web analytics

DER ECHTE SOZIALISMUS

By Pete Moore On April 13th, 2018

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” – Adolf Hitler

The Left endlessly lies of course. Not only did the National Socialists not hide that they were socialists and a part of the socialist tradition, they were always proud of it. Yet even though they often broadcast that they were socialists – and they clearly were – the Left ignores this. And even though it was universally accepted at the time that they were socialists – and it was – the Left ignores this.

Of course the Left lies and distorts history. But no-one else is obliged to do so. No-one else is obliged to pretend to be nice because the Left has inverted reality and successfully portrayed Leftism as nice. So let’s be clear and honest and truthful – the German National Socialists were socialists, on the Progressive spectrum –

52 Responses to “DER ECHTE SOZIALISMUS”

  1. Good video. Interesting to hear Hannon say that Hitler said that he would impose “genuine” socialism.

    The evil Progressive Left is still proclaiming that “genuine” socialism will work.

  2. After the other thread I really didn’t think anyone here was going to buy your crap… I should have known better.

  3. Personal insult already?

    At least pretend, Seamus, that you read the words and watched the video.

  4. It’s bollocks Patty. He’s been proven wrong on the other thread so he’s tried to hit the reset button and start again.

  5. – Quote is from a speech at the Clou restaurant center on May 1, 1927. Hitler is paraphrasing Gregor Strasser’s one-page Nazi talking points memo from June 15, 1926.

    Gregor Strauss who was of course murdered by Hitler in the Night of the Long Knives eight years later.

    Privitising of national utilities, abolition of trade unionism and imprisonment of trade unionists and of course military foreign intervention on the side of that well known red Francisco Franco against the Spanish Republic.

    Yeah, ‘socialist’ – probably socialist in the same way that Pete Moore is a ‘libertarian’

    Dan Hannan? FFS!

  6. Seamus –

    It was off topic on the other thread.

    Come on, embrace your heritage. I don’t see what the problem is. Nazism is hardly the most embarrassing branch of the Left Wing tree.

  7. “he’s tried to hit the reset button and start again.”

    I don’t know the specifics of what you’re talking about but it doesn’t sound relevant here.

    Different thread, different topic.

  8. Paul – of course, Nazi Party was socialist. I don’t see why the Progressive Left keeps running from this obvious truth.

  9. Paul – of course, Nazi Party was socialist.

    Privitising of national utilities, abolition of trade unionism and imprisonment of trade unionists and of course military foreign intervention on the side of that well known red Francisco Franco against the Spanish Republic.

    All very ‘socialist’ of course.

    Argue against that instead of meaningless trite platitudes Patty.

  10. Paul

    I agree that the post is a nonsense, but abolition of trade unions isn’t the strongest point.

    I believe that communist countries generally have/had unions that were/are pretty much controlled by the government, which often means no real union / worker rights at all.

    I’d think that unions have had more power and independence in places like Germany or France than they ever had in Cuba, the USSR, or God help us North Korea. I’d think that the left nations have had the weakest unions, even if they technically exist.

  11. But abolition of trade unions isn’t the strongest point.

    Regardless of the strength of the point abolition of trade unionism and the arrest, imprisonment, torture and sometimes death of trade unionists occurred.

    Regardless, it’s a relatively minor point in the conversation. The privatisation of national utilities and particularly the espousal of self proclaimed anti red Franco are much more relevant in trying to square the Nazi ‘socialist’ round hole.

  12. They don’t like it up-em !

    Corporal Jones

  13. A compelling argument Mark.

    ATW rightworld:

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

  14. abolition of trade unionism and imprisonment of trade unionists

    All Left Wing dictatorships do this.

  15. Regardless, it’s a relatively minor point in the conversation. The privatisation of national utilities and particularly the espousal of self proclaimed anti red Franco are much more relevant in trying to square the Nazi ‘socialist’ round hole.

    Yep, if you consider the absolute ownership of private property, privatisation of state owned companies, individual entrepreneurship and free market economic competition as being leftist ideals they sure were.

    Go for it Pete.

