LogFAQs > #888115153

Balrog0 posted...

that's the framing of the article you posted, so no I'm not sure, I'm taking it for granted

Where does the article say only that one guy believes Nazis were of the left?

Balrog0 posted...

It doesn't even say that in the article you posted, though.

It absolutely does.

For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

Balrog0 posted...

which it then takes pains to clarify that the Nazis were that way before they established price controls anyway.

So they continued and embraced socialist policies, therefore they weren't socialist?

CocteauQuintplt posted...

Every one of his topics devolves into him trying to equate Nazis and socialists/liberals. This is why he's a board-wide joke

Lmao I didn't even bring it up, you simp.

MildlyIrkedOwl posted...

True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools. But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats.

"Leftism" "socialism" "Social Democracy" and "Communism" are not interchangeable terms. You can oppose Bolshevism and Leninism while still being a leftist/socialist, and the fact that Hitler rejected several other forms of socialism doesn't prove he himself wasn't one.

Seriously, go on some leftist forums sometime. It's astounding how much bickering goes on between adherents of Lenin vs. adherents of Mao.

MildlyIrkedOwl posted...

And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitlers party was socialist only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a workers party in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitlers protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.

And yet their government is still a top-down planned collectivist economy which seized the means of production.

The fact that they chose to use the word "socialist" for tactical reasons doesn't disqualify that their system was obviously socialist.
---

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
-George Orwell