Try the political quiz
 @9CJ6CB6Disagreements2yrs ago

The Hitler part is debatable, he only ever claimed to be a socialist to get the public on his side and to get into the party, though the common quote used to prove that he somehow was a socialist was said to Otto Strasser, who actually was a socialist with pro-union, profit-sharing, and Soviet style views. Hitler killed Otto’s brother Gregor, and then kicked Otto out for years, being a dissenter of the party that Hitler focused almost entirely upon nationalism and racism rather than anything even remotely leftist. Hitler himself didn’t care much about the economy, though his views and actions were far-right, he claimed he would just do whatever he thought was good and then if it works and people are happy, “then they have their socialism”. He tended to just hug to big corporations and let them grow monopolistically bkgger as long as they stayed on his side.

+
Expand

7 Replies

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  disagreed…2yrs2Y

No, Hitler nationalised countless major industries

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  disagreed…2yrs2Y

So did Mussolini, that doesn’t make Hitler far-left. Our nation has a mid-center part with socially left ideals, and since our country has a rather inward view, many Americans conflate big government with far-left, which just isn’t true. Hitler nationalized some industries and delegated their power to the previous owners of those companies, using them as his personal pawns rather than for any benefit to the public. He attacked unions, destroyed workers rights, ignored the class war, focused on nationalism and racism, made the state an almost spiritual institution in the eyes of his supporters, everything on his agenda points to far-right fascism, and his handling of the economy has almost nothing leftist about it.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  commented…2yrs2Y

At most, Hitler was a Centrist dictator – he was not right wing, because rightists hate most of what he stands for.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  disagreed…2yrs2Y

On the contrary, the VAST majority of his supporters were far-right, drawing from the far-right across the world, and being an extremely close friend of people like Ford, Mussolini, and many more. When Hitler allied with Stalin temporarily, Stalin was viewed by his other socialist comrades as a traitor, and later led to him fighting mercilessly against Hitler in response to Hitler’s attempted genocide of the Russian people, where most of the death in WW2 was caused. His political views aligned with authoritarian right, though Americans commonly conflate authoritarianism with leftism bec…  Read more

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  disagreed…2yrs2Y

If he had some rightist policies, and some leftist policies, why is it a stretch to say he was a Centrist dictator?

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this disagreement.

@9CJ6CB6

Last activeActivity1,530 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias35%Active in
Comments  1339 Disagreements  94 Answers  88 Foreign policy  5 the Economy  4
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies