Why Hayek was Right About Nazis Being Socialists

Already did! And you've just agreed with me that it was his "belief".

 

Spell out your anti Hayek argument please.
Cite the post number please.
https://www.aier.org/article/why-hayek-was-right-about-nazis-being-socialists/
Hayek was Right: Nazis were Socialist Central Planners, Too

 

But you just admited you thought it was his belief. Are you confused?
Hayek, just like you, didn't have access to the nazi leadership minds. We do know that nazi lied... A lot... And missrepresented themselves, also a lot... Are we to believe the liars just because they're saying something you'd like to be true?

 

Okay, but please don't go perpetuating the falsehood that those who are 'defending socialism' are defending what you are alluding to, "HITLER' etc. Because that is your implication. Choose your words more carefully, know what you are talking about. No true socialist's vision of the world, even if it's not the best vision of the world, has anything to do with Hitler and his philosophy. Hitler used the term 'socialist worker's party' for it's propaganda value. In fact, he sought to change the classic definition to his brand of fascism.

If Hayek is trying to make that argument, he is wrong. and that is my answer.

That premise is total bunk, for reasons other posters have illuminated upon.

 

Perhaps he was trying to be just like Ludwig. Ya never know ,,,
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

 

Next time discuss the Hayek points and stop with the multiple you's (5) please.

 

Excellent points.

From your own link.
11/11/2005George Reisman


My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

 

Had you read all of my posts or the entire article, you would know what Hayek argued.

 

The Nazi ‘s were socialists?

That’s gotta be something generated by the rightwing nonsense machine. Likely a ridiculous attempt to tie socialism to Hitler.

Their economy was extremely hard to classify simply because everything was subordinated to a singular objective—a war machine.

 

I began the topic showing the source of the topic, went to work to open it up by showing the claims made to support the author, etc. Don't know what else can be done this day

 

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei combines the names of other political parties in Germany. It was a way of taking support from the other parties until they gained enough power to take over.

 

that's why I said 'if'.

 

I see you have a small problem with reading comprehension.

"I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists."

 

What you believe and what is true seem to diverge a tad.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racial_theories#Britain

 

Nazism.

Racial/National superiority.
Concentration of capital
Rearmament/expansion through war.

Socialism.
Elimination of the classes.
Distribution of capital.
Globalisation.

That is before we get to the fact the Nazis were some of the most social conservative people ever on the planet.

 

I think where I got that Hitler believed the English are Aryans is from the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William S Shirer

 

What are classes?
By distribution of capital, surely want yuou mean is to steal it from group A (Taxation) as opposed to earning (voluntary)?

Nazis were preserving their race, Germans and other Arians.

 

theQuelle
5.0 out of 5 stars A magnificent work - suppressed by Liberalism and Cowards.
Reviewed in the United States on December 30, 2015

Everyone of European origin should read this!
3 people found this helpful
A fine overview of early European racial anthropology, first published in a time before political correctness and leftist hatred suppressed the science. Taylor, the Canon of York, provides a comprehensive summary of the vexed issue of the origins of the Indo-European peoples.

Taylor’s book was the first major English-language work to reject the Ex oriente lux theory of Indo-European origins in favor of a birthplace in southern Russia.

Using a thorough evaluation of cranial, archaeological and cultural evidence, he presents his conclusion.
Often attacked and dismissed by contemporaries, modern DNA has proven many of Taylor’s theories to be completely accurate.

About the author: Isaac Taylor (1829–1901) was a philologist, toponymist, and Anglican canon of York, England, from 1885 until his death. He specialised in ancient history and his studies of the origin of European peoples. His major archaeological and philological studies were Words and Places (1864), Etruscan Researches (1874), The Alphabet (1883), Greeks and Goths (1879), and The Origin of the Aryans (1880).

 

To put is most simply, as others have more intelligently, not all socialists are totalitarian. All Nazis are, however. But I'm a little surprised you didn't focus on Hayek the economist rather than social scientist.

 

You actually fell for this racist, knuckle dragging, idiotic drivel? Really?

 

What you did is select the worst feature to discuss. I tried to point to actual examples of them being socialists. What is so ironic about Democrats is even now, they constantly will attack the Jews.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

It also appears that Adolph Hitler was far more intelligent than we in the West want to admit.

His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.



That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him.

Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism. It was a theory of history and not, like liberalism or social democracy, a mere agenda of legislative proposals. And it was a theory of human, not just of German, history, a heady vision that claimed to understand the whole past and future of mankind. Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.


That realisation was crucial. To dispossess, after all, as the Russian civil war had recently shown, could only mean Germans fighting Germans, and Hitler believed there was a quicker and more efficient route. There could be socialism without civil war.

 

You passed judgment on a book you never read yet?

Americans are very dreadful to the Hitler memory yet when Democrat's talk on this, they still adore Stalin and Marx.

 

How many of the German nazis do you know or did know if dead now?

 

Over an idiotic idea? Yes.

I will quickly and eagerly condemn all three of them. Why won't you?

 

I hate to discuss Hitler because I know the reaction of the trolls. They will believe my remarks are to defend this hateful bastard son of a poor woman, and I reject that in any fashion is Hitler the hated by me human being defended.

But others have written on his Socialism.
That realisation was crucial. To dispossess, after all, as the Russian civil war had recently shown, could only mean Germans fighting Germans, and Hitler believed there was a quicker and more efficient route. There could be socialism without civil war.

Now that the age of individualism had ended, he told Wagener, the task was to "find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution". Marx and Lenin had seen the right goal, but chosen the wrong route - a long and needlessly painful route - and, in destroying the bourgeois and the kulak, Lenin had turned Russia into a grey mass of undifferentiated humanity, a vast anonymous horde of the dispossessed; they had "averaged downwards"; whereas the National Socialist state would raise living standards higher than capitalism had ever known. It is plain that Hitler and his associates meant their claim to socialism to be taken seriously; they took it seriously themselves.


For half a century, none the less, Hitler has been portrayed, if not as a conservative - the word is many shades too pale - at least as an extreme instance of the political right. It is doubtful if he or his friends would have recognised the description. His own thoughts gave no prominence to left and right, and he is unlikely to have seen much point in any linear theory of politics. Since he had solved for all time the enigma of history, as he imagined, National Socialism was unique. The elements might be at once diverse and familiar, but the mix was his.

Hitler's mind, it has often been noticed, was in many ways backward-looking: not medievalising, on the whole, like Victorian socialists such as Ruskin and William Morris, but fascinated by a far remoter past of heroic virtue. It is now widely forgotten that much the same could be said of Marx and Engels.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Democrats preach socialism, adore it and defend it.

Hitler was an arch socialist. Worthless scum but still for the Germans, a devout socialist.