  16. The excellent Pat Condell eviscerates the “progressive leftsts” here. Spoiler alert: they are deeply anti-liberal:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trAyp5XXQgo

  17. Paul –

    It’s a silly, ignorant point. As I said, all Left Wing dictatorships suppress trade unionism. At best, as in the Soviet Union, they’re taken over by the state.

    Private property ownership sits easily with fascists, but it’s always circumscribed. Fascist economics allows private property ownership only insofar as it serves state ends, or does not contradict them. Think, say, of outlawing bakeries from deciding who they will not do business with.

    The idea that free market economic competition existed in Nazi Germany is risible.

  18. It is false to claim that quote is from Hitler.

  19. Private property ownership sits easily with fascists, but it’s always circumscribed. Fascist economics allows private property ownership only insofar as it serves state ends, or does not contradict them

    Thank you as to making my point why the Nazis weren’t socialists.

    Hitler was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place . But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state

    – Ian Kershaw Hitler (P.10)

  20. Hitler was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics.

    This reminds me of someone who is in power now, but I can’t remember who it is.

  21. This reminds me of someone who is in power now, but I can’t remember who it is.

    Juncker.

  22. Good answer Harri!

  23. Hitler was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics.

    (((Economics))) is money-as-debt, loaned usuriously by those who own the means to create the money out-of-nothing, and then lend it to those who create the wealth which will then be absorbed into the organisms owned by those who created the money out-of nothing.

    To have a ‘formal’ understanding of (((economics))) is to be schooled in this system only, for the idea of creating money for purposes other than debt-servitude would be something that only Hitler, or Napoleon, or Gadaffi would do:

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23366257-a-history-of-central-banking-and-the-enslavement-of-mankind

    The role of money-lenders in history was once aptly termed by many acute observers as the “Hidden Hand.” It is the power to create, lend and accumulate interest on “credit,” and then re-lend that interest for further interest, in perpetuity, that creates pervasive, worldwide debt, from the individual, to the family, to the entire state. The ability to operate a fraudulent credit and loan system has long been known, and through all the slickness of a snake-oil salesman, the money-lenders – the same types Jesus whipped from the Temple – have persuaded governments that banking is best left to private interests. Many wars, revolutions, depressions, recessions, and other social upheavals, have been directly related to the determination of these money-lenders to retain and extend their power and profits. When any state, individual or idea has threatened their scam they have often responded with wars and revolutions.

  24. (((Allan)))

    Do you think that the borrowing / lending of money is bad?

    There would be very few people buying houses, very few businesses being started, without money being lent at interest.

  25. Phantom – loans with usury are enslaving. Remember that…..

    No Rothschild is English… No Baruch Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians. ~ Ezra Pound, March 15, 1942 radio broadcast

    Within the 1933-39 Germany, loans were made to married couples for housing interest-free and this was so in Gadaffi’s Libya.

    The fact is that money-as-debt loaned at interest into the economy (boom) shall take out of the economy more than was put in (bust), and then more money-and-debt are loaned into the economy, and then more is paid out through the usury than was put in – and the cycle continues.

  26. No it’s not

    If Germany and Libya gave interest free loans to married couples, that’s fine, but that’s a subsidy.

    Loans at interest are a hugely useful tool for any person wanting to finance an education, a car, a house, for a new business to get the capital to establish itself.

    I’ve taken out loans at interest, and it was a pure benefit to me. I was not exploited in any way.

  27. The Nazis Were Beach Boys. As Hitler wrote “Round Round Get Around, I Get Around”.

  28. You bought your house outright or with an interest free loan Allan?

    Lucky man.

  29. Phantom – on a lesser, personal scale, some people do escape the thralldom of interest, but entire countries do not. The amount of interest paid on debts by the UK for money borrowed which should have been created interest-free by the national bank is enormous and should be repudiated

    https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/879616/National-debt-interest-payments-public-debt-Philip-Hammond-budget

    BRITAIN now spends a colossal £49.1 billion merely paying off the interest on the money it owes in public debt every year, the latest figures have revealed.

