Was Hitler a liberal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
abucs said:
Hitler was not liberal in the classic sense of the word in allowing for other points of view as a priority.

But then many self defined liberals of today are not classic liberals either.

Hitler was socialist, not just in name but in the sense of being a western power that was anti Christian, thrived on victim politics and sought to solve all problems through an all powerful and secular authoritarian state.

The Nazi state tried very hard to have absolute control of universal medicine, morals, religion, education, social groups, business (through nationalisation and government regulation), guns/weapons, trade labour movements etc etc and sought to remove all non Nazi state groups from these areas by state dictate and if needed by state violence.

I still have enough respect for the word ‘liberal’ to not ascribe it to Hitler. But he was definitely socialist and despite the recent control of western universities by leftist academics telling us different, he was definitely on the far left of politics.
Click to expand...
A foreshadowing of things to come our way if HC is the potus
 
Hitler was a vocal enemy of socialism (the political system) The similarities people are seeing are totalitarian, not the intricate differences between liberal and conservative politics.Nazism was socialist in name alone.

Socialism is an economic system. It has some similarities where the rubber meets the road with fascism. But that’s about it.
 
Rhubarb said:
Hitler was a vocal enemy of socialism (the political system) The similarities people are seeing are totalitarian, not the intricate differences between liberal and conservative politics.Nazism was socialist in name alone.

Socialism is an economic system. It has some similarities where the rubber meets the road with fascism. But that’s about it.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on the differences?
 
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]
Click to expand...
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
Click to expand...
Socialist economic systems can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[16] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.[25] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets, and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.
Click to expand...
 
thinkandmull said:
What do you think?

There is a book I saw at the library called Hitler’s Philosophers. Anyone have an opinion??
Click to expand...
If you look, you’ll see Yvonne Sherratt’s book received mixed reviews, with the Times Higher Education saying “In ransacking all these authors for “anti-Semitic” quotes she reduces Nazism to the single aspect of anti-Semitism and ignores every contemporary context in which they were written. But the Jews were not the only “targets of Hitler’s wrath”; many more people, among them liberals, socialists, communists, homosexuals, gypsies and pacifists, were targets of his wrath as well.”.

Liberals by definition believe in liberty. Hitler didn’t. Among others he hated Jews, liberals, socialists, communists, homosexuals, gypsies and pacifists, and tried to recruit philosophers, sometimes successfully, to rationalize his hate.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
No sneering, just offering my perspective. I’m not aware of how your country’s decision to charge large amounts of money for healthcare and education are related to any international policies that would have allowed you to “save” us, nor am I aware of any instances of Ireland being “saved” by America.
Click to expand...
By several times before I was referring to Europe’s descent into collective madness during both World Wars. If I’m not mistaken, the Irish are part of Europe, even if they might be unhappy campers. We also saved Europe from the socialist madness of the Soviet Union, not that Europe is happy about that and hasn’t been doing a fair job of instituting socialism across the board. When Islamic fundamentalism has finished with you, let me know how you feel about the prospect of America riding to the rescue yet again.

In the meantime, we have a presidential candidate who feels pretty good about us taking a breather from solving all the world’s problems and paying through the nose for the privilege of doing so. When Europe is ready to cough up a little dough for NATO and other expenses, we can talk about who is going to save whom.
 
wanstronian said:
Amazing the way Christians cling to that notion even though the evidence to the contrary is settled.

Hitler was a Catholic.
Click to expand...
So what?

This did not prevent him from hating Christ, nor dismissing most, if not all, of the Church’s teachings. He was far from faithful and apparently not repentant of that condition.
 
davidv said:
So what?

This did not prevent him from hating Christ, nor dismissing most, if not all, of the Church’s teachings. He was far from faithful and apparently not repentant of that condition.
Click to expand...
Great - then we are in broad agreement. I don’t believe that Hitler committed his atrocities because he was a Catholic (although to be fair there is a strong suggestion that, as a Catholic, and due to the RCC’s stance at the time that Jews killed Christ, it’s not a huge leap of logic to conclude that Hitler’s genocidal actions were related in some way), any more than Stalin and Mao committed theirs because they were (notionally) atheists.

However, time after time I see the argument from theists that atheism drove the actions of Stalin and Mao, which is just preposterous. Many of them (on this forum and elsewhere) also call Hitler an atheist and repeat the same non-sequitur.

And in fact, having posted my previous response, I belatedly realised that one cannot hate something one doesn’t believe in, so there you have it. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top