Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. The Nazis believed that what was good for government was good for the people.
‘Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations. […] Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist policy.’ - Adolf Hitler
'We are socialists because we see in socialism,that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!’ - Joseph Goebbels
The GLF was a labor union period. Hitler believed in the premise of unions, which is why he adopted the idea and created a state-controlled one. There is no rule that says a union can not be government controlled.
No, you’re thinking of the Social Democrats, the leader of which went into exile shortly after the Reichstagg Fire and many members of which were put in concentration camps for a year or so until they caved. In the years before the Reichstagg Fire, the socialists and the Nazis (and the Communists) were having firefights in the street. It’s pretty clear you don’t know what you’re talking about, idiot.
I see. So Jeremy Corbyn must be an authoritarian and not a socialist then. He was a fan of Chavez after all.
In case you didn’t know, authoritarianism is not an economic ideology. It’s a tool to enforce a particular ideology. It doesn’t actually tell me anything about the person’s economic views. There is such a thing as authoritarian socialists, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
The fact that two sides embrace socialism does not automatically guarantee that they’re going to be allies. Do you want a list of wars/battles/feuds between different socialist groups?
What makes a labor union work as intended - an organization working for the rights of workers - is that it is made up of people voted for, by democratic vote by the people they represent, not by being instilled in such a position by people who have different interests at heart.
Are you one of those people who believe what anyone says is true? Goebbels (?!..Frankly, I find it hard to believe you’d take that guys word for anything…) said (paraphrased) “nazi Germany is socialist!”, so according to you it must be true, right? North Korea is democratic, right? “It says so in the name!” So according to you, I must be a plum pudding, right?
I know what an argument is and I know what an argument isn’t. That’s how I knew how to classify your post. ‘B-b-b-but the Nazis were fighting with so and so…’ is an argument, and a f’ing retarded one at that. Sectarian violence between ideological groups is commonplace.
Different unions have different procedures. All unions do not allow for a ‘democratic vote’. Your ideal union doesn’t decide what a union must be to be considered a union.
Good try. Goebbels didn’t just say the Nazi’s were socialist. He put in place socialist policies.
That was a nonsensical response. You claimed he was responding to another user. If that’s who he was responding to, why then didn’t he quote him? He did so the first time he responded to him. And did you even follow the conversation? ‘Read a book’ was posted five minutes after I made my post, and five minutes after he actually responded to that user.
Stop trying to lie on someone else’s behalf. It’s unnecessary, and you’re terrible at it.
The first post was the one being discussed, as you know since it was the one YOU were talking about. You know that. This tactic of “no I totally meant this other thing, so you’re wrong” is transparent and ridiculous.