindamiseks teha, on tsiteerida natsit, kelle seisukohad tõid tema ja teised temasugused parteist välja ja mõrvati - ning kelle reaktsioonilisi vaateid peab sotsialistide iga suurvool täiesti põlastusväärseks. täna - siis ei lähe tal eriti hästi.

Jällegi on meil senaatori osas samad kaks võimalust: kas tal ei kulunud viis minutit, et teada saada, kes on Strasser, või otsustas ta selle teabe vaiba alla pühkida - võib -olla mõtlesin, et sotsialistid on kontrollimiseks liiga laisad.

Pauluse kolmas allikas väitele, et Hitler on sotsialist, on artikkel ajakirjas Sõltumatu George Watsoni poolt. Watson lähtub oma väidetes peaaegu täielikult mõningatest asjadest, mida Hitler väidetavalt ütles oma kunagisele nõunikule Otto Wagenerile.

Wageneri mälestused avaldati postuumselt saksa keeles 1978. aastal raamatus pealkirjaga, mis tõlgitakse kui Hitler lähedalt: märkmeid usaldusisikult 1929–1932. Miks ainult aastani 1932? Kuna Wagener eemaldati peagi oma võimupositsioonilt ja ta peeti isegi Pikkade nugade ööl kinni. Wagener kirjutas teksti sõjavangina 1946. aastal.

Wagener teatab, et Hitler ütles, et ta näeb kogu natsionaalsotsialismi Marxil põhinevatena. See on veider väide Wageneri poolt, arvestades Hitleri allkirjastatud dokumenti, mille eespool mainisin, mille kohaselt natsipartei „seisab eraomandil” - mitte iseloomulik marksistlik idee.

Üldisemalt öeldes, kui parimad tõendid selle kohta, et natsivalitsus on sotsialistlik, on mõned hajutatud kommentaarid, mille Hitler väidetavalt esitas enne võimu saamist eraviisiliselt ja kellelegi, kes parteist välja löödi, siis on see tõepoolest üsna nõrk tõend.

Võrdluseks - oletame, et 1990. aastatel ilmus keegi, kes väitis, et Ronald Reagan oli 1977. aastal privaatselt öelnud, et tema põhiideed põhinevad Trotski kirjutistel, kuid selle raamatu autor aeti vabariiklaste parteist välja. aasta alguses ja ei mänginud Reagani administratsioonis enam mingit rolli. Kas me võtaksime seda otsustava tõendina - või üldse tõendina -, et Reagani eesistumine kaheksakümnendatel oli trotski?


Kui nats on paremäärmuslik partei, siis miks ta on sotsialistlik? - Ajalugu

87 10 87 10 110 4 21 4 14 2 VoxDawg
Georgia fänn
Au, au
Liige alates sept 2012
36416 postitust
Internetis

re: Miks on natside paremäärmuslikud sildid? Postitas VoxDawg 24.6.20 kell 15:23 saidile Tigahhs97

Kas sa isegi jutustad, ah?

Enamik vasakpoolseid aknaklaase ei mõista, et nats oli "rahvussotsialistlik partei".

Ja ometi tunnevad nad hirmu Bernie Sandersi ja maagilise sotsialistliku Imedemaa loosimiste üle.

33 4 17 1 12 2

Jah. Kuna ma mainisin Zoroasterit. Headus on Mazda (tore väike auto). Kurjus on Angra (vihane vaim). Angrad jätavad kõikjale saasta, surma, pimeduse ja mädanemise. Kõlab nagu liberaalid.

0 2 29 6

NAZI on natsionaalsotsialistide töölispartei lühend. Märksõnaks on "rahvuslane"

3 37 5 0

Natsionaalsotsialistlikud totalitaarid olid rahvusvaheliste sotsialistlike totalitaristide rivaalid. Mõlemad olid massimõrvarid, kes pidasid tohutuid orjatöölaagreid.

14 0

& quot; Sina, sina nats nats. Nende kapitalistide sigade põletamiseks on vaja natsionaalsotsialistlikku parteid. & Quot

See on sõna otseses mõttes täna vasakpoolne.

17 1 3 0 8 1

Nad ei ole liberaalid. Nad on vasakpoolsed. Ja pole ka olemas.

11 0 1 0

Vene sotsialistid nimetasid neid paremäärmuslasteks.

Natsid olid sotsialismi parem pool.

Konservatiivid on liberalismi parem pool.

Selle kaks erinevat ja eraldiseisvat süsteemi, kuigi vasakpoolsed armastavad neid mingis sotsialismis.

1 1

Nad nimetasid end sotsialistideks tolleaegse sotsiaaldemokraatia ja kommunismi üldise veetluse tõttu, kuid see ei tähenda, et nad oleksid sotsialistlikud, nagu ka selliste riikide nagu Põhja -Korea ja Ida -Saksamaa nimes on "demokraatlik", kuid demokraatiast on see täielikult puudu.

Vaadake natside vihkamist kommunismi, ametiühingute ja liberalismi vastu ning nende tugevat usku vere- ja mullarahvuslusse, apelleeringuid müütilisse minevikku ja usku ühte rahvasse/ühte liidrisse/ühte rahvusesse on parempoolsed. erakonnad nagu AfD Saksamaal, Fidesz Ungaris jne.


Miks oli sotsialism osa natsipartei platvormist, kui see oli paremäärmuslik partei?

