Why are leftists so pro-genocide?

[byuu]

If the state owns shit it's automatically communism.
Stay mad, monarchists.

 

[quaawaa]

"There occurred hardly any nationalizations of formerly private firms during the Third Reich. In addition, there were not very many enterprises newly created as state-run firms either. The most spectacular exception to that rule was the Reichswerke Hermann Göring which was founded in 1937 for the exploitation of the German bad-quality iron ore deposits. [...]
On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was furthered wherever possible. In the prewar period that was the case for example with the big German banks which had to be saved during the banking crisis of 1931 by the injection of large sums of public funds. In 1936/37 the capital of the Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank and Dresdner Bank in the possession of the German Reich was sold to private shareholders and consequently the state representatives withdrew from the board of these banks. Also in 1936 the Reich sold its shares of Vereinigte Stahlwerke. The war did not change anything with regard to this attitude. In 1940 the Genshagen airplane engine plant operated by Daimler-Benz was privatized; Daimler-Benz bought the majority of shares held by the Reich earlier than it wished to."

- Buchheim, Cristoph - "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy"

Dude just fuck off lmao you're so wrong it's embarrassing to even be here.

I bolded the weasel words your source uses. The Nazi definition of “privatization” was to give control of companies to party members who then must do whatever the Party demands of them. It’s state control/nationalization with an extra step that lets Party members get rich as long as they are loyal. China does the same thing and calls it “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”.
The Nazis had a 50% tax on income for the rich, had over 100% of profit taxes for certain companies, they had a national retirement program, and universal healthcare for Aryans.

In 1938 artisans came to be covered under compulsory social insurance, and in 1941 public health insurance coverage was extended to pensioners. In 1942 all wage-earners regardless of occupation were covered by accident insurance, health care became unlimited, and maternity leave was extended to twelve fully paid weeks with job protection.

You’re literally making the exact same argument you’re accusing me of making: that the name of something determines what it actually is. Their actions and their rhetoric both show that they were left wing. Only post war editorials like your source claim they were anything but on the left, because people can’t learn that socialism always requires a scapegoat.

Does this sound like free market capitalism to you?

The Cartel Act was amended on July 15, 1933, and supplemented at the same time by an Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels which placed existing cartels under the virtually complete control of the minister of economics, and also gave him power to force unorganized businesses into existing or new cartels. The Act stated expressly that it was not to be used as the basis for a planned economy, and it was intimated that it would be invoked as rarely as possible; but it was soon being used not only as a measure of control but also to cartelize many hitherto unorganized industries including cigarette, paper, radio equipment, electric bulbs, and steel wire makers. All organizations of entrepreneurs which were not brought under central control either dissolved voluntarily or were dissolved by the state.

To carry out the economic and technical functions of the guild, all of German agriculture is organized into central associations covering each type of production, such as dairying, cattle-raising, fruit-growing, etc. The Reich commissioner for each of these associations, who is appointed by the secretary of agriculture, determines not only prices and production quotas for both farmers and distributors, but also such details as the percentage of milk to be used in chocolate or ice cream. Ordinarily, the peasant is not allowed to sell anything direct to the consumer. The net result, according to Lothrop Stoddard, is that, “Before the farmer starts his spring planting, he knows that everything he raises will be bought at a figure which should normally enable him to make a slight profit. At the other end of the scale, when the housewife goes to market, she knows that the storekeeper cannot charge her more than the government permits.” It is equally obvious that the farmer cannot exercise much initiative in the hope of making larger profits, and that it will do the housewife little good to shop around for bargains.

An executive order of May 16, 1934, prohibited raising prices, without a special permit, of “all objects and services important for life and the supply of daily needs”—covering almost everything except purely luxury articles. In September, 1934, under Schacht's “New Plan” import-export bureaus were set up for 25 groups of commodities, all under the thumb of the Reich Bureau for Distribution of Foreign Currency.

The Nazis did not carry out their promise to break up the department stores. On the contrary, as a labor shortage developed, they deliberately forced small merchants out of business and into the labor market, with almost complete disregard of the effect of this action upon individual incomes. At the same time, the licensing system for retail trade which had always been general in Germany was extended and tightened under the supervision of special trade police.

