Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
>
> <<What we are 'hip' to is that socialists will continuously try to re-invent
> themselves, repaint their horse, change their names, invent new catch
> phrases,and deny that the con they are selling today has anything to do with
> the con
> they were shoving down people's throats yesterday at gun point. What we are
> 'hip' to is that anarcho-capitalist free markets are quite as capable of
> maximizing freedom for the most people possible as any other system, and far
> better than most, including socialism. A social democracy is not a liberal
> democracy, no matter how much you try to insist it is so. One decrys the
> individual, the other celebrates it.>>
>
> Historical studies suggest strongly that many industrialist funded the nazis in the 1920's to off-set gains by the commies and the social democrats. I shan't shed a tear for the poor capitalists, who contributed to the Hitler Fund. Graft was already a feature of Bismarckian Germany for 50 years since its inception in 1866. These guys knew who they were funding. Also the nazis were heavilly into business in the reich-such as running everything from machine works to brothels.
Just because they donated to his campaigns does not make him a capitalist. As
shown in elections here, business people frequently donate to both sides to have
an in no matter which party wins the election.
The commies had very little support outside of unions and the intelligentsia,
and it is likely that industrialsts supported the Nazis as a lesser evil. Keep
in mind that the german aristocracy was anti-semitic for centuries, and the
german communist party was populated by a largely disproportionate amount by
jews, and most industrialists from the WWI era had large amounts of debts to the
german branch of the Rothchilds family, which under the poor economic conditions
of german was likely a heavy burden for any industry trying to retool after WWI.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:15 MDT