Hitler was a Socialist

Firstly, regarding the definition, it was simply to refer to an allowance of theories such as anarchist communism[1], or non-statist socialism. This is why I have a small hatred reserved for those who think that communism requires a state to work. This allows it to fit into the generally accepted political compass, which changes "left and right wing" regarding government to "up and down", and left wing and right wing economics staying as they are. The multi-axis model is more popular in regarding issues such as this, rather than the old model."The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain."[2]On top of this, my opponent confuses the work of Marxist socialism with Christian socialism[3], saying that they are more or less the same. If we mean that they both contain the word "socialism", then I'd agree. In the same way Queen Victoria and Kaiser Wilhelm are the same person because you'd call them "Your Majesty".My opponent should look up about Henri de Saint-Simon. He should specifically read these excerpts from http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk... :"In his usual astute manner Saint-Simon decided to capitalise on his new found enthusiasm for business and industry by producing a new journal called l’Industrie (Industry), which would be backed by industrialists, bankers and the like. l’Industrie began publication in 1816... he flattered industrialists, describing them as the most moral members of society because they followed the teachings of Jesus Christ."Although, I don't mind my opposition dropping this argument: I would defend the position he was barely sane, especially since he "begun to think of himself as some sort of saviour".[4]I do not think I need to address the ludicrous comparison to New Labour and Marxism. One who studies the history of politics can easily see how the parties in England are all becoming more centralised, not more socialist, as one modern subject of debate in England is whether there is a hope for a diversified political system.(Just so we are all on the same page, an image doesn't make anything more convincing)Regarding Hitler being anti-capitalist, I would agree, to a point. That point being 1929, when Hitler said that socialism was "an unfortunate word altogether" and that "if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." as well as other... distasteful remarks.[5]I see you have interpreted what I meant by "Hitler did" in a different way that i meant it. I shall fix this: Hitler controlled production, as Hitler could say whether was a puppetmaster over everyone else. In the same way that in monarchic times, Kings and Queens, when there was a business they didn't like, they could make them close down (usually, as Hitler did, by killing the people who ran the business). This is different to the idea that the community owned the means of production: Hitler could do whatever he wanted. It is not socialist when a man can tell how businesses can be run, this goes against the fundamentals of socialism[6]"...socialism is not statism, or the collective ownership of the means of production. It is a judgment on the priorities of economic policy. It is for that reason that I believe that... the community takes precedence over the individual in the values that legitimate economic policy. The first lien on the resources of a society therefore should be to establish that 'social minimum' which would allow individuals to lead a life of self-respect, to be members of the community."[6]Or, in a shorter meaning: "Communal ownership of land and capital."[7]Stating Stalin was antisemitic is just a blatant attempt at an ad hominem, saying because they were both antisemitic, they were both socialist (or vice versa). So i guess that means Bernard Shaw had a hatred for Jews, or that Pamela Anderson is a socialist?And I must say, I am stunned by the fact that my opponent took the statement that Marxism promotes equality, or collectivism, means that he is a Nazi. I shall make one new point here, as it will address numerous points my opponent will doubtless make and has made. It regards Stalin's "communist" rule. I do not think it can be regarded as communist in the natural sense of the word, and definitely not socialist. I subscribe to Trotskyism on this issue, as Stalin's rule was a dictatorship by those who he wanted to be in charge. His "Socialism in one country" idea went against the idea of socialism, and after that it just disintegrated the idea of what Marx-Lenin socialism stood for. Stalinism became a non-capitalist state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, although not owning the means of production and not constituting a social class in its own right, there were benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class.[8]So, I will conclude my points with quick succession:Socialism promotes collectivism, Hitler did not / promoted DictatorshipsHitler hated socialists, socialists hate themselves do notHitler condoned at the very least, if not promoted, Capitalism, socialism does not.Therefore, Hitler was not socialist(as a sidenote)Stalin's post-1945 years were seen as non-communistic. http://en.wikipedia.org... & Situationist Internationalhttp://www.politicalcompass.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk...German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (Oxford University Press, 1985)http://www.bergonia.org...Bertrand Russell in Roads to Freedom. http://www.mltranslations.org...