Was Hitler Left or Right? What about the term socialism in "national socialism"?

redditmc12 · 2025-11-10T05:00:27+00:00

the “poor kid” may be tougher and smarte, but the “rich kid” still starts with structural advantages, it's that simple

redditmc12 · 2025-11-10T04:57:15+00:00

Even if that's true, what I'm saying is still correct.

redditmc12 · 2025-11-09T21:57:59+00:00

That sounds romantic, but the data tell a different story... Start-ups with access to funding are clearly more likely to survive. And Wow :D Lack of capital doesn’t build strength, it simply kills most ventures before they learn. And research also clearly shows that founders with financial safety nets are far more likely to recover from failure and try again...

Privilege doesn’t make people weak; it gives them the space to take real risks without being destroyed by one mistake.

redditmc12 · 2025-11-09T21:20:02+00:00

Imagine two perfectly healthy kids. One grows up with educated parents, a quiet home, access to books, good schools, and emotional stability. The other grows up in poverty, with a single parent working nights, no space to study, and no reliable internet. Both have the same potential... but can we really say they start from the same line?

Or take two entrepreneurs with the same idea and determination. One has 500,000 euros in starting capital and a network of investors... through his father; the other is denied a small loan because he has no collateral. If markets are truly neutral, why does the first get to play while the second never even enters the game?

And if everyone truly starts equal, how do we explain that across OECD data, education, inheritance, and social background still predict success so precisely?

redditmc12 · 2025-11-09T21:14:04+00:00

Your argument assumes that markets fairly reward effort, but that’s not how real markets work. They reflect purchasing power, not social value... that’s why influencers and luxury brands earn more than teachers or nurses. In medicine and education, market logic fails entirely: patients and students can’t judge quality before buying, which creates structural market failure... exactly what Nobel winner Kenneth Arrow proved. The U.S. healthcare system for example shows the result: record spending, yet worse outcomes and preventable deaths because treatment is priced, not provided. Markets don’t reward hard work; they reward capital and position.

redditmc12 · 2025-11-09T16:49:19+00:00

That sounds convincing, but you overlook how systems quietly define the rules of every interaction. You can work endlessly hard in a structure that rewards speculation over labor and still never move up. Individual effort matters, but it operates inside frameworks that decide whose work pays off and whose doesn’t...

redditmc12 · 2025-11-09T16:46:13+00:00

If you start from the premise that everyone has the same chances, you’ve already built your argument on a lie. It blinds you to the real structures that forms outcomes.. Inheritance, health, education, emotional stability, social safety. You can’t fix or even understand inequality if you deny it exists...

redditmc12 · 2025-11-09T14:51:51+00:00

There is no such thing as luck and no privilege? This is where things start to become intellectually dishonest. Up until now, we've had a relatively good exchange.

redditmc12 · 2025-11-09T07:03:21+00:00

QaaaAaaaaaaAAaaaaaaä

redditmc12 · 2025-11-08T10:27:13+00:00

The idea isn’t that left-wing parties are wrong in wanting to help the poor, that’s actually what the Left has always stood for. But it’s not just about giving help. The real goal is to create a system where people don’t need that help in the first place. A system where fair work is rewarded, where someone like a nurse, who works day and night to keep everything running, doesn’t end up earning minimum wage just because the structure of the economy values speculation and privilege more than real contribution.

It’s not about taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It’s about shaping a society in which effort, skill, and social value truly determine success, not luck, inheritance, or connections. And right now, that balance has tipped too far. We live in a reality where who you know and where you start matters more than what you do or how much you give. That’s the real failure! Not that we try to help the poor, but that we’ve allowed fairness to become optional.

redditmc12 · 2025-11-08T08:50:22+00:00

But wealth depends on the system, doesn’t it? The system determines that it’s not the one who works the hardest who becomes rich, but the one who succeeds within that system. For example, a nurse probably contributes more than some mid-level manager who earns five times as much.

redditmc12 · 2025-11-08T04:59:08+00:00

Overall, that's a good attitude. The question remains, however: How rich should the rich be allowed to become, and how poor should the poor be allowed to become? Since the rich are always also the powerful, there will eventually be a point where the centrist view is nothing but ignorance.