Source

Dude just fuck off lmao you're so wrong it's embarrassing to even be here.

 

[Dyn]

Why is my source a peer reviewed paper from history professors that sources multiple peer-reviewed articles and books on the subject and your source is an online newspaper that only sources itself and won't even name the author?

Big ups on at least finding something that looks more reliable than a rightoid's youtube video tho.

 

[Pissmaster]

Reddit's really coming out of the woodwork ITT

 

[Lemmingwise]

Reddit's really coming out of the woodwork ITT

Citation needed.

 

[Passing Through Town]

But he was.

Calling Hitler a communist or a Marxist is one of the most easily identifiable signs of ignorance on National Socialism and Hitler.

Spoiler: Hitler in Mein Kampf clearly viewing Communism as an enemy:

"The German national souls kept privately whispering to each other the suspicion that basically we were nothing but a species of Marxism, perhaps Marxists, or rather, socialists in disguise. For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism. Especially when they discovered that, as a matter of principle, we greeted in our meetings no 'ladies and gentlemen' but only 'national comrades,' and among ourselves spoke only of party comrades, the Marxist spook seemed demonstrated for many of our enemies. How often we shook with laughter at these simple bourgeois scare-cats, at the sight of their ingenious witty guessing games about our origin, our intentions, and our goal.

We chose the red color of our posters after careful and thorough reflection, in order to provoke the Left, to drive them to indignation and lead them to attend our meetings if only to break them up, in order to have some chance to speak to the people."

...

"Then, after two, three, or often eight and ten meetings it turned out that to break up the meetings was easier said than done, and the result of every single meeting was a crumbling away of Red fighting troops. Suddenly the other watchword was back again: 'Proletarians, comrades! Avoid the meetings of the National Socialist agitators!'"

Spoiler: Differences according to Wyndham Lewis, author of 'Hitler':

"The political opponents of the current republican regime can only be held in check by constant police violence. The Communists need that too. But the Communists helps the police to beat and shoot the Nazis."

...

"The Horst Wessel Song, with which all NS meetings terminate, bears witness to these conditions: for it is the song written by a young Nazi storm-leader, who was shot in his lodgings by a communist gunman..."

Spoiler: Albrecht Hohler, the Communist who shot Horst Wessel

"Also, whereas the Communist is invariably armed, the Nazi has only his fists or sticks to defend himself with, owing to the discrimination of the Republican Police authorities -- from the start the Nazis have been incessantly denounced, harassed, and disarmed."

...

"As the N.S.D.A.P. Programm describes [class-war]:

'The picture of a fight of all against all. Government against people, party against party, thereby resulting in the strangest and most impossible alliances, parliament against government, employee against employer, customer against producer, trader against producer and consumer, landlord against householder, workman against peasant, official against public, working-class against 'Bourgeoisie,' Church against state...'

And all this fine work, they exclaim, is the handiwork of our little friend Marx, and is kept alive and further developed, at the cost of uncounted outpourings of money-for the agitator's salary to finance political strikes, and so forth. This is the business of the 'Marxist,' as the German man calls him."

If the SA fought Marxists in the streets before taking power, if Hitler directly expressed opposition to "the Jew Karl Marx" and his doctrine, and the NSDAP program directly rejects the concept of class-war (the core of Marxist political philosophy), then how can you seriously suggest that Hitler or the National Socialists were Marxists? If you're going to say they were Marxist or Communist in any way, you're going to have to demonstrate how. If your only evidence is the socialist aspect of National Socialism, then you're simply wrong, because socialism and communism/Marxism are simply not the same thing. Marxism/Communism has a very clear underlying philosophy, commonly referred to as dialectical materialism. Hitler was not a materialist. National Socialism's philosophy is not materialistic. It's predicated on racialism and spiritualism. It is the antithesis of Marxism in every respect. What you're doing is projecting something that you don't like onto something which is generally considered evil, all for the sake of justifying your pre-conceptions of both.

