Was Hitler a Democratic Socialist?
This is an obviously leading question, because in the US there's a prominent political candidate who calls himself a "democratic socialist". He is, of course, not Hitler.Nor was Germany's actual Social Democratic Party, which opposed Hitler and which he forcibly shut down after seizing power.Hitler's political party (the Nazis) was officially called The Nationalsocialist German Workers Party, putting “socalist” in its name — but Nationalist-socialist. Keep in mind, Kim Jong-Un calls his own state The Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, with very curious definitions of "democratic" and "republic." Fascists do love to redefine things without actually following them.Hitler rose to power during the Great Depression and his main economic promise was German self-sufficiency. When in power, he initially employed some of the same tactics as Franklin Roosevelt in the US: namely, fighting massive unemployment through government-funded public works. But Hitler himself was much more military-minded, so on economic issues he brought in experts from other parties to help run things.But he was absolutely not democratic. He was not elected (and had actually lost his presidential election to Paul von Hindenberg by a landslide). But after the Nazi Party won a third of their legislature’s seats Hitler negotiated his appointment to Chancelor, roughly analogous to America’s Speaker of the House, in return for ending an increasingly violent political stalemate. Then once in office he immediately used the threat of a Communist conspiracy to arrest all his political rivals, end democratic elections, and just plain assume the top job.Hitler's economy was fascist, not socialist or democratic. People were forced to do the jobs they were given. His public works projects reduced unemployment somewhat, but more was eliminated by forcing women, Communists, and Jews out of the workforce (and unemployment figures), giving their jobs to other people, and then conscripting the rest of Germany's unemployed men into the army. The entire economy transitioned into a massive war-making machine.
Is mandated car insurance a socialist program?
Sigh! What everybody keeps overlooking in this debate is the fact that when car insurance wasn't mandatory only bad drivers and well off people had insurance. A large number of "safe" drivers opted out from buying a policy. This effected the cost of insurance. Insurance companies had to spread their losses over a smaller number of people, which caused the cost of insurance to be high. When all people had to buy insurance, a larger base allowed insurance companies to spread the losses further and bring the policy cost down. Today, a number of healthy young people don't buy health insurance. Only people who need or expect health problems buy insurance. This limits the base over which the losses can be spread. If all people bought insurance, the cost would come down for all of us. This isn't a tax. This isn't paying for someone else's insurance. This doesn't even create a government agency. The fact is, if a person gets hurt and doesn't have health insurance, we the tax payers end up paying the bill under the current system. I don't understand the resistence to this proposal. It eliminates taxpayers cost for covering the uninsured. It will bring down the cost of health insurance. It doesn't create a government agency. It doesn't take away the current system. It preserves the free market in health insurance. No new tax and cheaper health insurance. What's the problem?
How Do We Keep Democrats' Socialism From Destroying America?
Keep calling out their ways & vote Republican!!!!!!
What are the primary objectives of the Republican and Democratic parties?
They are preparing both sides for the next civil war.