Miks oli natsiparteil nii palju sotsiaalprogramme, kui see oli paremäärmuslik liikumine? Miks see vihkas kommunismi nii palju, kui sotsialism oli selle platvormi osa?

Mõnikord on lihtne unustada sõna natsionalistlik sotsialist ainuõigust, sest me kuuleme seda nii sageli. Aga kui rääkida, siis oli see sakslaste ja AINULT sakslaste jaoks sotsialism. Saksa töölispartei ja parteide filosoofia (DAP - NSDAP eelkäija) on üsna selge näide selle sotsialistlikust, kuid samas ka fašistlikust/rassistlikust päritolust. Kui Hitler võimu võttis, laiendas ta DAP ideoloogiat nii, et see meeldis rohkematele inimestele.

Mõned MAP -is 1920. aastal välja toodud DAP 's punktid:

& quot Keegi peale saksa vere oma, olenemata nende usutunnistusest, võib olla rahva mebers. Seetõttu ei tohi ühtegi juuti pidada rahva liikmeks.

Nõuame, et riik võtaks riigi kodanikele töö ja elatusvahendite pakkumise üheks peamiseks kohustuseks. Kui kogu riigi piires elavat elanikkonda ei ole võimalik ülal pidada, tuleb välisriigi kodanikud (riigi mittekodanikud) välja arvata (välja saata)

Tuleb vältida igasugust edasist mitte-sakslaste sisserännet. Nõuame, et kõik mitte-sakslased, kes on pärast 2. augustit 1914 Saksamaale sisenenud, nõutakse Reichist lahkumist.

Nõuame kõigi ärikombinaatide riigistamist.

Nõuame halastamatut kampaaniat kõigi vastu, kelle tegevus kahjustab ühiseid huve. Rahvuse rõhujaid, ebakindlaid inimesi, kasusaajaid jne tuleb karistada surmaga, olenemata nende usutunnistusest või rassist.

Riik peab hoolitsema oma rahva tervisliku taseme tõstmise eest, tehes oma eestkostet emade ja imikute üle, keelates lapstööjõu kasutamise ning suurendades kehalist tõhusust jalgpallivõimlemise ja spordiga tegelemisega ning toetades klubidega laialdaselt. noorte füüsiline ettevalmistus.

Nagu näete, muretsesid nad inimeste paremaks muutmise ja heaolu pärast, kasutades riiklikke (sotsialistlikke) ressursse, kuid samal ajal hoolitsesid nad ainult & quottrue-veriste sakslaste (natsionalistide) heaolu eest ja nägid lõpuks välismaalasi (ja "mitte-sakslased", st juudid, mustlased jne jne), kes töötavad ja peavad vandenõusid Saksamaa ühtsuse ja heaolu vastu.

Samuti on oluline meeles pidada, et Hitleri ideed ei olnud sugugi nii radikaalsed ja paljud inimesed jagasid tema seisukohti nii Saksamaal kui ka väljaspool Saksamaad. Antisemitism püsis kogu sõja ja ka aastakümneid pärast seda.


Adolf Hitler liitus natsiparteiga alles pärast seda, kui teine ​​paremäärmuslik rühmitus ta tagasi lükkas, avastab ajaloolane

Adolf Hitler otsustas natsiparteiga ühineda alles pärast seda, kui teine ​​paremäärmuslik partei oli teda nuusutanud, avastas silmapaistev ajaloolane.

Aberdeeni ülikooli ajaloolane Thomas Weber ütles, et kui Hitlerit poleks äsja loodud Saksa Sotsialistlikust Parteist tagasi lükatud, on ebatõenäoline, et oleks toimunud maailmasõda või natsi -Saksamaa massiline mõrv kuue miljoni juudi poolt.

Dr Weber, kes on natsijuhti uurinud rohkem kui kümme aastat, avastas avaldamata dokumendi, millest selgub, et Saksa Sotsialistlik Partei ütles 1919. aastal Hitlerile, et nad ei taha teda oma parteisse ega kirjutada oma ajalehe jaoks.

Akadeemik, kes on ajaloo- ja rahvusvaheliste suhete professor, väitis, et tõenäoliselt ei oleks Hitler võimule tõusnud, kui tal oleks lubatud liituda Saksa Sotsialistliku Parteiga. Ta ütles, et parteide ridades oleks olnud raskem ronida suuremas ja edukamas organisatsioonis kui natsipartei, kus Hitler sai 1921. aastal juhiks.

Soovitatav

"Ma võin ainult oletada, miks nad ei lasknud tal liituda, kuid võiks ette kujutada, et sellel on midagi pistmist tõsiasjaga, et Hitler oli arvamusel ja nad ei tahtnud, et seal oleks keegi, kes neile ütleks, mida teha," ütles ta. The Independent.

Ta lisas: „Kui ta oleks Saksa Sotsialistlikku Parteisse vastu võetud, oleks ta peaaegu kindlasti kõrvale jäänud. Hitler suutis natsipartei väljakujunenud juhtkonna üle suruda, kuid Saksa sotsialistliku parteiga liitumisel oleks see ebatõenäoline. "

1/2 natside luurekaarte

Natside luurekaardid

Natside luurekaardid

Tehti ettepanek natsiparteile ja Saksa Sotsialistlikule Parteile aastatel 1920–1921 kolm korda jõud ühendada, kuid nad ei otsustanud seda kunagi teha.