Before you accuse of using biased sources or some similar cope, note that I used Hitler's own words and the words of a non-Nazi who witnessed the rise of the NSDAP. I didn't include a Communist perspective on account of the only major Communist regime at the time fighting a war to destroy National Socialism. Inb4 anyone mentions the pre-war collaboration between the two regimes: Hitler also worked with western capitalists at time. He was an opportunist. Also, it follows that the war against NatSoc Germany is a sign that both groups disagreed with National Socialism more than they agreed with it.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

Calling Hitler a communist or a Marxist is one of the most easily identifiable signs of ignorance on National Socialism and Hitler.

Spoiler: Hitler in Mein Kampf clearly viewing Communism as an enemy:

"The German national souls kept privately whispering to each other the suspicion that basically we were nothing but a species of Marxism, perhaps Marxists, or rather, socialists in disguise. For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism. Especially when they discovered that, as a matter of principle, we greeted in our meetings no 'ladies and gentlemen' but only 'national comrades,' and among ourselves spoke only of party comrades, the Marxist spook seemed demonstrated for many of our enemies. How often we shook with laughter at these simple bourgeois scare-cats, at the sight of their ingenious witty guessing games about our origin, our intentions, and our goal.

We chose the red color of our posters after careful and thorough reflection, in order to provoke the Left, to drive them to indignation and lead them to attend our meetings if only to break them up, in order to have some chance to speak to the people."

...

"Then, after two, three, or often eight and ten meetings it turned out that to break up the meetings was easier said than done, and the result of every single meeting was a crumbling away of Red fighting troops. Suddenly the other watchword was back again: 'Proletarians, comrades! Avoid the meetings of the National Socialist agitators!'"

Spoiler: Differences according to Wyndham Lewis, author of 'Hitler':

"The political opponents of the current republican regime can only be held in check by constant police violence. The Communists need that too. But the Communists helps the police to beat and shoot the Nazis."

...

"The Horst Wessel Song, with which all NS meetings terminate, bears witness to these conditions: for it is the song written by a young Nazi storm-leader, who was shot in his lodgings by a communist gunman..."

Spoiler: Albrecht Hohler, the Communist who shot Horst Wessel

View attachment 3305760

"Also, whereas the Communist is invariably armed, the Nazi has only his fists or sticks to defend himself with, owing to the discrimination of the Republican Police authorities -- from the start the Nazis have been incessantly denounced, harassed, and disarmed."

...

"As the N.S.D.A.P. Programm describes [class-war]:

'The picture of a fight of all against all. Government against people, party against party, thereby resulting in the strangest and most impossible alliances, parliament against government, employee against employer, customer against producer, trader against producer and consumer, landlord against householder, workman against peasant, official against public, working-class against 'Bourgeoisie,' Church against state...'

And all this fine work, they exclaim, is the handiwork of our little friend Marx, and is kept alive and further developed, at the cost of uncounted outpourings of money-for the agitator's salary to finance political strikes, and so forth. This is the business of the 'Marxist,' as the German man calls him."

If the SA fought Marxists in the streets before taking power, if Hitler directly expressed opposition to "the Jew Karl Marx" and his doctrine, and the NSDAP program directly rejects the concept of class-war (the core of Marxist political philosophy), then how can you seriously suggest that Hitler or the National Socialists were Marxists? If you're going to say they were Marxist or Communist in any way, you're going to have to demonstrate how. If your only evidence is the socialist aspect of National Socialism, then you're simply wrong, because socialism and communism/Marxism are simply not the same thing. Marxism/Communism has a very clear underlying philosophy, commonly referred to as dialectical materialism. Hitler was not a materialist. National Socialism's philosophy is not materialistic. It's predicated on racialism and spiritualism. It is the antithesis of Marxism in every respect. What you're doing is projecting something that you don't like onto something which is generally considered evil, all for the sake of justifying your pre-conceptions of both.

Before you accuse of using biased sources or some similar cope, note that I used Hitler's own words and the words of a non-Nazi who witnessed the rise of the NSDAP. I didn't include a Communist perspective on account of the only major Communist regime at the time fighting a war to destroy National Socialism. Inb4 anyone mentions the pre-war collaboration between the two regimes: Hitler also worked with western capitalists at time. He was an opportunist. Also, it follows that the war against NatSoc Germany is a sign that both groups disagreed with National Socialism more than they agreed with it.

