I already read Hitler's program, and as I mentioned earlier they hated Socialists

I was correcting you.

NSDAP had a socialist wing until 1930. Then happened this:

http://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php

It exactly describes that they left because the "Führer" would not let the 25 points come true.

Edited 4/21/2016 15:45:35

This is about the broader context:

http://www.h-ref.de/organisationen/nsdap/nazis-sozialisten.php

I was correcting you.

I already know you tried to "correct" me, but you still did not explained how he hated communists and not socialists.

I'm still waiting for my document.

Before asking something you are unable yourself to provide, you should be yourself able to read my answers correctly, since you skip part of what you dislike, this is not a proper way to argue or to debate. Try better.

I will provide some more arguments showing his blatant hatred towards (real) socialistm through History: Hitler began suppressing the trade unions (along with Communists and Social Democrats) in Feb 33 as part of his rise to power. They would attack and ransack offices, steal equipment, beat up and imprison members (usually those in leadership roles).
Towards May of 1933 the trade unions began to distance themselves from the Social Democrats to preserve themselves as an entity but on May 2nd the brownshirts and SS men occupied every trade union office affiliated with the Social Democrats, took control of the newspapers and periodicals of the trade unions and seized their banks.
Later, trade union officials in leadership roles were either sent to concentration camps or killed outright.
The Nazi's effectively destroyed any power the trade unions had and subjugated it for their own.

To conclude, Hitler liked National Socialists not (Democrat) Socialists, this is a big nuance you seem to not get at all.

I gave you the needed documents. If Google translate is not enough, ask me for translation.

NSDAP had a socialist wing until 1930. Then happened this:

http://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php

It exactly describes that they left because the "Führer" would not let the 25 points come true.

I can't actually read the stuff you linked to since it's in german and translates pretty poorly with google translate. However, it's my understanding that strasserites were kicked of of the NSDAP for sympathizing too much with the USSR (or at least that's how most descriptions of the event describe it):

Otto’s association with Gregor did not bode well for his future within the party. Hitler called him a “parlourBolshevik” and labelled anyone who followed the Strasser’s as “doctrinaire fools”. Hitler claimed that Otto was the victim of “democracy and liberalism”.

(http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/otto-strasser/)

Before asking something you are unable yourself to provide, you should be yourself able to read my answers correctly, since you skip part of what you dislike, this is not a proper way to argue or to debate. Try better.

I'm not interested in hearing your messed up fantasies about Nazis (who even fantasizes about something like that?); At least link a wikipedia article to back them up.

At least link a wikipedia article to back them up.

So now recalling historical events are less worth than just quoting some questionable mere Wikipedia articles? Poor Imperator, I told you and will tell you it again: try better.
You are yourself unable to give relevant documents/link to illustrate your point, Kreto already proved it to you Hitler did not respected his own program. I even myself proved it earlier (if you only bothered to read, but you certainly wont since what is against your views is not worth reading right?) as he destroyed labour unions or even supported actions of leading industrialists against common workers.

Bolsheviks didn't make a stateless commune, but they are still communists, yes?

So now recalling historical events are less worth than just quoting some questionable mere Wikipedia articles? Poor Imperator, I told you and will tell you it again: try better.
You are yourself unable to give relevant documents/link to illustrate your point, Kreto already proved it to you Hitler did not respected his own program. I even myself proved it earlier (if you only bothered to read, but you certainly wont since what is against your views is not worth reading right?) as he destroyed labour unions or even supported actions of leading industrialists against common workers.

Kretoma provided a document I can't actually read, and I provided a counter argument to his point.

Also, I very clearly linked to hitlers platform for the nazi party (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm). This is a concept you seem to have a lot of trouble with, it's called sourcing. You can't simply claim whatever you'd like about historical events, you have to actually provide a reason that you believe that the events played out that way.

I suggested that you link a wikipedia article backing up your claims, but really anything would do; It's just that wikipedia is normally the quickest way to find information online.

I didn't wanted to leave a comment here because I knew it was gonna fuel a huge ammount of unecessary dispute, but in face of such ignorance, I must intervene.


First of all, people seem not to know what the fuck is socialism and what is communism. That is a poor idea when you're trying to debate on it, it makes it really funny and pathetic to read everytime. So let me give you the definition of both, for it appear no conservative/libertarian has spent more then a few minutes discussing the issue before identifying it to a satanist thing.


What is socialism?
=> Socialism is a kind of government that works runned by the proletariat as a dictatorship. Government will own all means of production (such as farms, factories, mines,...). The wealth is then shared in an equal way for everyone. The main goal of socialism is to prepare a shift into communism. During socialism, there will be a reeducation of the human being, teaching him not to be greedy, to share the product of his labour, and understand that no one should be exploited by another one.

What is communism?
=> Communism is the upgrade from the previous system. After many generations of reeducation, government will no longer be needed and will be abolished. The means of production will be then owned by every worker of such a mean, and the concept of ownership is totally replaced with the one of usership.