"Natsipartei ei teinud seda ainult Hitleri vankumatu keeldumise tõttu liituda Saksa Sotsialistliku Parteiga," ütles ta. „Hitler peaks alati pahameelt igaühe peale, kes teda ületanud on, ja ilmselt oli ta mures, et ta lükatakse uuesti kõrvale. Mitte ainult natsipartei ei oleks väiksem seltskond kahest, vaid ka tüübid, kes ta tagasi lükkasid, oleksid roolis. ”

Dr Weber väitis, et kahekümnenda sajandi ajaloo kulg oleks tõenäoliselt olnud väga erinev, kui Hitleri oleks võetud Saksa Sotsialistlikku Parteisse.

"Raske on kindlalt öelda, mis juhtus, kui teda poleks eemale peletatud, kuid on ebatõenäoline, et ta oleks olnud natsipartei roolis," ütles ta. "Saksamaal oleks ikka olnud avanemine radikaalsele parempoolsele parteile, kuid seda võis ära kasutada mõni teine ​​partei ja te poleks põhjustanud maailmasõda ega genotsiidi."

Ta ütles, et pole kindel, miks pole Saksa Sotsialistliku Partei asutajaliikme Hans Georg Grassingeri tunnistustest pärinevat olulist dokumenti kunagi avastatud, kuna see on kättesaadav alates 1961. aastast, lisades, et see on „peidetud nägemine ”.

Dr Weber rääkis Eestkostja dokumendis on kirjas: „1919. aasta sügisel, umbes septembris, ilmus Hitler kirjastuse kontorisse Grassingerit vaatama ja pakkus [ajalehele] kirjutada ning liituda ja töötada Saksa Sotsialistlikus Parteis. Tal polnud sel ajal raha ja ta palus ka Grassingerilt raha laenata. Kuid nad [ütlesid] talle, et neil pole lehest mingit kasu ja nad ei taha teda ka parteisse kutsuda. ”

Dr Weberi uurimistööd Hitleri kohta kirjeldatakse tema raamatus Hitleriks saamine: natside tegemine mille peaks järgmisel kuul avaldama Oxfordi ülikool.

Tema raamat hõlmab paljusid tundmatuid territooriume ja väidab, et Hitleri rassism teiste inimeste kui juutide suhtes oli oportunistlik ja lõppkokkuvõttes esitati tema territoriaalseks laienemiseks pragmaatiline põhjendus.


8 mõtet & ldquo Hitleri ja “ parema tiiva ” & rdquo kohta

Ma ei usu, et on nii raske mõista, et äärmuslik ja vasakpoolne poliitika, nagu me seda ratsionaliseerime, on totalitarism. Mõlemad pärinevad lihtsast inimjuhtimise kontseptsioonist “me teame, mis on teie jaoks parim ”.
Mõelge sellele kui kujuteldava ringi koha eraldamisele (mitte sirgjoonele) kui poliitika “keskusele. Võite liikuda sellest vasakule või paremale, kuid kui olete poliitika ringkonna vastasküljel, olete totalitarismi ville. Hea näide selle toimimisest on Hiina. Esimene sotsialistlik kommunist, nüüd pealinna kommunist. Kas nad pöördusid tagasi keskusesse, et liikuda kapitalismi teed mööda? Paluge professoril seda selgitada ja kuulake, kuidas nad vestlust manööverdavad. Meenutage siis professorile Tiananmeni väljakut. Ritsikad. Kui nad suudavad seda seletada, küsige neilt, kas nad arvavad, et “ Tank Man ” oli sotsialistlik kapitalist. Proovi seda.

Lääne vasakpoolsed tahavad nii meeleheitlikult distantseerida oma vaateid Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte'ist, et nad pakuvad “ Hitler tappis sotsialiste ” argumendina, teades hästi, et Mao, Stalin ja Pol Pot tapsid kõik rivaalid vasakpoolsed. Riigi võimu rõhutamine inimeste üle on suur vihje. Viited ema -Venemaale ja isamaale on samuti vihjed.

Sotsialism armastas eugeenikat ja “kasutavate sööjate ” hävitamist.
George Bernard Shaw oli järkjärguliste sotsialistlike FABIANIDE LEIJA.
George Bernard Shaw kaitseb Hitlerit ja genotsiidi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ

Paljud Interneti -sotsialistid on puude- või hoolekandeasjad, kes arvavad, et sotsialism annaks neile rohkem raha, kuid pole üldiselt teadlikud ametlikust sotsialistliku partei toetusest, mis tuleneb selliste tarbetute sööjate hävitamisest nagu puue või heaolu.

Interneti -sotsialistid tavaliselt teesklevad, et seda pole proovitud, ilmselt ei teadnud, et mitmed varasemad sotsialismi katsed tõid kaasa massilise surma ja kommunismi.

Natsid ei olnud vasakpoolsed, tegelikult Hitler isiklikult vihkas sotsialiste. Pikkade nugade ööl ’ tapeti ükski sotsialistlikult mõtlev partei liige.

Enne erakonnaga liitumist, mida hiljem hakatakse nimetama NAZI-deks, oli ta Benito Mussolini ja paremäärmusliku fašistliku partei suur austaja, isegi kirjutades talle, paludes allkirjastatud pilti, mida Mussolini ei saatnud.

Though Hitler did apply some socialist policy in the early years that many people at the time congratulated him on before taking the Nazi’s more and more to the far-right and murdering as many socialists as he could.

The Nazi party was purposely vague about it’s policies to attract people from both sides, a lot like the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), that is desperately attempting to draw in support from left-wing working classes when it is a right-wing movement.