    The figure is more than the amount the Government spends annually on defence and housing combined and equivalent to approximately 2.5 per cent of the country’s GDP.

    And on that personal level, how is student debt getting on? Over here, it’s shackles from the beginning

  30. some people do escape the thralldom of interest

    More than ” some ”

    There are very many people who own their own houses or cars.

    Very many of them make these essential purchases via interest bearing loans

    Without interest, you’d have a much smaller auto or home building industry

    Interest isn’t necessarily any sort of bad thing

    And countries have benefited by interest bearing loans – such as back in the day when places like Thailand Singapore and Korea would have got loans to build roads, ports, airports.

    There is a superstition against interest that I don’t understand. And it’s very much a muslim thing too.

  31. Allan

    You seem to be saying that the UK government should default on the money it has borrowed and in future just print currency to cover its annual deficit (£40 billion or so this year). Even the Corbynistas aren’t suggesting anything as Marxist as that.

    You also seem to be saying that all loans should be interest-free. Good luck with that.

  32. Phantom

    Could you or Mahons post something on James Comey’s book, launched today?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/comey-on-trump-key-points-book-a-higher-loyalty?CMP=twt_gu

  33. There would be no commercial lending at all if there were no interest.

    The idea of no interest makes no sense at all.

  34. Interest isn’t a problem. It’s just the price of money.

    When someone uses your home they pay you a rent. Rent is the price. Likewise, when someone uses your money they pay you an interest. Interest is the price.

    The problem in the first place is the use. Governments use borrowing as a means of kicking taxation down the road. They charge the unborn for what they spend today.

    All government borrowing ought to be illegal.

  35. All government borrowing ought to be illegal.

    LOL

  36. Pete

    So when the then poor Asian countries ( Singapore, Malaysia, Korea ) took out loans to build roads, ports, rail lines, and airports, that was some kind of bad thing.

    All righty then.

    News flash – it worked out for them.

  37. Phantom – why does a country have to borrow money? If it needs money for a £3 trillion project, then it simply creates the money interest-free. The only test needed against inflation is to ensure that the project benefits equal or exceed the costs.

    You seem to be saying that the UK government should default on the money it has borrowed and in future just print currency to cover its annual deficit (£40 billion or so this year).

    Peter – so much of any new money would be wasted that there is no way that a sensible monetary system could function under ‘democracy’ which is “the belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”. It would require a dictatorship of the kind that worked economic and debt-free wonders in peacetime Germany from 1933-39.

  38. The idea of no interest makes no sense at all.

    Interest on money is like gravity to objects maintained in the air for, sooner or later, the object will have to come down just as all the wealth will end up with the lender.

  39. All government borrowing ought to be illegal.

    Agreed

  40. You bought your house outright or with an interest free loan Allan?

    Four comments and still ignored? I’ll assume the answer is no then.

  41. If these guys had their way a few rich people would live in nice houses and the rest of us would live in shacks, Since we never would’ve had the money to buy a house outright, Especially early on

    All in the name of a phony Muslim/Ron Paul economic ideology

  42. Hitler’s political party was called the ‘National Socialists’ and as far as I’m aware from what I have read, their economic policies were intended to be socialist in some form.
    I wasn’t aware that the Nazis privatised any (previously) national industries, I thought that they did the opposite, or at least campaigned to do so. Might be wrong, maybe I need to read up some more on this.
    I know that these days, we have so-called ‘conservative’ parties which are in fact no such thing at all, but (again, I could be wrong but) back in the 1930s, against the backdrop of the failed Weimar Republic and the national mood of distrust of ‘the rich/elite’, I’m not sure that Hitler would have put the word ‘socialists’ in his party’s name unless he wanted his party to be socialist?

  43. Here you are Brex:

    It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947).1

    http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

  44. Not only did the National Socialists not hide that they were socialists and a part of the socialist tradition

    Nor did they hide their extreme nationalism and Jew-hatred, which is what inspired their right-wing admirers in dear old Blighty, and still inspires more than a few today.

