And wealth should be shared equally because?
Wealth is shared equally among my Heirs to be. As far as the 36 full time riders that work this ranch and tend to all the livestock. They are all extremely well compensated. I have not had one person quit this brand in the past 30 years. All Family men, Have been given clear title to 5 acres and a Home that we built on it. They are covered by the best Medical care plan available on the private market. They share in 401 Ks. The people who work this production ranch are the most valuable people on this planet. You can not teach newbies what these old hands know. You can ride the river with each and everyone of them. If that is what you call sharing then I guess we do. Anyone not belonging to this outfit knows that if your caught stealing or rustling stock. Well lets just say. It ain't gonna be pretty. As far as the rest of the employees doing other types of work. They are paid well and are given 401k and Insurance. Go's for the Janitor right up to the GM of that division. You can not run a successful operation by cheating or running over your own people. Just don't work.
Were Hitler and the National Socialists (Nazis) really socialists?
National Socialism, like Mussolini's Fascism, presented itself as a 'third way' alternative to both capitalism and Marxist socialism. Unlike the adversarial worker-owner relationship of capitalism (best represented by the union movement), or the worker-ownership model proposed by socialism, the National-Socialist/Fascist model proposed government through the collaborative participation of workers' unions, executives, and the state organization (ie, 'corporatism'). In principle, this is a kind of organic conception of society, in which class struggle is replaced by the integration of disparate parts into a unified whole. Everyone would know their place, and stick to it (or else). As Karl Popper famously claims, it is an ideal not far removed from Plato's own ideal state in the Republic. If one wishes to call this socialism, fine; the term is after all a malleable one which predates its Marxist/Communist manifestation.In practice, the integration preached by the Nazis demands a sovereign with absolute authority: in other words, the Fuhrerprinzip. It's not clear that National Socialism really developed at all in accordance with the ideal described above, though of course the Nazi state did have close ties with any number of large German and foreign enterprises. And so ultimately I think the 'socialism' part just functioned as branding: socialism was the in thing amongst workers in the early 20th century, so if you want to lure them to your budding political movement, why not just put the word in your name? Who cares if you don't have anything in common with the other incarnations of that ideology? There was in fact a significant left-wing contingent in the early Nazi party, lured by this branding and by anti-Semitism, but openly opposed to the Fuhrerprinzip and socialist in the more traditional sense (known as Strasserism), yet its leadership was eliminated in a series of purges culminating with the Night of the Long Knives. Their masses of followers were simply assimilated, willingly or not, into the conservative, Hitlerite party ideology. Nazism, however, remained 'socialist' in that vague American sense that means any overlap between government and business, or rather any such overlapping of which one doesn't approve. But that isn't really a good way to think about these things - not least because this view of socialism implies that the American political system of the same era, and still today, is equally socialist.
Why were the Nazis called the National Socialist Party?
Hitler explained his reasoning for the title of “National Socialist” in a speech in Munich, on the 12th of April, 1922. No one is more qualified to explain this than the man who forged the National Socialist Party (NSDAP) into what it is now commonly known as.The explanation for “National” is very self-explanatory, but Hitler decided to outline exactly what it means.“We said to ourselves that to be 'national ' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it.” -Adolf HitlerBasically, “National” means “Nationalist”, nationalism, regardless of whether it is civic, cultural or ethnic nationalism, is where the interests of the nation are prioritised above everything else, this is combined with an almost irrational and blind love for ones’ nation.The explanation for “Socialist” is much more complex. Many have thought that the reasoning behind Hitler adding the addition of “Socialist” to the party name was to “deceive” the German working class into voting for a “Socialist” party. This explanation is entirely false, although it is true that the Nazis were socialists, they were not economic socialists, but rather societal socialists. This means that they believed individuals should act in the interest of the greater community and if need be, sacrifice themselves for the greater community.And similarly to be 'social' [socialist] means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honourable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. -Adolf HitlerLastly, “Party” is really easy to define, obviously it is referring to a political party, not a celebration party.Party: A formally constituted political group that contests elections and attempts to form or take part in a government. -GoogleThere you have it, a full explanation of why the German National Socialists called themselves “National Socialists”.
If the Nazis were the National Socialist Party, how were their speeches so anti-socialist and anti-Soviet? How was the propaganda so hypocritical?
