Hitler promoted National Socialism in Germany. Many European
countries at the time competed with Germany and adopted it as well
(they had little choice in countering the threat). If Germany
under Hitler hadn't been the first to go to the "extreme", another
country would have (as others did).
> This, of course, begs the question. The anarcho-(socialist,
> syndicalist, communist) claim is that property, such as owning a
> car which isn't used 90% of the time, or land you've never even
> visited when there are landless peasants starving in megacity
> slums, is theft and coercion. So they would say "the 'right'
> wouldn't survive without utilizing coercion (oxymoron!), or
> adapting socialist techniques." Socialist techniques such as
In practical terms, one could sell or give away time share or time
use on the car or land and it would still be maintained properly
since it has an owner. (A current example would be "liberal"
environmentalists buying up land solely for preservation purposes
and to prevent "economic" development.) Its highly unlikely there
would be "landless peasants" anyhow in the absence of coercion. My
understanding is fully on the coercion rather than capital as the
"root of all evil", something the "left" will never understand
being stuck in their dogma. The "landless peasant" has the right
and ability to profit on his own natural abilities and talent he
was born with as does anyone else. Denying that for inaccurate
ideological rationalizations is anti-life.
> Ideological refugees? Anarcho-communism is at least as old as
> Marxism.
My historical understanding is anarchy was never the initial
breeding ground of socialists or communists, despite their desire
that had it been that way. (Coercion has always been around since
the first "modern" civilization arose in Sumeria.) Nowadays, with
communism effectively discredited, they have no place to "go" but
into "left" anarchy.
TFM