ok now I’m a dope.
Here’s the link
http://www.clubi.ie/swp/booknaz.htm
sorry about the triplepost
Bite me.
You know, when this was originally written, I had no idea what you were talking about. What biography of Winston Churchill could you possibly be referring to? I had certainly made no such claim to reading such.
The only book I claimed I read on Nazi politics was Mein Kampf. That’s the only possible post of mine you could be referring too.
You thought Mein Kampf was Winston Churchill’s biography?
::shakes head in disbelief::
How advanced does ignorance have to get before it’s terminal?
oldscratch:
I’ve studied your link.
It doesn’t really talk about the origins of the Nazi party, or Hitler’s early rhetoric as expressed in such novels as Mein Kampf.
I will go out on a limb here, and again post my personal opinion, on this matter:
The Nazi party and Hitler were socialists. Hitler’s ideology was clearly one of convenience. Once he had control of the Nazi Party, Hitler altered it’s and his own ideologies as necessary to suit his needs.
Immediately prior to the Beer Hall Putsch Hitler unified several groups under the Nazi banner by appealing to Socialist ties and unity.
When he needed the cooperation of Industry he appealed to it’s Capitalist interests.
After he attained power rival Socialist groups were denounced for their communistic ties to Russia, the same ties that were later appealed to in the Warsaw Pact. Even his hatred of jews seemed, at the very beginning to be carefully considered strategy.
Hitler was essentially an opportunistic. He was Socialist in the same way Jeffrey Dahmer was a Democrat. It was an affiliation and a veil. The Nazi party was quite decidedly a Socialist party. It didn’t stay that way any more than Russia did under Stalin.
Later Nazi ideology, and actions certainly have little in common with modern socialist thought, though the early party seemed rather pure as did Hitler at about the time he was imprisoned.
I think that’s a pretty fair and even-handed asessment of the situation. Let me know what you think.
Thanks, stofsky, for clearing the air on this. Scylla should not have to take the brunt of anyone’s umbrage for something I said. God knows he says enough strange things himself without that! 
Olentzero, I claim absolutely no expertise on socialist theory or history. I posted the reference to The Last Lion simply to refute what seemed to be a fallacy shared by all participants in the GD thread – that the NSDAP Party started out Fascist. In point of fact, it was mildly left-wing with nationalistic overtones, as opposed to the strong left-wing internationalist socialism espoused by non-“national” Socialists, and evolved under the influence of Hitler and a few others into the Nazi party we all love to hate. I understood this as a result of its being dealt with in passing in a book I read for other reasons by an author whose research and scholarship I have come to trust.
If you care to get into the differences between the brand of socialism the first Nazis proposed, the democratic socialism of Blum, Marxist theory, and all the other variants that have evolved over the years, I will stand back and listen, and learn. However, unless someone refutes Manchester, I stand by what I said: what became the Nazi party started out as a variety of socialism and moved the into pseudo-Fascist Nazism ideology as Hitler consolidated his power base both within the party and in the industrial/military establishment (where have I heard that before?).
Polycarp:
WOW! Zero got the wrong guy?
You mean this is really your pit thread?
That’s even worse. What a moron.
Wow, I don’t even have to make my point for the 4th or 5th time.
Oldscratch, again, I’m not attacking the politics, merely your “young comrade’s” methods of argument. Scylla made a point about the origins of the Nazi party, Olestra took it personally, and I pointed out that a large part of her/his/its attack was based on another poster’s statement, not Scylla’s. You want to get nasty about the explosive-flatulentce substance? If the book’s so good, as I asked earlier, why is it not linked on the website? Do you only expect people who are willing to wade through the propaganda (as I would call any party’s pamphlets) to read it? Do you expect people who are familiar with the horrible design of that site to be the only ones who would buy it?
Look, I’m not going to buy the fucking book. I’m sure as hell not going to waste my day going through 3 or 4 search engines to find it, especially when your “young comrade” can’t even post a direct link. Again, will Olestra or, now that you’ve entered the fray, you address the direct charges of misquoting and bad argument with something a bit more convincing than a “bite me”?
Seems like Olestra’s resorting to his hero Lenin’s tactics…
When someone disagrees you, attack them with all the subtly of a rabid pitbull with a rubberband around his nuts.
**
Please post ever reason you can think of why they were socialists. Then post some more. Seriously. I’m interested in what you define as socialism. Now, many fascists were at one point socialists. But, so were a lot of republicans, doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
oh and I just went back and read Polycarp’s comments, same goes for you bucko.
**
Interesting. However, when refering to republicans, I’m not refering to the movement of French Republicans in 1823. I’m talking about Dubya. When refering to Nazi’s, I’m not speaking of what might have been the early origins of the party. I’m talking about what they actually are. Interestingly enough, the Larouchites started out as socialist and I would definetly call them fascist at this point.
**
Hmmm? More info?
**
Actually, it’s more like capitalist industry needed him, and appealed to the Nazi’s. That’s the big difference. Capitalists feel threadened by socialism and working class action and turn to fascism as a solution.
**
agree.
more stuff that seemed redundent deleted.
Let me put forth what I see as the two main differences.
Socialism, idealises working class and internationalism
Fascism/Nazism, fear of working class, strong nationalism.
Those two can not be reconciled.
Oldscratch…
I repeat that I don’t have the background in socialist history or theory to argue the point.