“We are Germans first and socialists second. We are not internationalists.” Adolf Hitler. National Socialism borrowed the economic program of the left while harboring the cultural conservatism of the right. In Hitler’s words “The National Socialist regime aims at 1. The abolition of all castes and equal opportunity of advancement for all. 2. a higher standard of living, so that even the poorest man does not fail beyond recovery. 3. The cultural heritage of the nation shall be available to all.” But bear in mind that Hitler was speaking of all these reforms taking place only WITHIN an ethnic community of pure race. The Jews, the Roma, homosexuals and others “marginal to the nation and state” would not only be excluded but expelled and even eliminated. Fascism is exclusive collectivism, unlike socialism or liberalism which are inclusive and internationalist, i.e. the ideal of “the brotherhood of man.” (Women too.)This racialist view of socialism led Hitler to demand the extermination of the Soviet Union. “Some say Europe ends at the Ural mountains. What nonsense! The true dividing line is between Germanic and Slavic peoples.” Physical features did not define a people for Hitler. What mattered was culture and historical achievement. He thought the Slavs remained what their name implied, “natural born slaves.” They could hunt, fish and build mud-hut villages but not think or create art. In the future, after the conquest of the East, they would do manual labor for their German masters “be taught to count up to 100 and read road signs.”Source: HITLER’S TABLE TALK, 1953.
Why were Nazis under a Socialist Party when they were Fascist Nationalists?
Given the answers this can almost only be a troll question:Why were Nazis under a Socialist Party when they were Fascist Nationalists?Let’s split that up, shall we. Part one:Why were Nazis under a Socialist PartyThey weren’t.The NSDAP never was a socialist party. Their SA paramilitary went around beating up socialists and communists, whom they considered ‘enemies of the people’.*when they were Fascist Nationalists?They weren’t.Nazism (which is short for National-socialism, which in German is simply one word: Nationalsozialismus) was indeed a bit of a copy cat movement created by Adolf Hitler after Mussolini’s Fascist movement. Fascist Nationalist is an oxymoron; Fascism was by definition nationalism - in the extreme.*One answer mentions the Nazis had ‘gun control’. Yes, in the sense that they had the guns. Other than that ‘gun control’ was a part of European legislations long before it became an issue in the US. Trying to connect ‘gun control’ with Nazism - or socialism, for that matter - is ignorance in the extreme: there was effective gun control in Europe long before either socialism (or Nazism) had ever been heard of.
If the Nazis were a socialist party, why would they be anti-communist?
Your putting forth a false premise: ideologically-similar groups tend to get along, while wildly-dissimilar ideologies fight.Historical examples to the contrary:Anglicans and Catholics spent a lot of time killing each other, despite the fact that they’re both Christian, and the services are strikingly similar to each other (compared to, say, pentecostals).Sunnis and Shiites similarly spend a lot of time killing each other.None of the above spends a lot of time killing Jainists. The either fight within each religion…or they fight another Abrahamic religion.Economically, National Socialism was center-right (center-left prior to the Night of the Long Knives): they allowed private industry, but insisted it serve the overlying goal of strengthening the nation. Which puts it smack-dab in the middle of Marxism to the left, and laissez-faire capitalism, to the right.The “extreme” part of National Socialism was its authoritarianism, not its economics. On that four-part chart, Nazis would be at the very top, center-right; Stalinists would be at the very top, center-left.
Did German National Socialism originate from Marxism?
In short: no. Keep in mind also that Hitler was not present in the foundation of the Party in 1918; he came a little later. The NSDAP initially formed as a reactionary nationalist political party and was essentially a manifestation of popular frustration over the issues which the closing of the Great War either raised or failed to address.In fact, it was originally referred to as the 'DAP,' or 'Deutsche Arbeiters Partei'/'German Worker's Party'. An initial proposal was made to call it the 'German Socialist Party', but this was put down because one of the founders objected to the term 'Socialist'. Despite the fact that Marx was a German by birth 'Maxism' had come to be associated already with Russia and 'Bolshevism' by the time the DAP formed. The Party established itself as 'anti-jew, anti-communist, anti-Versaille'. Even after Hitler came around the core principles never changed.National Socialism's core ideology is very difficult to actually refer to as 'political' at all. It's a racially-motivated mysticism devoted to the idea of taking "pure" concepts from actual political structures. Hitler wrote of taking "from the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".In the West, "socialism" is popularly thought of as a synonym for "communism" due to propagandism during the Cold War. 'Socialist' policies can be any designation of resources by state mandate for some purpose or other -- police forces; sewage systems; city planning; power grids; highways; healthcare; standing armies; etc. Communism meanwhile refers to a concept where classism is unnecessary due to equal provision of ownership in the means of production and equal distribution of possession - currency becomes unnecessary as everyone is given food, medicine, and shelter as needed. Communism is dependent on socialism; but socialism is not communism, and I can think of no way that the state can exist as an entity without socialism.What Nazism boils down to is religious adherence to a set of despotic principles laid out at the arbitrations of one very disgruntled World War I veteran. And racism... a lot of it.
