NationStates Jolt Archive

**************
"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious citizen the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."


– From the political program of the Nazi Party, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920

The similarities between the National Socialist (Nazi) platform and the modern liberal/socialist agenda are truely amazing. Nationalization of business, forced profit sharing, outlawing all profits during wartime, abolition of all income not earned directly from work (via high capital gains/inheritance taxes), the state shall provide a "livelihood for its citizens", old age insurance funded by government, price caps, price controls, rent controls, laws against speculation.."communal" rent free living areas, an end to the "materialistic" world order, 'free' higher education focusing on "civic affairs" (humanities, political science--the left's favorite (and useless) subjects to learn), labor laws, censorship against news media that don't tow the line (libs demanding "fairness doctrine reinstatement in USA, increased penalties/regulation against clear channel, newscorp, etc). Bottom line: "common good..."common interest" before individual interest, and a strong central government to make these goals come true...mainly through economic coercion and force. The left wing parties of TODAY condemn individual achievement at every turn. Their aim is to remove every reason for individuals to excel in this society, and to create a class of dependent people subservient to the almighty state. They justify economic oppression in the name of "social justice" or the promoting "common good." Much like the Nazis, they support extreme infringements on personal and economic liberties. Like the Nazis, they favor MASSIVE taxation, massive regulation, and often support government takeover of entire industries (Hellarycare in 92, etc)

As you can see, the official Nazi platform posted above is an almost word for word copy of what leftist parties around the globe are promoting TODAY. If you are so inclined, visit some socialist party websites and you will find an almost verbatim copy of the Nazi platform from #11 onward. Astonishing really. Please send some of the quotes above to your 'compassionate' lefty friends and ask them how it feels to support the same tyrranical policies promoted by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party. I would love to hear the responses.
*****************

I found this on another forum. Remember, Nazi means "National SOCIALIST" party. Apart from being less hostile to foreigners is there much difference between modern parties (including so-called conservatives) and the Nazis? How much of the first paragraph did you agree with before you realised it was Nazi propaganda?

Erm...given that it was, as you pointed out, the National SOCIALIST Party, wouldn't you expect a fair bit of...well...Socialism? :roll:

Godwin's Law - the moment a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is made, the individual making the comparison has lost the argument.

Pwned. :lol:

Lost the argument at the first post! cahlap clap clappity

What argument?

Godwin's Law - the moment a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is made, the individual making the comparison has lost the argument.

Pwned. :lol:

Even if the comparisons may be valid?

If you're going to compare socialisim to Nazi politics, then you've lost your point before you've begun by displaying a profound lack of understanding about both political movements.

Godwin's Law - the moment a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is made, the individual making the comparison has lost the argument.
Even if the comparisons may be valid?
There may be exceptions, but the usual liberals = Nazis BS can be safely dismissed immediately.

You DO know that 1920 was well before Hitler took power, right?

Godwin's Law - the moment a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is made, the individual making the comparison has lost the argument.
Even if the comparisons may be valid?
There may be exceptions, but the usual liberals = Nazis BS can be safely dismissed immediately.

Well..Im a liberal, and I have to say that even I would never make a correlation between say, Hitler and Bush.

Pol Pot and Hitler......maybe.

Stalin and Hitler....you bet....

Godwin's Law - the moment a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is made, the individual making the comparison has lost the argument.
Even if the comparisons may be valid?
There may be exceptions, but the usual liberals = Nazis BS can be safely dismissed immediately.

Well..Im a liberal, and I have to say that even I would never make a correlation between say, Hitler and Bush.

Pol Pot and Hitler......maybe.

Stalin and Hitler....you bet....

Pol Pot and Hitler is a valid comparison, but Pol Pot loses.

Stalin and Hitler is a very valid comparison, and Stalin loses, but only just.

Bush and Hitler however is not a valid comparison until he has all the muslims in America murdered.

**************
"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious citizen the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."



Because everyone wants to dismiss this since it originated from the Nazi's,
maybe the better question would be:

How much does the above statement have in common with the current,
socialist/liberal agenda?

In my eyes, A LOT!

The economic programs were very similar. What's more, both relied on the threat of agressive force against anybody who doesn't go along, who doesn't pay taxes, obey myriad regulations and contribute to the "common good". The fact that Hitler would have you killed and current politicians "only" jail you for a few years means there is a difference in degree, not in kind.

All politics is the same in kind. The use of agressive force to realise certain goals deemed more "important" than liberty. I was just trying to show how closely related the goals and methods of modern political parties and national socialism are.

It is good to discuss Nazism because it forces people to realise that even the govt has to obey certain morals. Very few people accept that govt killing Jews is moral but they still think it is moral for the govt to steal people's money, lock up those whose morals it disagrees with (drug users, prostitutes etc), censor broadcasting, wage wars, enslave people in it's armed forces etc. I can then ask "why is it okay for the govt to do things that it would be immoral for anyone else to?", "If it's okay for the govt to do things other people can't then why was it wrong for the Nazis to kill Jews?"

BTW, in what way does Stalin "lose" to Hitler?

Heh, so what would you do, outlaw government and revert to anarchy, because anything else might look like fascism? Human societies are self-organising anyway.