Nazi Germany =
govt health care
Govt day care
gun control
baby bonus checks
mandated vacation time
closed all private & religious schools
closed boy scouts & all had to be Hitler youth
controlled wages and had 100% control of all business

Nazi propaganda release ” we owe it to the Fuhrer

Jews were first Boycott Germany – few people know the facts about the singular fact, the international Jewish declaration of war on Germany shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power and well before any official German government sanctions or reprisals against Jews were carried out. The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London (shown “Judea declare war on Germany – Jews of All the World Unite – Boycott of German Goods – Mass Demonstrations.”) Just look Google …” March 24, 1933″ ( image search)

Privatization was simply the result of undoing the centralization of government that was required to fight World War One. Once war time is over nationalized entities should be returned to the private sector. Privatization is not a Nazi principle. It is an error to paint it as such.

For instance, Japan’s post office after privatization became one of the most valuable companies in the world, and no longer is a burden to the Japan’s taxpayers. That is not a “Nazi” principle, just good business.

“Hitler’s tax policies favoured middle-class property owners. In September 1933, finance minister Schwerin von Krosigk sent to the Reich Chancellery a proposal to reduce taxes by a total of RM 532 billion per year. The land tax on urban and agricultural landowners and the agricultural turnover tax were reduced. Newly constructed homes were exempted from income tax, property taxes, the rural land tax and half of the urban land tax. Businessmen supported the government’s tax reduction measures, and demanded more, particularly the elimination of employers’ contributions to the national insurance programme which added social costs to the price of their products. Hitler and his government agreed in principle.”

Source: “Interwar unemployment in international perspective”, edited by Barry J. Eichengreen and T. J. Hatton.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Scientific Affairs Division, Centre for Economic Policy Research

Hmm,anti communist, privatization and tax cuts for the middle class: Sounds Rightwing to me.

This article fails and it fails bad: In the Doctrine of Facism, Mussolini writes:

“It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the “Right,” a Fascist century.”

You know where privatization originated?

“Although modern economic literature usually ignores the fact, the Nazi government in 1930s
Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in
several State-owned firms in different sectors. In addition, delivery of some public services
previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to
organizations within the Nazi Party.”

Source: Bel, Germà,Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany(March 2006)

Jäta vastus Tühista vastus

Like my website? Read my book!

A Self-Made Nation tells the story of 18th and 19th century entrepreneurs who started out with nothing and created success for themselves while building a great nation.


Why Do People Call Hitler a Socialist?

Part of the confusion likely comes from Hitler rising up through the ranks of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party) and having some socialist policy on paper (the party platform and his Mein Kampf both contain some socially liberal and socialist ideas, but both are notably written before his Rise to Power).

However, as noted above, Hitler modeled his party on Mussolini’s National Fascist Party [23] , which had a more honest and appropriate title. Like the German National Socialist party, Mussolini had begun as a socialist and devolved into a Nationalist Fascist movement. Although fascism has some commonalities with socialism, it is not the same.

The other part of the confusion likely comes from a misunderstanding of the post-WWI era ideologies (which include many different exclusive nationalist and inclusive socialist ideologies.)

Communism can generally be considered the extreme inclusive left-wing ideology of the post-WWI era, fascism can generally be considered the extreme exclusive right-wing ideology, and then other socialist and nationalist ideologies of the time fall somewhere in between.

Fascism is a right-wing ideology that essentially grows out of socialism (left) and nationalism (right), so it only makes sense that it would be confused with left-wing socialism.

MYTH BUSTED HITLER WAS A LEFT-WINGER: There is a half-truth out there that Hitler was a left-winger and that his form of socialism is comparable to modern social liberalism or Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Socialism. All these claims are “mostly false.” The essay below explains this position from a historical standpoint. Simply put, like Mussolini, Hitler was a far-right fascist despite his socialist policies. Socialism can certainly devolve into fascism (Mussolini is proof, as is Hitler to some extent), and that is a real concern (just like the concern of it devolving into authoritative communism), and all totalitarian states are similarly despotic and tyrannical, but this speaks little to the WWII fascists being left-wingers. Providing healthcare to a small group of German nationals is only very loosely “a socialist” idea, it isn’t like the NAZI embraced a fully planned economy like the Communist or anything. Providing socialism for a small group of nationals is a common advent of militarism and is much more (speaking in WWII terms) “fascist” than socialist. As noted above, the tale of fascism is more a tale of caution for right-wingers, not left-wingers.

TIP: Mussolini and Hitler were very similar. Mussolini called himself a fascist and was in the National Fascist Party party in Italy. Hitler rose up through the ranks of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, leading its Nationalist wing. Both parties had very similar ideologies, and both had originally been at least partly socialist ideologically before becoming more nationalist and fascist. Mussolini’s party had a more honest name frankly, but we can, naming aside point out some left-wing qualities of the fascists (despite their many right-wing qualities). Fascism and the other post-WWI extreme ideology Communism are both totalitarian ideologies, but they are opposition philosophies with key differences. In terms of the post-WWI ideologies, one is left-wing (Communism), and one is right-wing (fascism). Hitler and Mussolini were Nationalist Fascist Right-Wingers.


If the nazi is a far-right party, why is it socialist? - Ajalugu

we can split hairs all day. however..left wing is left wing and socialist are socialists. international, national, intergalctic, whatever.

1 0

The problem is most posters are looking at this with only the last 100 years in mind.

all of these movements started in the 1860's and 70's.