To what extent were the Nazis socialists?
This question has emerged, and keeps re-emerging, because some on the right want to eject Nazism from its traditional place on that side of the spectrum, and move it to the left. So the motive is disingenuous. That being said, the answer isn’t as clear-cut as some would have it.There were prominent, early members of the National Socialist German Workers Party who took the words “socialist” and “workers” seriously. Chief among them were Otto and Gregor Strasser, Ernst Röhm, and Joseph Goebbels. Broadly, they were pro-union and anti-capitalist, and were seen as left-wing elements within the movement.But, importantly, Hitler shared none of their socialist leanings, and Hitler was the party. He didn’t want to nationalize or democratize industry; nor did he want unfettered capitalism. He wanted to subjugate both labour and capital to the will of the state, personified in himself, which he did. He had no intention of seizing the means of production from the industrialists, so long as they played ball. Terrified of actual socialism, the fat cats largely proved compliant.The socialist and revolutionary elements of the NSDAP were either brought to heel or purged by Hitler.The Strassers were kicked out of the party in 1930. Joseph Goebbels was ultimately overawed by the force of Hitler’s personality, and went on to become his most loyal servant, abandoning his earlier convictions.Röhm, who was leader of the SA (brownshirts) was the only person who ever seriously threatened to eclipse Hitler in standing and popularity. Hitler was happy to use the SA to propel himself into power, but they were an inconvenience once he got there.Röhm and his millions-strong army of street toughs were bent on keeping the revolution going after Hitler was named Chancellor, and the degree to which their aims overlapped with the socialists they professed to despise is quite striking. In particular, Röhm had it in for the aristocracy and the officer corps. He longed for his SA to supplant the Junker noblemen who ran the armed forces. (They, of course, would never stand for that.)It was primarily for this reason that Hitler had Röhm killed, along with Gregor Strasser and other undesirables, in the summer of 1934, in the purge that has come to be known as the Night of the Long Knives.That’s the extent to which the Nazis were socialist.
How many Republicans really think the Nazis were a leftist political party?
The Nazis were elitists, plain and simple. They claimed to be socialists to get the support of the lower class majority, and used their sense of patriotism and religion to gain support much like the people who appeal to the religious right. They paid lip-service to everyone until they had the power they wanted, then they chose a state religion and started enforcing morals of that religion upon the people. The Jews where propagandized as being evil just like the right does on talk-radio with their demonized myth called a "lib". They demonized the Jews to be a person who didn't want to work for what they had, and were just lazy squatters that had no right to be part of their "empire", much like we see about immigrants and the poor, coming from the right. Desire for security from an outside threat drove the German peope to give up their rights for security thinking they only had something to fear if they had something to hide. Later the Jews, homosexuals, drug addicts, liberlas etc found they really did have something to fear when the ashes started raining down over the land from the furnaces. Hitler himself hated communist and liberals it is well documented. The problem some people have is realizing you can claim to be a leftist politician to get people to allow you to centralize power, for the purpose of redistributing wealth, but only eftists will actually give up that power once centralized. That was what Marx stated, and neither him nor his philosophy is responsible for the atrocities that people claiming to be socialists have commited. The only people to blame were the power mongers themselves, and the people who thought they had nothing to fear if they had nothing to hide.
Did the NAZI party support socialism?
Yes, but their own brand of nationalist socialism; "standard" socialism is internationalist & pacifist, and looks forward to the day when nationalism and the "artificial" borders it raises are dead. The Nazis actually kept in place much of socialist policies of the Weimar Republic; for instance, education and health care were both free (well, we all know somebody has to pay for it.. but I digress...), at least as long as you were "Aryan"... At the same time, they were vehemently anti-communist, mainly because they blamed the Communists (and Jews) for the "stab in the back" that lead to Germany's defeat in WW1 and the "diktat" of the Versaille treaty... It can be confusing, but that is because the history of the NSDAP is itself confusing, due to the fact that it was started by people who were anti-capitalists with socialist tendencies, and was then taken over by Hitler, who saw it first and foremost as a vehicle for his political ambitions; he was often embarrased in the early years (1920 -1934) by the "radical" wing of the party...