Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taro who wrote (295131)	7/16/2006 6:54:39 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573432

To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews)." With all that said, maybe you could now answer the question: How did National Socialism differ from Socialism/Communism, the sole version of Karl Marx's teachings ever tried in real life? That both failed and are now dead as door nails we know, but if you could please point out the differences, we could go places. First of all, the only true socialism/communism ever practiced with some purity are in many of the kibbutzim in Israel. And most have been very successful even as they exist on a very small scale. However, with Hitler, there was little in his regime that even began to echo Karl Marx. His was mostly a capitalistic regime until the war got to full throttle. At that point, like most countries at full war including the US, industry is heavily controlled by the gov't. Prior to that, Hitler was no more a socialist than Bush. The people did not control production. National decisions were not made by the people. From 1933 on there was very little democracy. That's the ultimate irony of the American's right rabid hatred of communism....in its final form, communism is as close to pure democracy as there is in this world. There was none of that in Hitler's Germany. The name of Hitler's party in Bavaria was a convenience to play to the people, nothing more.

To: Taro who wrote (295131)	7/17/2006 12:49:29 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573432

Hitler pretended to be a socialist to seize control of a weak existing party, but he was in no way a socialist. Much as the neocons are not traditional conservative Republicans today. Once in power, he rounded up socialists and sent them to the army or to the slave labor camps. He was a right wing authoritarian dictator. Stalin was a left wing authoritarian dictator. Hitler made statements in his early days in front of socialists to play to them that are now being used by right wingnuts to "prove" he was one, but he had a different line of bull for EVERY group. Judge him by his ACTS. spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk " When he spoke to industrialists, Hitler concentrated on his plans to destroy communism and to reduce the power of the trade union movement. " ..."The stormtroopers also carried out terrible acts of violence against socialists and communists. In one incident in Silesia, a young member of the KPD had his eyes poked out with a billiard cue and was then stabbed to death in front of his mother. Four members of the SA were convicted of the rime. Many people were shocked when Hitler sent a letter of support for the four men and promised to do what he could to get them released."