  45. Paul, that’s very interesting. Always good to add a bit of knowledge to what I think I already know.
    However, there’s one thing that you said, (and I probably would not have realised its significance before I watched the BBC show ‘Secret Army’ which was repeated on freeview channel ‘Yesterday’ last year):

    “[…were] transferred to the private sector, **mainly to organizations within the party**”.

    That’s the crucial point, which IMO is not quite the same thing as transferring ownership to the free market at large.
    What I learned from watching ‘Secret Army’ (which I didn’t really know before) was that the regular German army & air force were often at loggerheads with the AS/SS/Gestapo, because the army were seen by the Nazi party as a more politically neutral force, whereas the SS etc was Hitler’s private force made up of Party members, all loyal to the Party and its aims. The SS didn’t completely trust the army/luftwaffe to be totally loyal to Hitler, and thus Hitler gave them authority over and above the regular forces.

    So my point is, the Nazis transferring certain industries “into private hands” may not have been quite the act of free-market enterprise it appears to be, but was perhaps more an act of placing those industries into loyal Party hands. It’s just a thought that occurs to me, I’m not claiming any definite knowledge.

  46. Anyway, we’re dancing on a pinhead here (or whatever the saying is).
    Pete Moore’s basic point seems to be “Hitler called himself/his Party ‘Socialists’ therefore that is what they were, and so modern day socialists must suck it up and admit that Hitler was one of them and that ergo they are on his side”.
    I guess on reflection it could equally be true that Hitler, knowing full well that many ordinary Germans wanted to give socialism a try, mendaciously decided to adopt that label and use it to push his dictatorship to power. It’s certainly plausible; Theresa May’s current mob of EU officials masquerade under the name of the ‘conservative’ party, a word with which I self-identify yet I’d rather eat my own…whatever…than vote for her mob.

  47. Brex, it’s late here so I’ll keep this comment short as I’m heading off to sleep. If you want further discussion I’ll come back to it tomorrow.

    There were independent bussinessmen and companies alligned to the Nazi Party who took full advantage of their membership and the privitaisation of previously national companies and utilities.

    This is the last paragraph of the study’s conclusion:

    Nazi economic policy in the mid-thirties went against the mainstream in several dimensions. The huge increase in public expenditure programs was unique, as was the increase in the armament programs, and together they heavily constrained the budget. Exceptional policies were put in place to finance this exceptional expenditure, and privatization was just one among them.

    Nazi Germany privatized systematically, and was the only country to do so at the time. This drove Nazi policy against the mainstream, which flowed against privatization of state ownership or public services until the last quarter of the twentieth century.

    I think that we can agree that this economic policy was hardly ‘socialist’ particularly as they were ‘The only country to do so at the time’ ?

  48. You bought your house outright or with an interest free loan Allan?

    Four comments and still ignored? I’ll assume the answer is no then.

    I bought my house with a mortgage, the same as most others who have to live with the money-as-debt system. Interestingly enough, Phantom stumbled on what is happening….

    Phantom, on April 13th, 2018 at 11:59 PM Said:

    If these guys had their way a few rich people would live in nice houses and the rest of us would live in shacks

    That’s happening. There are in the money-owned ‘west’ what would best be described as oligarchs – a clique that owns more than all of the rest of us colectively

  49. From 1.42 – 2.43 one hears what Hitler himself said about the purpose of the “socialist state” and whilst the state shall assist the poor, the economy shall remain more-or-less open to entrpreneurs backed with capital

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7c9tB77YdU

    Hitler and National Socialism were not owned by the money power so they did not fit in the spectrum of ideologies permitted by the money power.

  50. There is no good alternative to interest-bearing mortgages.

    Moving to a system of government allocated interest free mortgages Would be completely stupid and unworkable

    The United States has a family homeownership rate of about 67%, which is good

    There is nothing in the world wrong with interest bearing loans.

    Again, if you banned it, You would move to a deep economic stagnation, for no reason.

    Opposition to all interest Is a superstition

  51. Phantom – the banks own most of those family-owned homes and can take them if necessary by a process known in the US as ‘foreclosure’ and you know this.

  52. They foreclose only when the loan isn’t repaid

    If they didn’t have recourse to such a process, they would never make any loans