"It wasn't REAL communism"

That's a new one.

 

[quaawaa]

Calling Hitler a communist or a Marxist is one of the most easily identifiable signs of ignorance on National Socialism and Hitler.

Spoiler: Hitler in Mein Kampf clearly viewing Communism as an enemy:

"The German national souls kept privately whispering to each other the suspicion that basically we were nothing but a species of Marxism, perhaps Marxists, or rather, socialists in disguise. For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism. Especially when they discovered that, as a matter of principle, we greeted in our meetings no 'ladies and gentlemen' but only 'national comrades,' and among ourselves spoke only of party comrades, the Marxist spook seemed demonstrated for many of our enemies. How often we shook with laughter at these simple bourgeois scare-cats, at the sight of their ingenious witty guessing games about our origin, our intentions, and our goal.

We chose the red color of our posters after careful and thorough reflection, in order to provoke the Left, to drive them to indignation and lead them to attend our meetings if only to break them up, in order to have some chance to speak to the people."

...

"Then, after two, three, or often eight and ten meetings it turned out that to break up the meetings was easier said than done, and the result of every single meeting was a crumbling away of Red fighting troops. Suddenly the other watchword was back again: 'Proletarians, comrades! Avoid the meetings of the National Socialist agitators!'"

Spoiler: Differences according to Wyndham Lewis, author of 'Hitler':

"The political opponents of the current republican regime can only be held in check by constant police violence. The Communists need that too. But the Communists helps the police to beat and shoot the Nazis."

...

"The Horst Wessel Song, with which all NS meetings terminate, bears witness to these conditions: for it is the song written by a young Nazi storm-leader, who was shot in his lodgings by a communist gunman..."

Spoiler: Albrecht Hohler, the Communist who shot Horst Wessel

View attachment 3305760

"Also, whereas the Communist is invariably armed, the Nazi has only his fists or sticks to defend himself with, owing to the discrimination of the Republican Police authorities -- from the start the Nazis have been incessantly denounced, harassed, and disarmed."

...

"As the N.S.D.A.P. Programm describes [class-war]:

'The picture of a fight of all against all. Government against people, party against party, thereby resulting in the strangest and most impossible alliances, parliament against government, employee against employer, customer against producer, trader against producer and consumer, landlord against householder, workman against peasant, official against public, working-class against 'Bourgeoisie,' Church against state...'

And all this fine work, they exclaim, is the handiwork of our little friend Marx, and is kept alive and further developed, at the cost of uncounted outpourings of money-for the agitator's salary to finance political strikes, and so forth. This is the business of the 'Marxist,' as the German man calls him."

If the SA fought Marxists in the streets before taking power, if Hitler directly expressed opposition to "the Jew Karl Marx" and his doctrine, and the NSDAP program directly rejects the concept of class-war (the core of Marxist political philosophy), then how can you seriously suggest that Hitler or the National Socialists were Marxists? If you're going to say they were Marxist or Communist in any way, you're going to have to demonstrate how. If your only evidence is the socialist aspect of National Socialism, then you're simply wrong, because socialism and communism/Marxism are simply not the same thing. Marxism/Communism has a very clear underlying philosophy, commonly referred to as dialectical materialism. Hitler was not a materialist. National Socialism's philosophy is not materialistic. It's predicated on racialism and spiritualism. It is the antithesis of Marxism in every respect. What you're doing is projecting something that you don't like onto something which is generally considered evil, all for the sake of justifying your pre-conceptions of both.

Before you accuse of using biased sources or some similar cope, note that I used Hitler's own words and the words of a non-Nazi who witnessed the rise of the NSDAP. I didn't include a Communist perspective on account of the only major Communist regime at the time fighting a war to destroy National Socialism. Inb4 anyone mentions the pre-war collaboration between the two regimes: Hitler also worked with western capitalists at time. He was an opportunist. Also, it follows that the war against NatSoc Germany is a sign that both groups disagreed with National Socialism more than they agreed with it.

Marxism/Communism are socialist ideologies, but they aren't the only such ideologies. Neither Hitler or Mussolini were Marxists or Communists while they held power, though both were enamored with the Marxist socialism prior to being powerful, and both found various flaws in the ideology that they "fixed" in different ways. Your own quote shows this:

For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism.

