re: The Buffalo killer was…wait for it….A LIBERAL!!!!

Of course he was. A conservative would have been at work.

You are an idiot. Conservatives want smaller government, not the government to control everything like socialism and communism

quote:

---

I wonder what Buffalo boy's sex life is like.

---

I think I know what it is SOON to be like.

quote:

---

How in the frick is a 12 year old "deep into communist ideology"?

---

I'm guessing he browsed reddit, until he was 18 or 19 and then decided to check out 4chan. He then overdosed on redpills like a retard.

Red pilling doesn't lead to communism. That's the blue pill

quote:

---

Is this your gotcha moment? Does this grant you some sort of comfort?

---

You feel the same about that Rolling Stone writer that claims the shooter is a mainstream republican?

First, thanks for a thoughtful response.

That passage begins by claiming Nazi Germany’s economic system was socialist, not capitalist. In fact, it was both. In my post, to which you responded, I listed the Nazis party platform, one of which was that critical industries and enterprises should be in the hands of the state. Another claimed that other businesses should have partial ownership of labor. However, it is true that most companies were in private hands and were capitalist. It’s hard to say where it would have ended, because none of that was important to Hitler, who used this platform to get power.

Hitler’s real platform consisted of one plank: to establish the Third Reich and to realize the destiny of the German people to be first among the people of the world. These goals are considered right wing, as opposed to the left wing class struggle, which claims the real brotherhood is not ethnic but is class. Ownership of the means of production is what truly unites and divides, according to Marxists.

Your excerpt claims that private ownership was in name only because the government exercised the real power. This is true, but it was wartime, and in wartime governments suspend normal rules. Hitler never really ruled in peace, because peace was the antithesis of what Hitler was about. His book was named “My Struggle”.

He says that the main evidence that Nazi Germany was socialist was the imposition of wage and price controls in 1936. But the USA did that, also, in WW2, and no one argues that the USA was socialist. Economic thought was very different then and in their naiveté, economists at that time thought price controls could stop inflation. So contrary to your source, this was hardly proof of socialism.

There is much there that points toward socialism, and there is much that points toward right wing nationalism, irredentism, autarky and xenophobia. But we must ask ourselves, was Hitler more about an economic system or was he more about ethnic cleansing and assertion of German power? I think the answer is obvious just by asking the question.

quote:

---

You are an idiot. Conservatives want smaller government, not the government to control everything like socialism and communism

---

Perhaps I am, but what does your definition of conservative have to do with this conversation? We were not talking about conservatives, and clearly Hitler was not what. We call a conservative today. He was a radical - a mostly right wing radical.

BTW, whoever wrote that exegesis on Nazis Germany was spot on about very much, including his critique of our society. I have long felt that a large government invariably will lead to authoritarianism. It seems perfectly obvious to me. I’ve spent my life resisting it.

More evidence that Nazis were right wing, from the book Bloodlands

quote:

---

As he raged against the “Marxists,” Hitler used the starvation in Ukraine as an indictment of Marxism in practice. To a gathering at the Berlin Sportpalast on 2 March 1933, Hitler proclaimed that “millions of people are starving in a country that could be a breadbasket for a whole world.” With a single word (Marxists) Hitler united the mass death in the Soviet Union with the German social democrats, the bulwark of the Weimar Republic. It was easier for most to reject (or accept) his entire perspective than it was to disentangle the true from the false. For people lacking close familiarity with Soviet politics, which meant almost everyone, to accept Hitler’s assessment of the famine was to take a step toward accepting his condemnation of left-wing politics, which in his rhetoric was mixed with the rejection of democracy as such.6 Stalin’s own policies made it easier for Hitler to make this case, because they offered a similarly binary view of the political world. Stalin, his attention focused on collectivization and famine, had unwittingly performed much of the ideological work that helped Hitler come to power. When Stalin had begun to collectivize agriculture in the Soviet Union, the Communist International had instructed fraternal communist parties to follow the line of “class against class.” Communists were to maintain their ideological purity, and avoid alliances with social democrats. Only communists had a legitimate role to play in human progress, and others who claimed to speak for the oppressed were frauds and “social fascists.” They were to be grouped together with every party to their right, including the Nazis.

---