The communist party in Russia was formed in 1883 as the Emancipation of Labour and later in 1898 Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and split into two parties in 1912. With Lenin leading the Bolsheviks arm of the party in 1903 and Mensheviks lead by Julius Martov.

This is long before German fell apart and by 1919 Russia has it's hand in most of eastern Europe.

Even before WWI Russian operations covered the whole of eastern Europe, but mainly in the area of Serbia. The killing of the Arch Duke was the spark that started WWI and that was a Russian operation using puppets.

That the NAZI were enemies of the Russian red communist puppets in Germany is not an issue, but a nature defense of nation. The Nazi's are a very small party in 1919-1923 and played a small role in this struggle of nation gapping.

What put them on the map was the Beer Hall Putsch and General Erich Ludendorff being a member of the Putsch.
The press from this event made the early NAZI party and made them a political force. Erich would go on to be elect to the Reichstag as a representative of the NSFB in 1924, NSFB is the NAZI party and German Völkisch Freedom Party coalition. Erich would go on to run for President of the Republic in 1925.

There is far more to all of this as the British are fighting a real and shadow war with Russia dating to the 1830's trying to keep the Russians from taking Istanbul from the Turks.

0 0 0 0

It’s time to debunk the “Nazi” epithet, and to show you where it came from, who invented it, and why. The fact is, that the term “Nazi” was created by the enemies of the National Socialists (the NSDAP). It was a pejorative term an insult or a slur. The Germans, not even Hitler nor any other top party officials ever called themselves “Nazis”! They called themselves “National Socialists” and nothing else. Those who can read German and have studied any of the original documents and speeches know this already, but most don’t.

Progenitor of the term “The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”. So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves. One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.”

This is a fact. National Socialism is akin to the current national populism that was being advocated by several politicians on the right in the 2015 runs across the world. Further, the NSDAP was not fascist, and they make a point that they were national socialists while Italy was fascist. The German national socialists were not like Marx socialists. Otherwise they wouldn't have complained about the attempted communist revolution that destroyed their WWI chances. It is a shame that so many tards on the right do not understand what the NSDAP was to this day even though they advocate for a lot of their policies. NSDAP fought against communism, globalism, and Marxism. United States allied and fought for the "evil" so many complain of now.


Where is the difference?

Clearly, fascism and socialism differ on many fundamental aspects.

The socialist paradigm is based on the assumption that private property and free market inevitably lead to social and economic inequality. As such, the state has the moral and social duty to intervene to protect workers’ rights and to ensure that wealth is equally and harmoniously distributed. Socialist societies prevent economic competition within the country and with other countries.

Despite the large degree of variance existing within the socialist world, all policies implemented by all variants of socialism are based on the pivotal economic and social goals mentioned earlier. The idea of nation, race, and superiority are absent from the socialist thinking.

Fascism, instead, does not call for social equality nor cares about the equal redistribution of wealth and income. A fascist economy aims at the strengthening of the nation, at the propagation of nationalistic principles, and at the enhancement of national superiority.

Even if fascist economic policies often lead to economic growth – from which all segments of society can benefit – social equality is not among the goals of the fascist paradigm.

Socialism and fascism are based on opposite principles and values, however…

Despite their apparent opposition and the historical paths that have led to the striking contrasts between the two ideologies, socialism and fascism have important features in common.

  • They are both strong ideology
  • They both imply strong governmental involvement in economic and social life
  • They both have the power to create strong social movements
  • They both oppose free market
  • They both need a strong governmental apparatus and a strong leader

Socialism and fascism are two strong ideologies, which have been able to create cohesive and powerful social movements. Rarely, during history, have we witnessed such influential and fast-growing social involvement and participation in political life.

  1. In the case of socialism, masses mobilize and support the idea of equal development, equal share of wealth, social equality, enhancement of the community, and collective values. Socialism unites masses under the umbrella of equality, not supremacy.
  2. In the case of fascism, masses mobilize for the achievement of national and racial supremacy over all other countries, over all other minorities, and over all other nations. The idea of equality is alien to the fascism paradigm, while the concept of superiority is pivotal.

In sum

Throughout history, socialism and fascism have been portrayed as opposing and contrasting all-encompassing-theories. Indeed, our recent past provides us with several examples of fascist thinking opposing social thinking, and vice versa.

As we have seen, the two theories originate from opposing values: socialism strives for an equal society, and is based on the idea of democratic ownership, and redistribution of wealth. Conversely, fascism strives for the imposition of national and racial superiority, and advocates for economic growth fostered by national companies and corporations.

In brief, fascism and socialism differ in crucial and central principles.

However, we can also witness important similarities between the two, in particular as far as the role of the state is concerned. Both fascism and socialism require a strong state involvement in economic and social policies. The reason why the government intervenes in public affairs is different, but the means used to achieve different goals are interestingly similar.

Moreover, and more importantly, both have proved to be incredibly powerful and effective ideologies, able to bring together huge masses, and to foster large and cohesive social movements. In addition, the strengthening of socialist and fascist thinking is often enhanced by the growth of middle-class/working-class discontent. Interestingly enough: same origins and social feelings generate opposite political and economic movements that operate in similar ways.

Search DifferenceBetween.net :

Email This Post : If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.

Cite
APA 7
Squadrin, G. (2017, July 18). Difference between socialism and fascism. Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/ideology-politics/difference-between-socialism-and-fascism/.
MLA 8
Squadrin, Giulia. "Difference between socialism and fascism." Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects, 18 July, 2017, http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/ideology-politics/difference-between-socialism-and-fascism/.

