The difference between National Socialism and real socialism is that most Germans who were rich before the Nazi takeover remained rich. When Social Democrats take over rich people get higher taxes. When Communists take over rich people lose everything.
Middle class does too. They are usually the first ones up against the wall.
I’m curious as to when you think the government wasn’t “allowed” to build roads.
No the history of socialism before communism shows that the traditionally rich aristocracy used socialism to maintain the status quo against insurgent (classically) liberal movements. Therefore rich people turning Nazi was absolutely in line with the socialist historical narrative.
Sorry but I’m about to get my Brainglutton on real quick
One thing the Nazis did essentially nationalize was the labor movement. All independent unions were abolished and their members had to join a government-run union, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front). Which meant the government negotiated all worker contracts and workers couldn’t go on strike without government permission. (And as a bonus, the Nazis confiscated all the money owned by the unions when they abolished them.) Naturally the leaders of this union were appointed by the government not chosen by the workers themselves.
This also occurred in Communist countries. You’ll find very little that happened in Hitler’s Germany that didn’t also happen in Stalin’s Soviet Union. If calling Stalin a right-wing fascist makes liberals feel better, that’s fine. It could be argued that this is precisely what he was, especially given how he resorted to nationalist appeals during and after the war.
No, Stalin and the other communist dictators were examples of left-wing extremism.
But don’t they end up pretty much in the same place, with quibbling over who technically owned the industries?
I’d also note that whether a dictator is right or left wing, they sure seem to become richer than Bill Gates in short order. It’s good work if you can get it I guess.
There are more types of socialism than communism and today’s democratic socialism. The Nazis were heavily influenced by socialist thought. Saying the Nazis weren’t socialist shows ignorance of the history of Metternich’s brand of socialism. These deniers are also heavily influenced by public education which maintains that socialism is an ideal “humanitarian” system while at times impractical. Nazism is obviously not humanitarian, so associating public school alumni’s fluffy vision of socialism with nazism causes them to twitch uncontrollably and start pit threads.
Nope, the problem here is that you think that finding a definition that a German posted that fit the wishes of the powerful in Germany is the definition that should be accepted everywhere and in Germany too. The definition does exist (meaning that your accusation of denying it is really silly), but it is not the one that all the world takes into account and virtually none uses now.
More to the point it still does not explain or continues to **deny **why it was that plain socialists did oppose the Nazis.
Socialists also opposed the Communists. At least the smart ones. The dumb ones were later killed by the Communists when they took power.
Captain obvious is obvious, that has been noticed already. The the ignorant point remains, the reason why it is not proper to call Nazis socialists.
The reason for that big lie has been mentioned, it is to simple smear the ones that are following more common definitions and demonize more mainstream social movements.
There is another reason why a few demagogues do use it, to deny that extremism from the right could lead to fascist regimes and to allow many on the right side of the isle to support them. It does not matter that this took place in the very recent past, it is better to forget that history so it will be easy to replicate it in the future.
Extremism on the right doesn’t lead to fascist regimes in the West, because extremism on the right is for smaller government.
I will point to that as direct evidence of your small world.
Franco, Pinochet, dictators from Argentina, Brazil and others show how small your world is.
Not the West.
In Latin America, the debate between right and left has always been what kind of strongman should rule, although Latin America today is much more democratic than it used to be, with some exceptions like Venezuela. In the 21st century, it could be argued that the only authoritarianism left in Latin America is the leftist version.
You are part of the “some” that think that, most do not. You are grasping at straws to get away from the fact that you were wrong. (Franco’s Spain was not in the west either? What are you smoking?)
And that was not the point either, what I said you dunderhead was that the recent past is forgotten conveniently to deny that the extreme right is still willing to continue to support fascist dictatorships if they come again, as it was seen when the recent coup in Honduras took place. Fortunately the UN defused the situation instead of letting the dementors like DeMint to continue with the old ways.
And once again, Chile and many more Latin American countries shows that you are also living in the past regarding the strongmen ruling over there.
Honduras wasn’t a coup and it shows your leftist bias that you believe it is. Anti-democratic bias as well. You’ve fallen into the usual trap when thinking about Latin America that the President is The Man and the legislature and courts dont’ matter.
The Supreme Court ruled that the President had committed an illegal act and issued a warrant for his arrest. That’s a victory for rule of law. You apparently, prefer rule of men, or one man, actually.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
The truth commission on the case made by independent Hondurans and/or equal parts of the sides involved reported that it was a coup, give it up, your sources are indeed deluding you.
And Zelaya, and to be fair, most of the coup planners were pardoned for peace’s sake. The important thing IMHO was that indeed the extreme right wing in the USA lost their latest wanna be pet dictator and the winner of the following election was allowed to become president.
And generalissimo Franco is still dead! 
And was from a country that indeed was part of “the West”