Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

melchizedek22 wrote: Why would the industialist back Hitler if he was a socialist?,Why would the Nazis fight the Commies on the streets if they were socialist?

Industralists back plenty of socialist parties in the modern era, largely due to certain industralists protectionist leanings.

[BobbyO]

Quote: melchizedek22 wrote: Why would the industialist back Hitler if he was a socialist?,

For the most part, they didn't. Not until after 1929, when the nazis became a major political party, did the industrialists start shipping large quanitis of money to them. By the early 30s, the options were dwindling; slavery under the nazis, or exile and disspossession (amd maybe death) under the commies. Also, the blackmail and threats upon the industrialists by the nazis no doubt played a role.

Quote: Why would the Nazis fight the Commies on the streets if they were socialist?

Because they were competing with each other for the socialist vote. During this same period, nazis and coomunists frequently switched sides.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: Fascism and Communist were the first totalitarian ideologies, what your thinking of is autocracy and authoritarianism, there not the same thing as totalitarianism as the state appratus is nowhere near as all reaching.

I know the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. it's not ideological, it's technological. The difference is only constituted in the degree to which the state can control its people. I'm pretty sure the Pharaoh of Egypt would have established a totalitarian state if he had the technology. so, your point is moot.

[LostSoul3412]

Raskolnikov wrote: I know the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. it's not ideological, it's technological. The difference is only constituted in the degree to which the state can control its people. I'm pretty sure the Pharaoh of Egypt would have established a totalitarian state if he had the technology. so, your point is moot.

Totalitarian and authoritarian governments have absolutely nothing to do with technology. They have to do with restrictions upon the government in place. An authoritarian government is limited in its powers, but not by formal means of a constitution (such as the United Kingdom). A totalitarian government, on the other hand, is not restricted by any means, and actually works to dismantle the external factors which limit the government's power (such as Cuba). There is nothing to do with ideology or technology, it has to do with the limits placed upon government, and that government's response to them.

[BobbyO]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Raskolnikov wrote: I know the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. it's not ideological, it's technological. The difference is only constituted in the degree to which the state can control its people. I'm pretty sure the Pharaoh of Egypt would have established a totalitarian state if he had the technology. so, your point is moot.

Totalitarian and authoritarian governments have absolutely nothing to do with technology. They have to do with restrictions upon the government in place. An authoritarian government is limited in its powers, but not by formal means of a constitution (such as the United Kingdom). A totalitarian government, on the other hand, is not restricted by any means, and actually works to dismantle the external factors which limit the government's power (such as Cuba). There is nothing to do with ideology or technology, it has to do with the limits placed upon government, and that government's response to them.

An authoritarian government might be one where the head of state controls all power for himself, but otherwise leaves its citizenry alone to go about its business as it wishes (providing it does not challenge the autocrat). A totalitarian government does that, as well as invades all spheres of life. Technology does not play a factor, though it certainly can help.

[LostSoul3412]

BobbyO wrote: An authoritarian government might be one where the head of state controls all power for himself, but otherwise leaves its citizenry alone to go about its business as it wishes (providing it does not challenge the autocrat). A totalitarian government does that, as well as invades all spheres of life.

What are you talking about? A government where one individual controls all power is an autocracy, and authoritarian/totalitarian distinctions have nothing to do with the citizenry. An authoritarian government is one which is unofficially restricted by external factors, but is without any official restrictions upon power. A totalitarian government is one without formal restrictions, and also works to eliminate the unofficial restrictions. In both instances, there is absolutely no connection to the citizens. The only difference is that the authoritarian government accepts the unofficial restrictions upon their power, whereas a totalitarian government will actively dismantle any external factor attempting to limit their power.

Take a political science course, because this is as poly-sci 101.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: A totalitarian government does that, as well as invades all spheres of life. Technology does not play a factor, though it certainly can help.

the difference is the state's ability to invade all spheres of life. Egypt, Israel, and Sparta are examples of ancient societies where the citizens' private lives were of the utmost concern to the authorities. these are would-be totalitarian states.

[sully111]

cap'n queasy wrote: Magorion wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: NSDAP is an acronym that means National Socialist German Workers Party.

Their platform was inarguably Socialist. The Nazi party is a variation of Socialism, and so is Fascism.