To sum it up, the first is a kind of huge state present everywhere in order to change mankind. The second one is an anarchy system where everyone has learned to work for the good of all instead of the good of one.


Now, on a second time, knowing this definition, you can all know/deduct:
- The URSS wasn't a communist state (such a thing is impossible for real), but a socialist state. Gosh, even the name of the country is USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
- Hitler didn't hated the URSS for being communist, for that is a non-sense, but for being socialist.
- Most socialist states in the world call themselves communists in order to try and make them look "better" for the population, which fun fact, know the definition of those words. #PurePropaganda


I won't go further and explain why I think socialism/communism doesn't work, but now that this ignorance problem appears to be solved, you can continue your discussion.

Kretoma provided a document I can't actually read, and I provided a counter argument to his point.

Kreto told you that if you could not translate it he could do it for yourself so stop being a douche and find problems where there do not exist, and tell me how could you provide a counter argument about something you are unable to read??

Also, I very clearly linked to hitlers platform for the nazi party (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm). This is a concept you seem to have a lot of trouble with, it's called sourcing. You can't simply claim whatever you'd like about historical events, you have to actually provide a reason that you believe that the events played out that way.

And your link was easily debunked by Kreto, this is why i told you that you were unable to provide relevant arguments/links yourself to support your views. I made many comments and analysis (that you call "fantasies") alongside these historical events which are good sources since it is clearly what happened in history irrefutably.
The thing is that whatever is against your views is wrong, pathetic behavior. Wait, you actually recall me someone...

I suggested that you link a wikipedia article backing up your claims, but really anything would do; It's just that wikipedia is normally the quickest way to find information online.

Everybody knows that a Wikipedia article is not really relevant at all since anyone can post things, this is why providing a trustworthy author (like the Che's biography by Anderson) to back up your points is clearly something better. I also provided you arguments (that you can find everywhere else in history books) that you chose to ignore, not my fault if you are unable to read properly.

What is socialism?
=> Socialism is a kind of government that works runned by the proletariat as a dictatorship. Government will own all means of production (such as farms, factories, mines,...). The wealth is then shared in an equal way for everyone. The main goal of socialism is to prepare a shift into communism. During socialism, there will be a reeducation of the human being, teaching him not to be greedy, to share the product of his labour, and understand that no one should be exploited by another one.

What you're describing, the idea that socialism is a step in between capitalism and communism, is actually Called Marxism, and there are a bunch of ideas about socialism, not just marxism. For example, national Socialism.

To that end, Hitler hated the USSR's marxism, and not their socialism per se, given that he himself was a socialist.

Everybody knows that a Wikipedia article is not really relevant at all since anyone can post things, this is why providing a trustworthy author (like the Che's biography by Anderson) to back up your points is clearly something better. I also provided you arguments (that you can find everywhere else in history books) that you chose to ignore, not my fault if you are unable to read properly.

If this information is so widespread, then provide me a link to it. I haven't heard of it before, and I don't consider your posts a reliable source of information.

Edited 4/21/2016 16:42:52

I'm so glad we have all these enlightened and intellectually superior leftists to save us from ignorance.

Hitler hated the USSR's marxism, and not their socialism per say, given that he himself was a socialist.

He wasn't a Socialist at all.

I'm so glad we have all these enlightened and intellectually superior leftists to save us from ignorance.

Same can be said about those "enlightened and intellectually superior rightists/conservatives" I presume, see your own participation Eklipse and how it enlightened the whole debate!! Impressive!

Left-right scheming is so 19th century.

4 partying (right, left, freedom, authority) is so 20th century.

When will people realize it is 2016? :(

^ It's indeed a shame. Many americans tend to think the political spectrum is so small, and that it's a battle of good (capitalism) against evil (socialism). It isn't near as that.

Imperator, I gave you the most broadly accepted definition of socialism. Marx himself didn't invent it, he copied it from people that came before him.



Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.

Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

uhhhh bring back National Socialism please

That was my point, Socialism is characterized by social ownership, not by having communism as the ultimate goal. You said this about it:

The main goal of socialism is to prepare a shift into communism.

^^That particular idea of socialism is called marxism.

Edited 4/21/2016 17:06:17

That particular idea of socialism is called marxism.

I agree with Imperator here, it is not like all Socialists want to turn and shift their parties into communist ones. This is why in France the current PS (Parti Socialiste currently leading the country) split from SFIO (workers party very linked with the Communist Party). Socialist people wanting an union with Communists are those who adhered to Marxist ideologies, and they are a minority in Democratic Socialism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International )

Hmmm, I'd say socialism itself got corrupted over time. The french socialist party hardly can call itself socialism in this days lol... Even though I have to say I agree with it's actual position.

And yea, you can stop at socialism if you want, many "communists" that took power couldn't move or didn't want to move to anything past that.