48 Comments

Do they have private property in Sweden and Germany? Muidugi! Does the government own the means of production? Hell no!

You need to explain that people who live under democratic socialism or a social democracy are the happiest on Earth.

Unless, of course, your intent is to distort instead of honestly inform.

Many of the so-called “democratic socialist” countries are not socialist in the least, they have prominent social democratic parties, however as you mentioned they have both private property and private ownership of the means of production for the use of profit. In short these countries are not socialist but rather fluffy capitalism.

The same can be said for Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and most other European states. Of course, there are also Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries.

Why does the United States, or at least its political leaders, use the terms socialism and communism as if they mean the same thing. I was born in Denmark, and I can assure you that the Nordic Model is far from communism.

The United States is probably the definitive example of Capitalism run amok. “If it cannot be monetized, and of course for a profit, it’s not worth doing.”

For a state to flourish, it must have a healthy and well-educated populace. Therefore, universal health care and free education are not a luxury, they are a necessity. These services are not paid for by the state, they are paid for by the taxpayers. These services are not an expense they are an investment in the future.

History clearly demonstrates what happens in a society where the ‘rich get richer, and the poor get poorer’. When the middle class finally realize that they have little left to lose, revolution will soon be on the horizon.

‘Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it’, and it will not be the first time that the top 1% have ceased to exist.

Hi, can you please provide a list of ideas, services, products that have greatly improved our lives (medical, technical, food supply, etc) which have originated in socialist utopias. Also provide one of same from the “evil capitalist” country. An honest list please. One more favor, if I may? There is no such thing as free medical or education, or anything for that matter. If it were free why do you need to be taxed? Why are most folks from your part of the world “educated from birth” not to be ambitious, over-achiever, a great performer, or more successful than others? You are thought to be humble, modest, unassuming, etc. Example. If you are able to purchase an expensive vehicle, which you may desire, you do not. This shows that you are not boastful. Please explain. Aitäh.

A lot of maths comes from communist countries. Most of space tech comes from there. Without it you would not have any satellite etc. Most of the scientists in US come from other more socialist countries.

Nazi Germany had one of the greatest scientific minds, mathematicians, and rocket scientist of all times. That doesn’t justify their failed social philosophy no more than it does the failed philosophies of the socialist. If one does not agree with capitalism, they should seek a new social and economic system never tried before as opposed to one that has over a century of proven failure. As Milton Freedman said, “…history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”

Yes, a lot of scientists come from socialist and communist nations that’s why they are living here in the United States. They fled. In their home nations, they were often forced to do so. It was make a scientific breakthrough or loose your family.

Canada is a striking example of a well-balanced system which is quite socialist in many aspects (universal healthcare, high taxes, and elusively for most other “multicultural” societies–successful assimilation of most immigrants). Our bellicose and recently quite pushy southern neighbors think they insult us by portraying Canada as nothing but a north american Scandinavian country where we are basically ‘red’ under our majority white skins. Jokes on them whenever u look at any measure of standard of living, social cohesion, upward mobility, public education, and the real scary one for our unnamed ultra-capitalist frienemy–canada does this despite our far smaller GDP/per capita….YEAH, waaay less stuff-rich!!

I think it’s quite clear there are no hard boundaries between political theories and only something new or a more adept recombination of the same old crappy theories until we find a way to accelerate forward

Jan, you are correct in everything that you said.

So there’s people here that think anything short of our level of capitalism’s Venezuela/North Korea, practically? Is that what you mean? We have a mixed economy here, with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some welfare, like food stamps and unemployment. I’m an independent, but I know Scandinavia and the rest of Europe’s not much like Cuba these days.

This might give you a better description of the difference between socialism and fascism. Contrary to what you might think both of these ideas are to the left of center. What makes them similar is that both require a strong central government which provides for the society.

Thank you for pointing this out. I was thinking the same thing when I read this article. The most famous socialist in history started the fascist party. Hard to think that one is that different then the other.
.

Another excellent point. Mussolini the founder of fascism was a Marxist. He did not hide this fact. Hitler was a socialist, again a fact he did not hide this. It’s also good to note a recent book by Thomas weber shows Hitler tried to join the German socialist party and it was only after refusing him entry after an argument about a loan, that he joined the national socialist worker party. Why is there a determination by academics to show fascism on the left, when economically its policies are planned economies run by the state or controlled by the state. Possibly because academics are left wing by nature (fed by the public purse) and refuse to accept this fact. It’s the national part of fascism that pains them so much. The fact they sit beside a racist theory so closely should not surprise anyone. They are often strong believers in their own superiority, it’s only a short step to the belief that they know whats best for all, and that plato had a valid point. Thereafter differentiating based on class or race is a short step, as this the choice to remove freedom and choice itself.

Its great to see people question the traditional boxes with which economic and political theories have been placed.

Well done the people! A statement a real socialist could not make.

The article explain this point too if you are patient enough to go to the point. Did you ever think that for capitalism (also defined by Marx) it was a great point to assimilate fascism and socialism as fascism is charged with all the blame of the WWII? Making up stories is a nice way to get rid of a competitors…
“In sum

Throughout history, socialism and fascism have been portrayed as opposing and contrasting all-encompassing-theories. Indeed, our recent past provides us with several examples of fascist thinking opposing social thinking, and vice versa.