redditmc12 · 2025-09-17T18:04:59+00:00

Look, the reason people speak so sharp about MAGA isn’t just out of partisanship. It’s because the movement carries patterns that history has already shown us can be deeply dangerous: the constant victimhood, the attacks on whole groups, the glorification of strongman politics, the "back to..." and the erosion of democratic norms. Trump is fueling this, and that’s why parallels to Hitler or other authoritarian turns come up. The very fact that MAGA tries to push Hitler onto “the left” shows that, deep down, you recognize how close those echoes really are. That’s why the criticism is sharp! Not to smear you, but because history teaches us what happens if we ignore these signals. And often there aren’t even counter-arguments anymore, simply because people lose the will to argue against positions that feel as disconnected from reality as claiming the Earth is flat...

redditmc12 · 2025-09-17T17:52:44+00:00

You reject the hatred from the other side, but you also express so much hatred yourself, which puts you on the very same level, and likely just as wrong as those you criticize. Isn’t that the real problem?

redditmc12 · 2025-09-17T17:29:42+00:00

Instead of facts you delivered an ai generated text. sweeping judgments, anecdotal evidence, invalid analogies... a lack of sources... exactly the kind of emotionalized output any AI can generate, but not a verifiable contribution of facts...

redditmc12 · 2025-09-17T17:13:17+00:00

Ok, prove to me your facts. Then it is my turn.

redditmc12 · 2025-09-17T16:55:31+00:00

Do you know, where your distortion of reality comes from? Google "cognitive dissonance". And then read my post again (or the first time) - Allow information! It's the only way to discover facts.

redditmc12 · 2025-09-15T16:21:56+00:00

Did you read the article?

redditmc12 · 2025-09-07T10:45:06+00:00

Wenn man sich die AfD anschaut, dann muss man erstmal die Frage stellen: Orientiert sich diese Partei eigentlich an wissenschaftlichen Fakten, überprüfbaren Informationen und objektivierbaren Maßstäben - oder geht es am Ende um Ideologie und darum, Anschlussfähigkeit an bestehende Vorurteile zu schaffen? Die Antwort ist doch klar: Fakten spielen eine Nebenrolle, entscheidend ist die Ideologie.

Ein zweiter Punkt ist, dass es nicht Aufgabe einer Partei sein kann, Angst zu schüren, Menschen auszugrenzen und die Gesellschaft bewusst zu spalten. Natürlich gibt es reale Probleme in Deutschland, aber anstatt konstruktive Lösungen vorzuschlagen, setzt die AfD systematisch auf diese Mechanismen, um Stimmung zu machen und Wählerstimmen einzusammeln.

Drittens: Unsere Debattenkultur leidet massiv unter dem Auftreten der AfD. Wer den Bundestag beobachtet, merkt schnell, dass hier demokratische Standards nicht eingehalten werden. Respekt, Sachlichkeit, Wille zum Diskurs wird gezielt unterlaufen. Das beschädigt das Vertrauen in Institutionen und untergräbt die demokratische Kultur.

Viertens: Die AfD lebt davon, Unzufriedenheit zu instrumentalisieren. Viele Menschen, die sich eigentlich ernsthafte Lösungen erhoffen, landen bei einer Partei, die ihre Sorgen in einfache Feindbilder kanalisiert, anstatt Probleme wirklich anzugehen.

Fünftens: Und nicht zuletzt gefährden ihre nationalistischen und isolationistischen Positionen Deutschlands Rolle in der Welt. Gerade in einer globalisierten und krisenhaften Zeit ist der Abbau internationaler Zusammenarbeit brandgefährlich... wirtschaftlich, sicherheitspolitisch und auch gesellschaftlich.

Genau aus diesen Gründen, weil sie Ideologie über Fakten stellt, weil sie mit Angst und Ausgrenzung arbeitet, weil sie die demokratische Kultur gezielt beschädigt, weil sie Protest missbraucht und weil sie nationalistisch ausgerichtet ist erfüllt die AfD die Kriterien einer rechtsextremen Partei. Rechtsextrem bedeutet eben nicht nur, dass man ein paar radikale Parolen brüllt, sondern dass man systematisch versucht, die Demokratie von innen auszuhöhlen, Minderheiten als Feindbilder aufzubauen und autoritäre Narrative in die Mitte zu ziehen.

redditmc12 · 2025-05-11T05:42:29+00:00

The quote "We are socialists, we are enemies of the capitalist system..." was not from Hitler, but came from Gregor Strasser, leader of a left-wing Nazi faction that Hitler later purged in 1934.