Why would Hitler care about the difference between "socialism" and "Marxism" if they were the same thing, or if he hated them both? Hitler clearly views socialism as a good thing and disagrees with the Marxist implementation of it. Socialism is a class of ideologies, and Communism is a specific implementation of that class, as are National Socialism and Fascism. The alternative name for Communism, International Socialism, makes this even clearer. Hitler viewed National Socialism as improvement on Marxist Socialism, with the main "innovation" being the use of race as the dividing factor instead of (though in reality, in addition to) class. Mussolini and the other Fascists felt the same about their ideology. Your quotes are arguments about how socialism based on class divisions is a bad idea, and that the people (defined racially), should not be fighting each other and should all work for each other for the benefit of the race. National Socialism’s parent ideology is Marxism, though it is distinct from its parent.

You may as well claim that the Bolsheviks weren't real socialists because the Mensheviks thought so, though you are correct that the Nazis weren’t communist.

 

[trailcamwhore]

Another thread full of "socialists" and "Marxists" pretending fascism isn't state syndicalism?

 

[Dammit Mandrake!]

"For your own good."

 

[Passing Through Town]

@Quaawaa

though both were enamored with the Marxist socialism prior to being powerful

Hitler was never enamored with Marxism, he was against it from the outset. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, because there's no evidence for it. Hitler's starting point was nationalism, which led him to the anti-semitism and anti-Marxism of the Austrian German Workers Party (GDP).

Why would Hitler care about the difference between "socialism" and "Marxism" if they were the same thing

They're not the same thing. I'm not saying that they're the same thing. I'm arguing that Hitler wasn't Marxist and neither was National Socialism.

Hitler clearly views socialism as a good thing and disagrees with the Marxist implementation of it.

Yes, but also no. It's not about the implementation of socialism, it's about the philosophy of Marxism. It's like you didn't even read the post. Marxism isn't "an implementation of socialism", it's Marxism. No qualifiers or categorizations necessary. It's just Marxism. Marxism employs socialist methods, but is itself much larger than a method of government or economics. It's an entire philosophy, just as Fascism and National Socialism are.

Hitler viewed National Socialism as improvement on Marxist Socialism

No, he didn't, because he never considered Marxism as being worthwhile to begin with. It's not an improvement, it's entirely separate. There simply isn't any Marxism present in National Socialism.

Your quotes are arguments about how socialism based on class divisions is a bad idea

More evidence you didn't actually read any of it, because they're not. The quotes I gave are evidence that National Socialism and Marxism were in opposition to one another. No value judgements are being made, except in the quote where Lewis quotes the NSDAP platform.

National Socialism’s parent ideology is Marxism, though it is distinct from its parent.

Provide examples of how this is the case. Show me that National Socialism is a form of dialectical materialism. You can't, because it just isn't.

 

[quaawaa]

@Quaawaa



Hitler was never enamored with Marxism, he was against it from the outset. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, because there's no evidence for it. Hitler's starting point was nationalism, which led him to the anti-semitism and anti-Marxism of the Austrian German Workers Party (GDP).


They're not the same thing. I'm not saying that they're the same thing. I'm arguing that Hitler wasn't Marxist and neither was National Socialism.


Yes, but also no. It's not about the implementation of socialism, it's about the philosophy of Marxism. It's like you didn't even read the post. Marxism isn't "an implementation of socialism", it's Marxism. No qualifiers or categorizations necessary. It's just Marxism. Marxism employs socialist methods, but is itself much larger than a method of government or economics. It's an entire philosophy, just as Fascism and National Socialism are.


No, he didn't, because he never considered Marxism as being worthwhile to begin with. It's not an improvement, it's entirely separate. There simply isn't any Marxism present in National Socialism.


More evidence you didn't actually read any of it, because they're not. The quotes I gave are evidence that National Socialism and Marxism were in opposition to one another. No value judgements are being made, except in the quote where Lewis quotes the NSDAP platform.


Provide examples of how this is the case. Show me that National Socialism is a form of dialectical materialism. You can't, because it just isn't.