As we have seen, the two theories originate from opposing values: socialism strives for an equal society, and is based on the idea of democratic ownership, and redistribution of wealth. Conversely, fascism strives for the imposition of national and racial superiority, and advocates for economic growth fostered by national companies and corporations.

In brief, fascism and socialism differ in crucial and central principles.

*However, we can also witness important similarities between the two, in particular as far as the role of the state is concerned. Both fascism and socialism require a strong state involvement in economic and social policies. The reason why the government intervenes in public affairs is different, but the means used to achieve different goals are interestingly similar.*

Moreover, and more importantly, both have proved to be incredibly powerful and effective ideologies, able to bring together huge masses, and to foster large and cohesive social movements. In addition, the strengthening of socialist and fascist thinking is often enhanced by the growth of middle-class/working-class discontent. Interestingly enough: same origins and social feelings generate opposite political and economic movements that operate in similar ways.”

It seems that socialism and fascism have more in common than not. If you look at the differences you could really call them similarities. Fascism is Socialism on steroids. Socialism is just a softer form of communism as well. They are all tied up in a very similar ideology of the state over the people. These are all left wing beliefs and fascism is not a right wing ideology. This is a falsehood that fascism is right wing. While socialism calls for the redistribution of wealth so that equality is created, this calls for the government to be in control of everything.”The reason why the government intervenes in public affairs is different, but the means used to achieve different goals are interestingly similar.” Claiming doing the same thing but for different reasons is really an argument that doesn’t hold water. You could just say that when socialism is not accepted by all members of the society, it then may turn to fascism in order to establish the governments’ control over the people. Socialism is very closely related to fascism and communism, all left wing.

Actually you are wrong, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing. Socialism is defined as a left wing political ideology, thus the Socialist German Workers’ Party was left, not right, and was also fascist, just like today’s progressive leftists that gave us Obamacare. That is a prime example of the fascist ideology applied to economic theory.

History has proven that socialism and fascism is roughly the same thing. The most efficient state and most powerful state in the world during the 20 century was Nazi Germany they went from a collapsing state to a state of super power in under 5 years. Yes they also fell real quick but that was more the fault of the leaders then the government ideals. What this article gets wrong is Germany was fascist socialist country during this time. German citizen life during the golden years was the best in the world compared to everyone else. Unless you were one of the states listed problems… anyways what I do not understand is why people still refuse to see this. Socialism works but you need smart leadership to propel it forward like any thing else. Every nation should see them self’s as the priority over any other issue its the right of every state that is independent. The only states that cant do this are vassals to other states. The United States is a prime example of a vessel country to other interest.

It was great and golden because they were stealing the wealth of 5% of their society, the Jews, and redistributing it to the rest of their society. Not exactly a good model. In fact, down right evil.

This site perpetrates an evil that continue among leftists and that is the idea that Fascism is on the right. By the definition given Fascism is a system of total government control. Nothing on the right meets that definition, but leftism does. Another failure of this article is to conflate Fascism with Nazism. Nazism was a sister ideology to Fascism but was called by its architects National Socialism, or NSDAP. Leaders of the NSDAP didn’t refer to themselves as Fascists, this fiction was created after WWII by Western Socialists to distance themselves from a political system they adored before the war. Socialists knew if they were tarnished with the truth they’d never be able to gain support in the United States or Europe, so they created a fiction that Fascism and Nazism were “Nationalistic” which made them right wing. This claim was also a lie as Nationalism appears on both the left and the right and is not a defining characteristic of each. The latest fiction of the left is that nobody has done socialism correctly. This fiction appeared after the publication of the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, this work demonstrated that every instance of Socialism results in inhumanity and death on a mass scale. Prior to the death of Hugo Chavez lefists pointed to Venezuela as a successful Socialist regime. Today even Sean Penn won’t defend Venezuelan Socialism but apologists again claim they didn’t do it right. The only form of Socialism that never had a chance to fail on its own was Nazism as it was defeated by the Allies in 1945.

Mussolini was a Marxist, he always was, he simply believed socialism failed and that it should be replaced by a more nationalist marxisim, ergo fascism based on a misinterpretation of nietzsches superman and platos Republic with an emphasis on the nation state economy.

Capitalism was and is an invention of Marx and engels misrepresentation of the free market. In all economic systems you have corruption, monopolies etc, but Smith et al rallied against this and called for regulation. Marx stated that this corruption, when you ran across it, was the system, he was a turd really.

We do not have capitalism. America uses the term interchangeably and this is reason why fwit socialists still exist. If they used even a modicum of effort and read the road to serfdom they would wake up to were the evil of corruption sleeps easiest.

Hitler was a socialist till the money ran out, that was pretty quick, he then did the same moving towards a more nationalist form of his chosen isim.

Just to make my point clear, otherwise the left will go after you, Hitler’s socialism failed very very early. He began privatising companies which had been nationalised during the depression to raise funds in 35 to pay for the incredible well fare and socialist experiments of his government.

He used govt ious to pay companies (owned by nazi members) to pay for his armaments to avoid these appearing in the budget as well, while avoiding further accounting evidence of his masterplan.

Incidentally its always interesting to note the companies seemed to land in the hands of banks who did not want them, or in the hands of nazi party supporters who did, or most commonly in a mixture.

Seriously F Hayek nailed this desire for planned economies marching hand in hand with corruption so perfectly.

Also some great comments on this site and especially this page.

