What is Reddit's opinion of The Lost Literature of Socialism, 2nd Edition?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Here's the problem with your source: it's not written by a historian.

Here's Charles Burris's Linkedin. Do you see a history degree there?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-burris-b3113b9/

Plus, neither of the two sources that Burris uses are historians. George Watson's bio info is here:

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Literature-Socialism-2nd/dp/0718892275

Not an historian. Here's L.K. Samuels's bio info:

https://quotepark.com/authors/l-k-samuels/

In looking up these people, however, I did find an interesting link:

https://quotepark.com/quotes/2058470-l-k-samuels-hitler-in-1919-took-a-position-in-the-communist-ru/

Look through the "Related quotes" section. There are several actual historians among them, Konrad Heiden, Ian Kershaw, and Richard Evans among them -- major historians on the Third Reich.

None of them say that Hitler was a communist. What they do say is that, living in Munich as a soldier (he was still in the army in 1919) when the city was under a communist government), Hitler was elected to a soldiers' council and that he marched with the honor guard at Kurt Eisner's funeral.

Neither of these things would indicate communist sympathies. In fact, Heiden writes that Hitler openly argued against the communists.

Reading "history" from some wannabe doesn't mean you actually know any history.

Hitler socialized the industry of the state for the German people. The Holocaust was influenced by Marxist theory. Case in point, Engels on genocide:

>"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary." Sauce on Engel's ruminations

Hitler's influence and critiques of Marxist doctrine.

And here's the book so you can read it for yourself.

thats addressed in the link i posted, that you clearly failed to read. this section here, among others:

>The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

>That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him.

and further:

>That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists"

but really, just read the article. its pulled from this book, btw

read the source...

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Literature-Socialism-2nd/dp/0718892275

It's meticulously researched.