We clearly just have a minor semantic disagreement. I don’t think we actually disagree on anything other than the exact language used. “Employing socialist methods” and being an “implementation of socialism” mean the same thing to me.

 

[Passing Through Town]

We clearly just have a minor semantic disagreement. I don’t think we actually disagree on anything other than the exact language used. “Employing socialist methods” and being an “implementation of socialism” mean the same thing to me.

My disagreement with your claim that Marxism is the parent of National Socialism is not a minor semantic disagreement.

 

[quaawaa]

My disagreement with your claim that Marxism is the parent of National Socialism is not a minor semantic disagreement.

It absolutely is, all I said was that he was inspired by parts of it and changed the bits he didn't like. An ideology can have many parents, and you don't have to like everything about something in order to be influenced by it. If he wasn't influenced by it, you wouldn't be able to find any quotes where he compares his ideology to it and points out the changes he's made.

 

[Passing Through Town]

It absolutely is, all I said was that he was inspired by parts of it and changed the bits he didn't like. An ideology can have many parents, and you don't have to like everything about something in order to be influenced by it. If he wasn't influenced by it, you wouldn't be able to find any quotes where he compares his ideology to it and points out the changes he's made.

You're arguing in a circle. You can compare literally anything. If I compare apples to oranges, does that mean that apples were inspired by oranges? No. He compares National Socialism to Marxism because it's natural to compare yourself to your primary competitor. That's how politics works. And again, you refuse to provide any evidence or examples of how National Socialism was inspired by Marxism. Why is that?

 

[quaawaa]

You're arguing in a circle. You can compare literally anything. If I compare apples to oranges, does that mean that apples were inspired by oranges? No. He compares National Socialism to Marxism because it's natural to compare yourself to primary competitor. That's how politics works. And again, you refuse to provide any evidence or examples of how National Socialism was inspired by Marxism. Why is that?

Here you go:

National Socialism takes for itself the pure idea from each of these two camps. From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma living, creative Socialism.

Full context:

Question: You encountered Marxist parties and the indifference of the middle class. You were regarded as part of the bourgeois right-wing.

Answer: This evaluation of my life’s work leaves room for two errors. My entire energy was devoted from the beginning to overcoming the leadership of the state by parties, and secondly-although this is logical and obvious from the origins of my uprising-I must never be understood in bourgeois terms.

In the quarrel of the parties, it became evident that the discussion was being conducted under false appearances. It is wrong, you see, that the bourgeois parties have become the employers and for the Marxists to call themselves proles and employees. There are just as many proles among the employers as there are bourgeois elements among the employees.

The bourgeois-allegedly for the sake of the Vaterland-are defending property, a capitalistic value. Thus from a Marxist point of view, love of one’s country is not dumb, but rather capital’s greed for profit. On the other hand, the international character of Marxism is regarded by the middle class as speculation for a world economy in which there is only state administration and no longer any private property.

The member of the bourgeoisie avoids this division of the Volk into opposing interest groups by hiding behind the superficial and zealous optimism of his daily paper and allowing himself to be educated “apolitically.” The lessons are organized very nicely according to the taste of his majesty, Gullible Fritz (Majestät Zipfelmütze), placid and peaceful. People are reverting step by step. The compromise serves over and over again to ban controversy literally from the face-but only the face-of the planet, and the end, the end is a political matter somewhere in the distance which is better left alone to preserve the peace, of course. But the fact that this peace was not a peace at all, but a daily defeat, a daily victory of consciously political Marxism-it is for the recognition of this fact that National Socialism is fighting.

National Socialism takes for itself the pure idea from each of these two camps. From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma living, creative Socialism.
Volksgemeinschaft: that means a community of all productive labor, that means the oneness of all vital interests, that means overcoming bourgeois privatism and the unionized, mechanically organized masses, that means unconditionally equating the individual fate and the nation, the individual and the Volk.

I know that liberal bourgeois concepts are highly developed in Germany, the bourgeois man rejects public life and has a deep-seated aversion toward what goes on in the streets. If he weakens in his resolve for any length of time, this public life, the street, will destroy the ideal of his four walls.

In cases like this, attack is the best form of defense.