1. Many nations have claimed to be “socialist”. (I’ve never counted how many.)
2. Most (if not all) of these nations have failed.
3. Socialists will claim socialism was never done right.
4. Let’s take it as granted that socialism was never done “right”. How are we supposed to know that the next group that claims they are implementing socialism is doing it right? Given history, isn’t it more likely to be another instance of socialism being done “wrong”?

Communism, socialism, fascism, they’re not left or right wing. They’re just flavors of statism, all bad.

It’s not left vs. right. It’s the state vs. YOU.

Arguing over left statism vs. right statism is just a sideshow to distract the masses from the real agenda.

That’s only the case when the state is acting contrary to my own wants. Otherwise it’s not a case of versus at all. Public healthcare, social welfare, etc. Those things aren’t against me. But when the state wants to start telling me that I can’t express certain beliefs according to my conscience as they’re “hate speech” or so on, then yeah I’ll call it statism.

DoubleFelix is wrong. I lived in socialist country, I grew up in the socialist system. Public healthcare and social welfare are not that great: it provided by government using government (not independent) employees , provides only minimum for you to survive and continue being the slave/serf of the government.

Socialism is plural fascism. Individual rights are ignored in both philosophies and inefficiencies lead to lower GDP and lower standards of living for it’s citizens in both cases. The socialist experiment in the US colonies in the 1600s removed all incentives for hard work and efficiency which was the main cause for starvation. As soon as Smith introduced the philosophy of private property and individual compensation based on merit, our nation thrived. We have over a hundred years and millions of bodies to prove socialism doesn’t work. Let socialism die like disco.

Like so many others, this author falls into the “left-right” trap. This paradigm arose from the French Revolution where the anti royalist republicans were on the left and those supporting the monarchy were on the right in the parliament. Note that capitalism is not part of the definition. Also note under this definition, the US is an anti royal republic on the left, while Canada in 1776 was on the right, supporting English monarchy.

Todays politics is better analyzed in terms of the individual vs the state. Both fascism and socialism place the state above the individual, whose rights are derived from the state and not innate. The difference is that fascism uses state power to protect a nation or race, socialism uses state power to protect one class against another.

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free. Bastiat The Law 1850 NOTHING NEW..

This is very good. I wish you would put this article in video form (or even) in a series of videos because it’s hard to read on my phone. I think I’ll print it out for me but I thought I’d give you my 2 cents.

The far right would not want full government control but a smaller limited government. The far right are closer to libatarians then a lot of things. This article seems to attempt to separate the fact that Hitler called the communists his brothers and saw very similar fundamental ideals within each.

Why don’t you list under Socialist “Venezuela” a country in shambles, riots, run by a ruthless leader. A decade ago it was a leading country in south America and now look at it.

“Clearly, fascism and socialism differ on many fundamental aspects.”
“Primacy of the nation vs protection of everyone’s rights”

Protection of everyone’s rights? Socialism puts the collective ahead of the individual, no individual rights can be superior to the group’s rights under Socialism. Fascism holds the state as supreme, they don’t value individual rights either.

“Private property vs public/social ownership”

In both systems the state controls the economy and is responsible for their citizens. Both value strong social safety nets like universal healthcare and old age pensions. Private property might theoretically exist, but the state can appropriate it at any time. In Germany and Italy factory owners still ‘owned’ their factories, they just didn’t run them.

“In the case of fascism, masses mobilize for the achievement of national and racial supremacy over all…”

Fascism is National Socialism, the state is king, as you noted Mussolini said, “All within the state….” Marxism is International Socialism, the working class is supposed to own everything, but in practice an authoritarian government does. The obsession with race was the Nazi’s version of Fascism, it’s not a prerequisite for a Fascist society.

Socialism has over a century of proven failure. If one doesn’t like free Markets, They should create a new system not yet known to man. While capitalism isn’t perfect, It’s the closet thing yet discovered. As Milton Friedman said, “…history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.” https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5001.Milton_Friedman

The only thing “Right” is Less Government. You got it wrong, socialism and fascism are both “Left” leaning, more government forms of control. The Extream right is no government, not fascism.

To say that fascism is far right is factuality incorrect. The father of fascism is a man named Giovanni Gentile. Born in 1875, Gentile was one of the world’s most influential philosophers in the first half of the 20th century. Inspired by his mentor Karl Marx, Gentile believed that the state should resemble a family. This remains a common leftist theme. During the 1984 convention of the Democratic Party, the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, likened America to “an extended family where, through the government, people all take care of each other.” Thirty years later, the slogan of the 2012 Democratic Party convention was, “The government is the only thing we all belong to.” Gentile considered fascism to be the most workable form of socialism. Fascism mobilizes people by appealing to their national identity as well as their class. Fascists are socialists with a national identity. Gentile also believed all private action should be oriented to serve society, with no distinction between private interest and public interest. He considered the state to be the administrative arm of society, so society and all its members were to submit to the state in everything. Italian fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, simply paraphrased Gentile when he wrote in his Dottrina del Fascismo, one of the doctrinal statements of early fascism, “All is in the state and nothing human exists or has value outside the state.” Just like Gentile, Democratic progressives champion a centralized state, which explains the recent expansion of state control in the private sectors of healthcare, banking, education and energy. Leftists can’t acknowledge their man, Gentile, because that would undermine their attempt to bind conservatism to fascism. Conservatives support small government in order to empower individual liberties, but the left wants the resources of individuals and industries to service the state. To acknowledge Gentile is to acknowledge that fascism bears a deep kinship to the ideology of today’s left. So, they will keep Gentile where they’ve got him: dead, buried, and forgotten.