How about the facts my post touched upon?

They aren't factual. The Nazis controlled everything in Germany with an iron hand. And in a socialist state, that is what happens. The fact that they were Nationaist, doesn't mean they weren't socialists.

Hence the name of the ideology, National Socialism.

Its actually easier to exlpain if you read up on the rise of mussolini of whom hitler coppied there was a need for unity and therefore you would have to please everyone hense fascism a mixture of a bit of everything and a offshoot of socialism, violense for the fasciasts and nationalists, crushing the left for the conservatives

[LostSoul3412]

Raskolnikov wrote: the difference is the state's ability to invade all spheres of life. Egypt, Israel, and Sparta are examples of ancient societies where the citizens' private lives were of the utmost concern to the authorities. these are would-be totalitarian states.

The ability doesn't matter. Both authoritarian and totalitarian states have the ability to expand their power, but the difference is that only totalitarian government act upon that ability.

Trust me, this is one argument you're not going to win; I have a political science textbook sitting right in my lap.

[Alextyphus]

[quote="thefranzkafkafront"] melchizedek22 wrote: Why would the industialist back Hitler if he was a socialist?,Why would the Nazis fight the Commies on the streets if they were socialist?

The Industrialists (mostly Jewish at this time) backed Hitler becuase in 1933 he was the only alternative to Communism, they were as terrified of Communism as everyone is of terrorism these days, if not more so.

Yes they were Jewish. At this point Hitler had toned down his anti-semitism slightly after his disastrous boycott of Jewish shops (the exact date escapes me). Hitler was always one to move with public opinion, he did promise everything to everybody after all :)

Anyway as I was saying...The Jewish businessmen thought that they would fund Hitler just enough to cut Communist influence and that they would be able to control him. Soon enough however, they needed him as much as he needed them as he was the only person who would be able to provide man power (by uasing the SA) and factory workers in the event of a general strike.

Hitler was a clever bloke, if a little warped.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Alextyphus wrote: melchizedek22 wrote: Why would the industialist back Hitler if he was a socialist?,Why would the Nazis fight the Commies on the streets if they were socialist?

The Industrialists (mostly Jewish at this time) backed Hitler becuase in 1933 he was the only alternative to Communism, they were as terrified of Communism as everyone is of terrorism these days, if not more so.

Yes they were Jewish. At this point Hitler had toned down his anti-semitism slightly after his disastrous boycott of Jewish shops (the exact date escapes me). Hitler was always one to move with public opinion, he did promise everything to everybody after all :)

Anyway as I was saying...The Jewish businessmen thought that they would fund Hitler just enough to cut Communist influence and that they would be able to control him. Soon enough however, they needed him as much as he needed them as he was the only person who would be able to provide man power (by uasing the SA) and factory workers in the event of a general strike.

Hitler was a clever bloke, if a little warped.

Im pretty sure the major industralists werent jewish im afraid, i've got no idea where your source for that was. Just pulling some major german companies of the area off the top of my head. Opel, Rheinmetall, Siemens I.G. Farben and of course Volkwagen, were the biggest supporters of the nazi regmine, and to my knowledge none of them there run at any significant levels by people of jewish ethnicity.

Also if the movie "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" (exelent by the way highly biographical) is not lying to me, his support from day one was ethnic germans.

Hell i doubt hitler or any of his immediate followers would have even sat in the same room as a jewish person, let alone conducted buiness with them.

[Prach]

The Nazi was not wuite Socialist because did not control the factors of production nor the production process. The business sector during Nazi regime was left almost completely intact, since Hitler needed support from the conservatives, which included the business people.

Although the name of the party had the word "National Socialist", and its ultimate ideology at first might be that of Socialist, what they had done during the Third Reich was not really Socialist.

In fact, within the Nazi party there were opposing camps: the radical left wing, as led my Rohm, and the right wing, as led by the figures in the SS. The former was indeed Socialists, but they were all eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives. Therefore, Nazi was quite right-winged later on.


The Nazis were a strict social right-wing (impermissive dictator), everyone knows that, and they were simultaneously economic right-wing, since they largely permitted economic freedom. They did not sinificantly intervene the business, and even rather allowed capitalism to a great distant.

Thus, it makes no sense to say that the Nazis were Socialists, as implied by their party's name.