Welcome to North Korea

[Ironside]

Hitler was not to the right economically, much to the frustration of such early business and economic allies such as Schacht. Technically, none of those you mentioned could free-market economic right-wingers - autarky, their preferred system, pretty much precludes that sort of thing.

Shouldn't autarky pretty much preclude the "dictorship of the proletariat" aswell? As the closest thing is direct democracy.

[Geoffrey S]

Not quite certain what you mean, really.

[Ironside]

Not quite certain what you mean, really.

"The dictorship of the proletariat" is the time where the workers control the state according to Marx and it's that time period between capitalism and communism that's called socialism.
This "dictorship of the proletariat" has a remarkable resemblance to direct democracy.

Fragony, you are aware that socialism and fascism have very different views on what the state is and what it reprensent? Simply saying that state control and socialism is the same is only a pretty fundamental flaw.

A free market requires no governments and no countries .

In theory yes, but a free market requires regulations to maintain it's freedom. And those has to come from somewhere.

[Geoffrey S]

"The dictorship of the proletariat" is the time where the workers control the state according to Marx and it's that time period between capitalism and communism that's called socialism.
This "dictorship of the proletariat" has a remarkable resemblance to direct democracy.

Cheers for the elementary explanation. And the link to autarky?

There's a reason why I'm focusing on the economic side of socialism. No, Hitler was not a pure socialist - there's a reason his movement is termed national-socialism. Nor was Stalin or Mao, for that matter. But to use a cliche, were they to sit around a table and talk about anything but politics they'd have more than a little in common when it came to economics, all with strong tendencies to socialist economic ideals - state control of business, creation of jobs to keep unemployment as low as possible, an extremely large proletariat, and an autarkic economy.

[CountArach]

@ Fragony
http://mattbrundage.com/publications...-democracy.php

Hitler was not a socialist in the strict sense of the word; this can be shown by his definition of 'socialist', which differs from the norm:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland, über Alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people -- that man is a Socialist. (Bullock 76)

Hitler's meaning of socialism, therefore did not refer to a specific economic system, but to "an instinct for national self-preservation" (Fischer 125) or nationalism. Concerning the Socialist aspects of the 25-Point program, Hitler made promises "because in 1920, the German working class and the lower middle classes were saturated in a radical anti-capitalism; such phrases were essential for any politician who wanted to attract their support" (Bullock 75).

---------

Hitler had an overall disregard for the masses and refused to accept trade unions or the working classes. Once Hitler was in power, he broke all promises he had made to the workers. Hitler and the Nazi Party did away with collective bargaining and the right to strike. He replaced trade unions with an organization called the 'Labor Front', but this organization was fundamentally a tool of the Nazi Party and did not operate in the workers' favor. According to the law that created the Labor Front, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able to perform the maximum of work" (Kangas 13).

THIS MAN IS NOT A SOCIALIST.

This page also goes through many other things:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

[Fragony]

Hence national-socialism. Face it bubba Hitler was a leftie.

[HoreTore]

Hence national-socialism. Face it bubba Hitler was a leftie.

I'm sorry. Are you mad?

National socialism and fascism is the exact opposite of socialism/marxism. If you want to bash socialism, that's fine, but why don't you make an argument based upon real flaws, there are certainly enough of them, instead of making up outlandish and ridiculous claims like these?

[Ironside]

Cheers for the elementary explanation. And the link to autarky?

Too much simular words there.
Thought you talked about governing styles and not economics. Haven't seen that term for closed economies before.

While I haven't studied enough on the subject, but shouldn't most Latin-american dictorships been free market though? At least the ones not boycotted by the US.

Still, the authorian top-down system is something that the very essence that socialism is supposed to be against (as the policies is then used to keep the people in control so that they won't disturb the ruling elite), even if some economic policies may be simular. Can't find any socialist reason on why autarky should be used in socialism though, if anything rather the opposite, considering the view of nations.

Might partially explain why the revolutionary socialist movements seems to have a strong tendency to fail pretty bad after the revolution and end up in dictorships though.

[Kralizec]

I'm to busy right now to respond to any posts in detail, but I think I'll share this with you:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_N6fTS20LDZE/...BHorseshoe.JPG

I've read about the horseshoe model before, but this is the first picture of it that I could find on the internet. The idea is that both the USSR and the Axis regimes where authoritarian-collectivist in nature; the only real difference being that the USSR paid lip service to the idea that individuals are equal.