The economic programs were very similar. What's more, both relied on the threat of agressive force against anybody who doesn't go along, who doesn't pay taxes, obey myriad regulations and contribute to the "common good". The fact that Hitler would have you killed and current politicians "only" jail you for a few years means there is a difference in degree, not in kind.

All politics is the same in kind. The use of agressive force to realise certain goals deemed more "important" than liberty. I was just trying to show how closely related the goals and methods of modern political parties and national socialism are.

It is good to discuss Nazism because it forces people to realise that even the govt has to obey certain morals. Very few people accept that govt killing Jews is moral but they still think it is moral for the govt to steal people's money, lock up those whose morals it disagrees with (drug users, prostitutes etc), censor broadcasting, wage wars, enslave people in it's armed forces etc. I can then ask "why is it okay for the govt to do things that it would be immoral for anyone else to?", "If it's okay for the govt to do things other people can't then why was it wrong for the Nazis to kill Jews?"

BTW, in what way does Stalin "lose" to Hitler?

So you think taxes are immoral? Isn't letting people starve to death and die from preventable diseases the greater of two evils?

Being an anarchosocialist myself, I can agree on some of your points. But under the structure of todays society, taxes are necessary and have the moral upper hand i'm afraid.

Heh, so what would you do, outlaw government and revert to anarchy, because anything else might look like fascism? Human societies are self-organising anyway.
You got it! (although I do detect a note of sarcasm in your post)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:43 am Post subject:
Libertovania wrote:
The economic programs were very similar. What's more, both relied on the threat of agressive force against anybody who doesn't go along, who doesn't pay taxes, obey myriad regulations and contribute to the "common good". The fact that Hitler would have you killed and current politicians "only" jail you for a few years means there is a difference in degree, not in kind.

All politics is the same in kind. The use of agressive force to realise certain goals deemed more "important" than liberty. I was just trying to show how closely related the goals and methods of modern political parties and national socialism are.

It is good to discuss Nazism because it forces people to realise that even the govt has to obey certain morals. Very few people accept that govt killing Jews is moral but they still think it is moral for the govt to steal people's money, lock up those whose morals it disagrees with (drug users, prostitutes etc), censor broadcasting, wage wars, enslave people in it's armed forces etc. I can then ask "why is it okay for the govt to do things that it would be immoral for anyone else to?", "If it's okay for the govt to do things other people can't then why was it wrong for the Nazis to kill Jews?"

BTW, in what way does Stalin "lose" to Hitler?


So you think taxes are immoral? Isn't letting people starve to death and die from preventable diseases the greater of two evils?

Being an anarchosocialist myself, I can agree on some of your points. But under the structure of todays society, taxes are necessary and have the moral upper hand i'm afraid.

That's not what would happen. Down, negative man, down.

If people are willing to vote to force themselves to help the poor why wouldn't they do it voluntarily? Saying that "compassion must be legislated" seems like a strange thing for a self confessed anarcho socialist to say. :?

People have always developed alternative VOLUNTARY institutions to help those in need whenever it has been necessary. This isn't utopian fantasy, it's historical fact (always taking into account the wealth of society at the time, of course). The voluntary institutions of medieval European free cities and 18th/19th century Britain and especially America are good examples. Other examples are anything that the govt doesn't do now such as the "Big Issue" or "Alcoholics Anonymous".

Human society tends away from self-government towards centralisation as it increases with size. The size and complexity of modern nations is such, that there is simply no hope of successful distributed government occuring. Anarchic societies only work at small scales.

All the statement proves is that the Nazis lied and said nice, egalitarian things in order to get elected. So any other party that claims to be egalitarian is equitable to nazis? I just love your logic.

Godwin's Law - the moment a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is made, the individual making the comparison has lost the argument.
That is not Godwin's Law.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Bah! The Scourge of www.capitalistparadise.tk!

Hitler purged the SA in 1934 because they wanted the Socialist programs instituted.
Economic programs instituted after then were not put into practice because they were socialist, they were put into practice because war planning required as great an amount of economic autarky as possible; if this demanded centralisation then so be it. Of course, centralisation never went much further than controlling imports and offering war contracts to big industrialists like Krupp.

That's not what would happen. Down, negative man, down.

If people are willing to vote to force themselves to help the poor why wouldn't they do it voluntarily? Saying that "compassion must be legislated" seems like a strange thing for a self confessed anarcho socialist to say. :?

People have always developed alternative VOLUNTARY institutions to help those in need whenever it has been necessary. This isn't utopian fantasy, it's historical fact (always taking into account the wealth of society at the time, of course). The voluntary institutions of medieval European free cities and 18th/19th century Britain and especially America are good examples. Other examples are anything that the govt doesn't do now such as the "Big Issue" or "Alcoholics Anonymous".

When dealing with propagandist regimes, it’s always better to judge by actions rather than words. Even the Nazis had enough good sense not to openly brag about what they really wanted to do. Look at the legths they went to to keep the "Final Solution" under wraps. Just because they called themselves "National Socialists" is no indication that they were actually socialists, any more than the Democratic Republic of North Korea is actually a democratic republic.

Medieval European cities are not, in general, good examples of functioning voluntary societies. Even the various communes were prone to the establishment of oligarchies and closed-shop guild networks. And 18th- and 19th-century British and American cities were hotbeds of corruption, poverty, oppression and human misery on an enormous scale.