Hitler Wasn't An Atheist and nor were his Nazis

All you are doing is reinforcing the fact that there isn't one single purely capitalistic nation in the world (and that you yourself don't know the difference between capitalism and socialism).

Take this nation...the U.S. is undoubtedly a capitalistic nation (by and large) but it employs a progressive tax system
which was prescribed by Marx and Engels themselves (in 1847) as an incremental way “to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ending-tax-socialism

Your critical thinking skills are mighty rusty and if you think all nations using capitalism have at least some form of wealth distribution (a sign of centrally planned socialism )...you are right. But if you think redistribution of wealth is not a sign of socialism then you are sadly deluding yourself.
"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which the ownership of industry and the distribution of wealth are determined by the state or by agents of the state or the collective. In its most general sense, socialism seeks the co-prosperity and common cause of all people, which could be accomplished without force in religious and utopian communities. But, in general practice, it refers to the use of state force to redistribute wealth."

Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

Yeah, I don't really consider New World Encyclopedia to be a good way to find the definition of a word. Socialism and capitalism have, and always will, denote who controls the means of production in an economy. Check any dictionary.

 

Really? Are you sure? Because that's exactly what the citation I provided said in clear English, right in front of your unseeing eyes (I must presume).

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which the ownership of industry and the distribution of wealth are determined by the state or by agents of the state or the collective What part of ownership of industry is determined by the state don't you understand?

And this is all just dancing around the fact that the Nazis came into power, to bring your sad lack of knowledge full circle, nationalizing stores, factories and transfers of land, among many other things. You've been wrong every time you've tried to deny and squirm away from the truth and, as a coup degrace, you are even wrong about a crystal clear definition I provided that says exactly what you say it must say...therefore you rejected it!

 

I have no problem with that portion of that text, only the portion that you bolded.

Sure, the Nazi party nationalized some industries; those that did not further the economic goals of the Nazi party were nationalized and those that paid the price were left to their own devices. It was pretty much like the Mafia. But, that is not really the part of the Nazism that was "right-wing". Furthermore, nationalization does not equate to socialism. Hitler was a dictator and in complete control of every aspect of Germany's society. The people did not own the means of production, Hitler did.

 

I don't know why. That's the most salient property of socialism and if you agree that the state controls wealth in the socialist nation then for what other reason, than redistribution of that wealth, would the state
control means of production?

Hitler and the Nazis ran the state and were the state.
They set up a safety net for Germans (and profit sharing and land reform so it remained in the hands of farmers), as well as concentration camps, and even though you may not like the Nazis and their goals the people put Hitler in power therefore the "people" controlled whatever they deemed necessary to run the state.

 

America pioneered the use of concentration camps. Other nations simply followed us.

 

Care to document this?

 

well maybe... the Brits in the Boer War may have been the first but it was close, not something to be proud of....

- - - Updated - - -

history is definitely not your strength....

 

first concentration camp Dachau opened in 1933 it was built to hold communists and socialists....

 

life must be so simple when you claim something isn't true merely by being ignorant of the facts...it's the same mindset seen in China "Tiananmen Square Massacre, no that never happened such a contention is bs"...anything that challenges your extremist right wing slant and doesn't fit your alternate view of history simply never happened...

 

Nearly wrong is also wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdBEz0LjC5c

 

That's true - nevertheless the Commies and the Nazis - both together - had damaged the helpless republic of Weimar with their street fights. Lots of communists and socialists were honorful (and were in prison or became executed) - but also lots were just simple changing their color and became more or less convinced Nazis after Hitler wan. After world war 2 and even after the reunion of Germany lots changed their colors again. There's not an automatism existing ala "left wing = automatically antifascist". Some people who are calling themselve "antifascists" I would call "structural Nazis" for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4a_1UhwgFU

 

You clearly don't enjoy history, do you kid? You mugs really believe Big Business supports socialism. Weird! Come over here, cheat the NHS like so many of your countrymen, and get help. You are as sick as five drunken dogs.

 

If there are any "facts" available to show that socialists were the first people sent to Nazi concentration camps you certainly haven't provided them.
Life must be east for you when you simply make assertions that suit your biased view and call them
"facts".
Dachau was first meant to hold political prisoners of the Third Reich so union leaders, communists, etc. may have filled the prison but socialists per se were not the target of the site so to claim that that concentration camps were first built to hold socilaists is a fiction.

 

What you are discussing here is what is referred to as "state socialism", not socialism in general.

Woah, woah, woah. Hitler was NOT elected to dictatorship nor was he elected to ANY position of authority.

 

No - in fairness, the UK used them in South Africa first.

- - - Updated - - -

Hitler was elected, but only after he had banned the Communist Party. That is the way they always do it.

 

What position was he elected to?

 

ReichsChancellor, as I recollect.

 

He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg and got his emergency powers through parliamentary procedures, mostly through back-room deals and intimidation, he was never democratically elected to his final position as dictator.

 

Depends what you mean by 'democratically'. Once he had - by a parliamentary majority - disfranchised the German workers by abolishing their party, he went through the required nonsense according to the official rules. It's the way our Masters do these things. Democratic in any real sense? Obviously not!

 

Once Hitler was in power he and his criminal gang were unbelievable fast. They had very exact plans. Within only a few month they transformed Germany completly in a dictatorship. In Juli, 14th, 1933 all political parties were forbidden - the NSDAP became "the party". Same structure existed by the way in Russia - "the party" in Russia were the Commies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy26a8eaSsE

 

I've been surprised by the wild crazy claims in this thread...

 

The "people" almost never own the means of production. Whether under a socialist or communist system. It's usually state owned. Before this thread, I would have said that's the sorriest excuse to try to claim National Socialists weren't socialists that I've seen, but based on this thread, your excuse isn't even in the top ten.

 

Interestingly, I went on a tour of Dachau several years ago. It's quite a humbling place.

And although I've no doubt that it held communists, since it was originally used for domestic political prisoners, I doubt run of the mill socialists were imprisoned. I suspect you're dropping off a hypen.

 

Not quite that way. I found a 34 point website about Hitler and it states:

Although, he was democratically voted in, he made sure he would stay in, which was not a problem. The Germans were ready for a fresh spirit, away from the Habsburg Empire and certainly away from the communists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpmDAu_47OE