I am not responsible for the fact that the central command of the German State was taken over by the street in 1918. However, the bourgeoisie does not have the slightest reason to suspect that I was the drummer who sounds the reveille, for if the bourgeoisie had slept through the facts of history, it would have awakened too late, awakened to a political state of affairs which is called Bolshevism and which is the mortal enemy of the concepts of the middle class. The Russian Revolution was up in arms against the middle class as bourgeoisie, and in Germany the decisive battle of this Weltanschauung has just been lost.

The fact that all of Germany is enlightened as to Bolshevist imperialism, that not a single German can say, “I knew nothing of it,” but can resort only to the lame excuse, “I didn’t believe it”-that is and always has been my commitment and the basic principle of all of my loyal followers.

– Adolf Hitler - interview for the writer Hanns Johst on the concept of the ‘Bürger’ (bourgeoisie) published in the “Frankfurter Volksblatt”

Good enough for you?

 

[SwanSwanson]

1) I don't support those people

2) I'm not pro genocide

 

[Passing Through Town]

Here you go:

Full context:

– Adolf Hitler - interview for the writer Hanns Johst on the concept of the ‘Bürger’ (bourgeoisie) published in the “Frankfurter Volksblatt”

Good enough for you?

That doesn't support your claim at all. Taking socialism out of Marxism =/= being an adaptation of Marxism any more than taking Nationalism out of bourgeoise tradition makes NatSoc an adaptation of Monarchism or capitalism. It's telling that you can't formulate any argument around the philosophies and have to resort to digging for obscure Hitler quotes instead.

 

[quaawaa]

That doesn't support your claim at all. Taking socialism out of Marxism =/= being an adaptation of Marxism any more than taking Nationalism out of bourgeoise tradition makes NatSoc an adaptation of Monarchism or capitalism. It's telling that you can't formulate any argument around the philosophies and have to resort to digging for obscure Hitler quotes instead.

In that interview, he explains exactly what his vision of socialism is, and his only complaint about Marxism is that it leads to infighting amongst the Volk. He was influenced by Marxism, rejected the parts he didn’t like, and came up with his own socialist ideology. Both National Socialism and Marxism are forms of socialism, and National Socialism was influenced by it by virtue of being created afterwards.

Taking nationalism out of the bourgeoisie tradition is a common argument for why National Socialism is considered to be a far-right ideology, though I disagree with that assignment because nationalism has nothing to do with the left-right split. The USSR, China, and many other socialist governments practiced nationalism as well as their forms of socialism, and they were definitely left wing governments. The whole idea behind third positionism is based upon taking ideas from “both sides”.

 

[Passing Through Town]

In that interview, he explains exactly what his vision of socialism is, and his only complaint about Marxism is that it leads to infighting amongst the Volk.

Not at all. He explains exactly what his vision of socialism is in Mein Kampf, and it's a whole lot more expansive. Moreover, his critique of Marxism extends far beyond the "it causes infighting". I know you're just going to ignore me again, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering, but the disagreement is a philosophical one. It runs deep. National Socialism does not interpret history through the lens of class. National Socialism does not view class warfare as a natural, inevitable phenomenon. National Socialism is nationalistic. National Socialism has an actual moral framework. National Socialism is fundamentally anti-semitic and anti-Marxist.

National Socialism was influenced by it by virtue of being created afterwards

That's an incredibly retarded thing to say. I could name a thousand different things that existed prior to Marxism that Marxism wasn't influenced by. But more importantly, the only thing that National Socialism "takes" from Marxism is socialism. Socialism isn't even a Marxist invention. It predates it. If the only similarity between Marxism and National Socialism is socialism, and socialism existed prior to Marxism, then the NatSoc use of socialism is obviously not Marxist influence.

Taking nationalism out of the bourgeoisie tradition is a common argument for why National Socialism is considered to be a far-right ideology, though I disagree with that assignment because nationalism has nothing to do with the left-right split.

Marxism doesn't have anything to do with left-right split either, really. You could easily apply Marxist theory without being a socialist. In fact, that's exactly what many capitalists do all the time. That dialectical materialism, the core of Marxist philosophy, is present in most modern political groups on both the left and right.