Hamburg warzone: 700 arrested as leftists clash with neo-Nazis

Nazism is based on collectivism. Period.

 

Do you understand that collectivism is based on unifying social groups and promoting liberty for everyone? Pretty sure "kill the evil Jews and gays" and creating privileged and degenerates within society is not based on that.

 

lol - Hightop trying to act like Nazis weren't right-wing.

Hightop drank the Kool-Aid® and loved it so much that he now bathes in it as well.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=national+socialism

 

Pay per view please

 

The Nazi Party Program The Nazi Party grew out of the D.A.P., the German Workers’ Party. Its goal according to one of its founders, Gottfried Feder, “was to reconcile nationalism and socialism.” It was a lecture by Feder in 1919 that attracted Adolf Hitler to the party.

Within a year the party changed its name in order to have a name that expressed more accurately its core principles: The new name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. At a rally in Munich in 1920 involving over 2,000 participants, the party announced its platform—a twenty-five point program.

The main authors of the program were Feder, Adolf Hitler, and a third man, Anton Drexler. To understand what National Socialism stood for, the main points of the Program are worth looking at more closely.

Collectivism, not individualism

A major theme of the Program is a stress upon collectivism and a rejection of individualism.

Point number 10 of the Program, for example, says “It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform mental or physical work. Individual activity must not violate the general interest, but must be exercised within the framework of the community, and for the general good.” National Socialism thus consciously rejects Western liberal individualism with its emphasis on the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—all of which are individualistic rights.

Nazism is collectivistic: it does not hold that individuals have their own lives to live and happiness to pursue. Rather, individuals should work for the community out of a sense of duty; they serve the general good, to which they subordinate their personal lives.

Point 24 of the Program returns to this theme and emphasizes it strongly: “THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST.” The bold print and capitalization are in the original, for emphasis.

Economic Socialism, not Capitalism

The second theme of the Program is a stress upon socialism and a strong rejection of capitalism.

Numerically, socialism is the most emphasized theme in the Nazi Program, for over half of the Program’s twentyfive points—fourteen out of the twenty-five, to be exact—itemize economically socialist demands.

Point 11 calls for the abolition of all income gained by loaning money at interest.

Point 12 demands the confiscation of all profits earned by German businesses during World War I

Point 13 demands the nationalization of all corporations.

Point 14 demands profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

Point 15 demands the generous development of state-run oldage insurance.

Point 16 calls for the immediate socialization of the huge department stores.

So strong was the Nazi party’s commitment to socialism that in 1921 the party entered into negotiations to merge with another socialist party, the German Socialist Party. The negotiations fell though, but the economic socialism remained a consistent Nazi theme through the 1920s and 30s.

For example, here is Adolf Hitler in a speech in 1927:

“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.”

 

Not ALL social groups. Collectivism by its very nature must have someone it excludes. No one would deny that Communism is a collectivist movement, yet it excludes the entire social group of capitalists, bankers, and such.

So yes, Hightop is correct in that fascism is in fact, a collectivist movement. Good for him. Of course, he quickly devolves into "Right Wing Hank Rearden capitalist heroes Left Wing Ellsworth Toohey" nonsense. ( and Toohey fascinates, and the Fountainhead is easily the relatively best book by Miss Rand in my opinion).

Fascism, above all, possesses no interest in left-right distinctions. As it is a cultural movement devoted to saving the nation above all, it can take different forms as nations have different cultures. Fascism in America would be nothing like how fascism was in Germany, for example. That said, much of it is derived of Marxist thought, but the radically different conclusions it draws means that it's very, very different.

 

If only Hitler and Stalin had known they were on the same side.

 

They were, for a while.

 

non-aggression pact

ideological simpatico

 

Religion is the ultimate form of collectivism.

 

Deji has beat me to it but to elaborate on his post there seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding of the terms of "Right" and "Left" and the historical basis they are from.

As Deji noted these terms come from the French Revolution of meetings of the Estates Generals. "Liberals" who were interested in social reform sat to the left of the President's chair while "Conservatives" who believed in preserving the social structure sat to the right. That meant that Leftist argued for things like a vote while Rightist argued for preservation of monarchy.

Variants of both Left and Right philosophies have advocated the subsuming individual rights to a larger institution. From its inception the Right wing argued for subsuming individual rights by preserving Monarchy.

 

Only to temporarily serve their own interests. Never ideologically.

They were on a collision course, before, during, and after (obviously) Molotov-Ribbentrop.

 

Yes, but at the end of the day, they were both ruthless dictators who murdered scores of people. Does it really matter much what ideological excuse they had for it? I still maintain that extreme left and extreme right are two sides of the same coin.

 

do you think ATW was fighting the leftists?

 

I agree with ATW, the ideological titles taken on by Nazis and Stalinist were just political fronts for tyrannical dictatorships. Both depended on centralized power, cults of personality and a denial of civil rights. Mao is a little bit different with more commitment to ideology but it still ends up more about maintaining power when you have no system to change leadership.

I can't think of an example for a libertarian experiment, successful or unsuccessful, since (as stated before) the very establishment of democratic governments is a social(ist) act.

Have there ever been any democratic fascist regimes?

My point is there is no 'bbbut socialism'. All we argue is to what degree.

 

In fact:

extreme left = mild left = middle = mild right = extreme right.
dictation = democracy.
they killed millions 70 years ago = USA is killing millions in recent 50 years.

The history is written by the winners. nothing else matters.

 

You couldn't even get that **** on network. It would be over in a few minutes. The extreme leftists would sit their with cigarettes, stroking their beards while being gunned discussing the irony that the fascism they rallied against so vehemently has taken an extreme form and is literally massacering them with the guns they've been stockpiling for years.

 

Nah, I don't like the leftists, but I detest these Nazis. If I had to fight anyone, it would be them.