People need to realize Hitler was not a socialist, the National Socialist Party, was a misnomer, his politics were Fascist and nationalist, the exact opposite of socialism. I think all of those radical ideologies are disgusting, oh well, have a good day.
2007-02-28 06:01:04 · 15 answers · asked by asmith1022_2006 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
First off I didn't make any mention to present day politics so leave that out of your answers, you apparently don't know much about fascist economics, so therefore I left the following links to fascist and Nazi economics,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Economic_policy
2007-02-28 07:32:19 · update #1
As for the origins of the term "National Socialist"
On 24 February 1920, the party added "National Socialist" to its official name, becoming the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). The term "national socialism" had been current in German and Austrian politics since the 1890s. There was a German National Socialist Workers’ Party (DNSAP) in Austria – Hitler later acknowledged that this was the inspiration for the DAP’s new name. [1] One of the advantages of the new name was that it evoked patriotism and appealed to working-class voters without forcing the party to commit to any specific policy ("national socialism" was and remained a rather vague term)
2007-02-28 07:33:35 · update #2
state control of the economy and authoritarianism in general is a part of the far left and right, whether you are a reactionary or a radical, you want to take people's rights away, you should really read about the Spanish Civil War, a perfect example.
2007-02-28 11:20:31 · update #3
You have to remember that if people recognize that you can give to the poor without being a socialist(Or even that, in some doses, that ain't such a problem), and be rightwinged AND be essentially a fascist, if you aren't too careful, that there'd be a huge reconstructerizing of American politics. And that'd throw the type's who've climbed to the top back to the bottom, and they aren't the sort that want to give up their gilded little thrones that easily.
The NSP was originally a nationalist and socialist party, but when Hitler siezed control(And he really did, folks), the party slid heavily towards the right and authoritarian side; not to say that it wasn't there already, but... Ay yay yay. Also, Hitler was elected to Reichconsular, if my memory hasn't slid yet. So democracy isn't fool proof against dictators, something we need to remember, I'm thinking...
Edit: By the way, guys, Asmith (Adam Smith, by the way? Awesome nickname, even folk like me loved Wealth of Nations) really put his research together. So before y'all decide that by saying that Hitler wasn't a socialist is unfactual, do check out some of his stuff, and all. This question is something we all'd do well to remember.
2007-02-28 07:42:17 · answer #1 · answered by crimsononice 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've provided a link source with some scholarly work on the subject if you want to see development of the thesis you question.
Hitler called his political party the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. In English this translates to "The National Socialist German Worker's Party".
2007-02-28 06:12:57 · answer #2 · answered by R C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
surely he became fascist. yet socialist and fascism are purely slightly different what's socialism? that's a equipment the place each and every physique owns all the land and no-one owns any of the land on the comparable time. All companies are owned by potential of the state of that society. Karl Marx believed that socialism became 0.5 way down the line in between communism and capitalism because of the fact it supplies repayment to a undeniable degree for the quantity of artwork performed. additionally socialists have faith that there could be no extra in any respect. Fascism is a small team that are leaders or a single individual who develop his or her schedule at any fee. the guy or persons have direct administration over the economic equipment and human beings. The dictator might have finished administration over all propriety and companies
2016-10-16 23:02:45 · answer #3 · answered by dusik 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if that's your claim, do you have any facts or supporting evidence that shows Nazism being vastly different from Socialism?
Or are we just supposed to accept it because you say it?
--------------
Ok, there are some differences, but I think they're minor distinctions.
Both entail lack of economic freedom and the collective over the individual. That's as anti-freedom as you can get, either way. I see control of the state economy as a leftist thing, so whether it is pro-owner or pro-worker, that's just a matter of implementation.
2007-02-28 06:15:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was elected running as a national socialist. He wasn't a nationalist, they don't go annexing the rest of the continent. And his domestic polices were quite socialist in nature.
2007-02-28 06:08:31 · answer #5 · answered by Jester 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are wrong. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what exactly the Nazi party was all about and what socialism is all about.
Knowledge is power.
2007-02-28 06:08:05 · answer #6 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That *would* be nice, wouldn't it? It would also help for some people to remember (as a bumper sticker I recently saw said): Hitler was ELECTED.
That's why it's our duty in a democracy to stay vigilant, and never *blindly* follow *any* leader.
2007-02-28 06:04:47 · answer #7 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I know.
Isn't socialism closer to communism?
2007-02-28 06:04:36 · answer #8 · answered by Gottlos 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Okey doke. Stop by again when you haven't so much time.
2007-02-28 06:05:19 · answer #9 · answered by tabs 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Repubs are easily confused.
2007-02-28 06:29:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