But let me draw a parallel: Do you know any left-leaning persons who, eight years ago, were not prepared to go socialist (despite, no doubt, your best efforts) but who were fed up with the Republocrats and the Demricans. And who turned to this clown with the big ears and the flipcharts with something like a sigh of relief that here was somebody who would turn things around? Maybe not perfect but has the right idea?
Does that automatically make them supporters of Pat Buchanan today?
End of interjection. You folks can argue about socialist theory all you want without me. I just injected the fact that Hitler suborned what had started out, under Rohm and a few others, as a moderate-left socialist party into what makes Fascism and Phalangism look decent by comparison. Minor fact or factoid that I had no intent would cause this rant.
I’m outa here.
**
I’m actually not trying to argue, more iron out differences and come to an agreement. After all, we are the same person, can’t be arguing with myself now.
**
Yep.
**
Right. I think what we have here is a difference of terms. When I refer to Nazis, I’m not refering just to people who may have voted for them, or who might have been members in the first month. I’m refering to the whole ideology.
awww, don’t go. Like I said. Please post more info, or links to what the early ideas were. then we can discuss if they were socialist, or simply called themselves such. I’m not discounting the idea that they may have been. See my Larouche example.
Oldscratch:
There is a ton of stuff out there on the History of Nazi Germany up to WWII.
Most of what I said, I also said, documented, and provided links to in the other thread. That as well as Polycarps cites as well as a casual acquaintance with History will suggest that Hitler and the Nazis had Socialist ties at the outset. Mein Kampf borrows heavily from Marx. The name Nazi is shorthand for National Socialist something or other.
I hate to go over it again, especially in a thread devoted to my destruction.
Devoted to your destruction? 
Enough with the hyperbole.
K, I’m going to go look around, I was just feeling lazy and hoping you’d help me out. No such luck, i’ll be back
Oldscratch:
Naziism exists today under the misnomer “National Socialism.” This stuff is about as extreme and crazy as you can get, but may give you some ideas. I present it without further comment other than to mention that this stuff is about as far away from today’s Democratic Socialism, and the examples of a peaceful and tolerant Socialist state (like Sweden) as you could get and is clearly no indication of mainstream Socialist thought:
http://www3.stormfront.org/ns/nsprimer.html
http://lycoskids.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0859884.html
http://www.j-cinstitute.org/Articles/Lyons_Idolatry.htm
A very interesting piece particularly apropos to this discussion: “The Two Souls of Socialism”
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/twosouls/twosouls.htm
Some more:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,56392+1+55014,00.html
From a guy that was around through both Stalin and Hitler, again presented without comment or indictment of Modern Socialism:
http://www.founding.org/column17.html
Some Nazi National Socialist propaganda pieces (from a scary sight)
http://www.founding.org/column17.html
Here’s a good link talking about Hitler’s rise to power and mentioning the The German Socialist party.
http://www.founding.org/column17.html
For more details about Hitler’s brand of Socialism and his distortion of it, I’d particularly recommend searching on the “Beer Hall Putsch.”
Again, I don’t present these links as an indictment of modern Socialist thought, but rather as evidence of Hitler’s ties to early Socialism, the similarities between his, and Stalin’s regimes, their perversion of Marxist thought, and in general defense of what I actually said in the other thread and how the Olentfool clearly misinterpreted it through his ignorance of Nazism’s peculiar and unworthy brand of Socialism.
I think ignorance in this is particularly dangerous. Both Hitler and Stalin have clearly shown how Socialism can be perverted. Modern National Socialism is very much alive in the fringes of the Socialist movement.
I sincerely hope this post is taken in the spirit offered.
I love you Scylla. really. I’m not finished reading or responding yet, but I love you.
Why? Because you linked to Hal Draper. the founder of International Socialists here in America. Yep, one of the founders of the tendency that Olentzero is a member of and I used to be. I’ll dig up some of the other stuff he wrote on fascism too.
P.S. took everything in the spirit it was offered. Looking forward to more discussion with you.
Oldscratch:
There’s good Socialists and there’s bad Socialists, just like there are good Democrats and algore. I presented links to try and give a round idea as to the issue, and to show the various trappings of various forms of Socialism.
BTW: The fact that the Zero is also a Socialist is the worst thing I can say about modern Socialism. The little rat doesn’t even have the courtesy to apologize for mistaking me.
Probably off meeting with his revolutionary cell. I hope they send him on a suicide mission or something.
Yeah, ya know, you get a good head of steam worked up, seein’ red, and the next thing you know you’re making serious mistakes. 'S not the first time I’ve done this, either.
I still strongly disagree with your argument that the Nazis and Fascists, beyond Mussolini’s early political affiliations, had anything to do with Socialism beyond, as I think you’ve asserted here (lacking a quick review of the thread) using it as a populist cover to advance their own ideas.
If this is your assertion, then there’s nothing left for me to say except apologizing to Polycarp for attributing his quote to someone else.
If, however, your assertion is that Fascism and Nazism are a logical outcome of the ideas and theories of Socialism, then this discussion will continue in what I promise to be a more civilized tone. 'Cos your assertion would be wrong.
sigh
If you’re saying Socialism was used opportunistically as a veneer by the Nazis and Fascists, no quarrel here.
If you’re saying the two ideologies share a common fundament then we got some discussing to do.
Olentzero:
That’s a pretty gracious couple of posts. Thanks.