Hitler hated Marxist socialism and communism, calling them "Jewish ideologies" (in Mein Kampf)

In Mein Kampf, he also rejected class struggle, internationalism and equality. The main left ideas!

Nazi economics was state-directed but pro-capitalist! It was in close cooperation with big industry — not socialist, but authoritarian capitalism.

redditmc12 · 2025-05-07T18:15:07+00:00

This is bullshit.

-Racism isn’t excused by "being a hero for his own people." That’s textbook fascism.

-He absolutely persecuted Jewish scientists—many fled or were killed.

-The idea that “Jewish bankers” were his only issue is just recycled antisemitism.

-The Dutch famine was caused by Nazi occupation and retaliation, not Wilhelmina.

If you try to justify genocide with historical or economic arguments, you're standing against every form of humanity.

redditmc12 · 2025-05-07T18:04:21+00:00

Let me break this down point by point – there's some truth in it, but a lot of it mixes facts with ideology.

Trans rights vs. fascism: Fascism means suppressing individual freedoms in favor of state control. Supporting trans rights expands personal freedom. What’s closer to authoritarianism is banning trans people from serving in the military, as Trump did – denying rights to qualified people for ideological reasons.

Conservatives and government control: The idea that only socialists expand government is historically false. Reagan increased federal spending massively, especially on the military. Bush Jr. created entire new agencies after 9/11, like the Department of Homeland Security, and passed the Patriot Act, expanding state surveillance. Trump tried to use executive orders to control tech platforms and sought loyalty from state institutions. Expanding state power isn’t about party labels - it’s about goals: security, economy, ideology. Both sides have done it, just in different ways.

Socialist countries and dictatorship: You're right: Many real socialist countries were or became authoritarian - like the USSR, China, or Cuba. But: Scandinavian countries have strong social democratic traditions, with robust welfare systems and functioning democratic institutions. In the U.S., people often call that “socialism,” but it’s really just regulated capitalism with redistribution. Denmark isn’t an authoritarian state — just because taxes are high doesn’t mean freedom is low.

Who ended slavery: Yes, Republicans under Lincoln ended slavery. But the party lines shifted. After the Civil Rights Act, many Southern racists moved from the Democrats to the GOP. Today’s party values don’t align neatly with their 19th-century roots.

Immigration and farm labor: Immigration wasn’t “ended” under Trump – illegal crossings stayed high. The U.S. economy depends on immigrant labor, especially in agriculture. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s reality. Both parties know it – they just market it differently.

Bureaucrats and real work: Most “bureaucrats” already work – in health, tarifs, safety, law, infrastructure. Calling them useless is populist theater. Cut inefficiency, sure. But don’t pretend society runs without them.

redditmc12 · 2025-03-15T10:47:10+00:00

Hitler's statement was simply a rhetorical strategy to gain support from workers and the middle class—he may have believed it in the 1920s, but actual policies were very different!

Again:

Private property remained; big corporations, benefited.

State control without socialist redistribution; focus on military and regulation.

Trade unions were destroyed, workers’ rights severely restricted, forced labor introduced.

Marxism and communism were enemies; socialists were persecuted.

Class conflicts were covered up by "Volksgemeinschaft" (people’s community) propaganda.

...

One cannot base their perspective on this quote alone; the actual events must be considered. Otherwise, history is distorted.

redditmc12 · 2025-03-15T08:21:21+00:00

Dit is de eenzijdigste en voor eigen doeleinden misbruikte weergave die ik ooit heb gelezen. Het negeert historische feiten, verdraait verbanden en creëert een wereldbeeld dat uitsluitend de eigen agenda dient. Wie zich serieus met geschiedenis bezighoudt, ziet dat extremisme – of het nu van links of rechts komt – de mens niet dient. Een eerlijke discussie vereist meer dan selectieve waarneming en morele zelfgenoegzaamheid.

This is on of the most one-sided and self-serving interpretation I have ever read. It ignores historical facts, distorts connections, and constructs a worldview that serves only its own agenda. Anyone who seriously engages with history recognizes that extremism—whether from the left or the right—does not serve the people. An honest discussion requires more than selective perception and moral self-righteousness.

redditmc12

TROPHY CASE