"Spudboy" writes,
>Please do not be decieved by the name National Socialist. My guess is that the
Party name Nationalist Party, founded immediately after WW1 and also a
Racist-Nordic myth party, funded by the autocrats and the industrial
chieftans--their leader, if I remember correctly was Hugenburg. The National
Socialists had nothing to do with socialism (despite the many flaws of
socialism) it was just a way of packaging their hatreds while avoiding the
"copyright infringements" of the larger competing racist, National Party. Hitler
loaded his pockets down and was a capitalist in the sense that he wanted to make
a profit. He was absolutely not a free-enterprise capitalist. The shopkeepers
that supported him were also capitalists too. Hope this helps.
>
In case you missed it, here is the lowdown on Hitler's National Socialism in the
words of Michael Lorrey:
That german
industrialists paid kickbacks they were forced to pay at gunpoint or otherwise
does not make Nazis capitalists, any more than Jiang Zemin is a capitalist. They
are looters-in-chief, and socialists at heart.
He is living the same socialist lie that claims that Nazis were capitalists, and
soviet communism was state capitalism.
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:14 MDT