Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "National Socialism WAS Socialism | Rethinking WW2 History" video.
-
15
-
13
-
7
-
7
-
@eb3674
Close, but no cigar. See, political and economic ideologies can be combined, and in fact, many ideologies are a mixture of the two, but you seem incapable of correctly building off this core idea. Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism, for example, are all mostly to partially political as well as economic, with communism being the most political, and capitalism the least. This is because you can have different political ideologies which modify those economic conditions, but those ideologies are the most incompatible or redundant with socialism and communism, and have the most effect under capitalism. Similarly, Conservatism is both a political and economic ideology, and Nationalism is a political ideology that lends itself heavily to right wing economics. Hitler and the nazis were not pure, libertarian capitalists, but they certainly weren't socialists or leftists of any sort, because of their private economy. It was a one party state with a strong government that endorsed private owners. Also, one party/military run states aren't intrinsically socialist. Socialism and Communism are ideologies that can be held by racists, such as having a racist leader or ideologue, but the ideas themselves are incompatible with racist implementation, by definition. Economic ideologies absolutely do have control over racial/social ideologies. Hitler focused on race, which alone discounts him from socialism, though his other policies do that as well.
5
-
4
-
4
-
@mandoskywalker4012
This response is painfully inaccurate, and I have to wonder how you've fooled yourself into believing any of this. First off, socialism has always included class, since long before Marx. Marx was open about him taking heavy, in some places total, inspiration from others before him. Similarly, socialism has never been defined as "State control of the means of production" given that most early socialist movements openly called for the abolition of the state. Marx's work had little to do with changing the economic policy of socialism, and more on a new way to justify it. His core ideology was certainly not fully showcased in a pamphlet. The elimination of class divide and social ownership of the means of production are, quite literally, the definition of socialism. Now, I'm sure you want to pretend that there was no left or right in the 30's, given the disgusting, horrific past of the right, but that statement is false. Not only did the left and right exist (and were described in those terms) but the left-right divide has existed as long as political ideology, as its based on characteristics, not labels. Hitler, like you, was a proud right wing anti-socialist. Your ignorance of basic economics can't change that. Hitler despised economic socialization, preferring privatization and supporting private industrialists. Socialization of the economy was, objectively, one of the greatest threats to his regime and power. Also, you can't socialize "the youth," not in an economic sense. In any case, the nazi government did not control "Every aspect of society," they were quite keen on letting private business exist unimpeded. If private profit and competition is capitalism, then there was certainly capitalism to be found. Again, I'd recommend you stop repeating TIK's debunked arguments. There is far more than one difference between them and their total ideological adversary, russia, but even your description of that "one difference" showcases your ignorance. He neither enacted, nor desired, control or ownership. And, I hate to break it to you, socialism cannot exist with private control or ownership in place. Control is not "all you need," nor did he desire/enact it. He thought that eliminating class was stupid... because he was a right wing anti-socialist. He wanted every German to compete and hold private aspirations... because he was a right wing anti-socialist. He thought that jewish people invented socialism, marxism, communism, internationalism, and so on. He worked with capitalists every step of the way. He saw the russian system and decided to take advantage of right wing hatred of it, to spread his own anti-socialist ideology.
3
-
3
-
@mandoskywalker4012
He was a totalitarian right wing traditionalist that opposed socialism, though. "National Socialism," a title hitler initially opposed and later purged the creators of, has nothing to do with socialism. He hated not just marxism, but communism, liberalism, progressivism, leftism, socialism. Socialism is defined as social ownership, which by definition must include class analysis and abolition. Even if we were to attempt to translate this definition over to race, not only would this not be socialism, hitler's actions and ideology don't call for any sort of racial social ownership. There is no such thing as "pure socialism based on race." Class is an integral part to socialism, since before marx. That's like saying "He hated republicans and wanted pure conservatism based on progressive, not traditionalist principles." You're just describing your run of the mill progressive.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@eb3674
Dude. Socialism has a definition, and it is literally defined by social ownership of the means of production, which means more people get more of what they work for. Come on, basic stuff. Also, I literally said the nazis weren't libertarian? Please, just attempt to read my post first. They had a political dictatorship and a private economy, both of them in line with their right wing ideology. Yes, economic ideas don't always mix with political ones, but that isn't really pertinent here. Yes, he focused his political and economic views around race, which discount him from any type of socialism. Call him what you want, but that fact is clear and consistent. He endorsed private property not just to get his economy back in shape (because it was already private when falling out of shape) but because he ideologically agreed with private property. Race was more important than class, therefore, not socialists. Economic ideologies do have control over political ideologies though, even if the leader is not there or disagrees with this formation of ideology. The leader doesn't need to control it for certain ideas to reject or connect to one another. Hitler was the constructor of nazi ideology, him being the leader as well is redundant in this case.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
MajorLeague You've already lost the game, kid. You even just admitted to it. Because if you were to use the correct definition, you'd be proven wrong instantly. So? Admit you're wrong, and a liar, and we can move on. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@HarryPairatestes363
Of course they had critics from the right, much as say modern socialists are constantly criticized by your average left-leaning progressives. Far right and right are more alike than they are different, but they still evidently disagree, hence the distinction. I’m not forgetting anything, that just doesn’t disprove what I’m saying. They (the nazis) were actually pretty open in why exactly they didn't respect parts of the right and left. In essence, socialism and the left itself would lead to destruction, and the right was unwilling to meaningfully stop them or defend what they claimed to care about. Hitler's ideology by nature is inherently traditionalist, and while you're free to point out how nonsense the ideology is, it's still one he held and appealed to. I'm not entirely sure you know what progressivism is, given that at this time it had been spending decades arguing for the end of race-based inequalities and hierarchal systems. The "racial science" and eugenics were not just consistent with conservative movements of the time, they directly came from them. That is quite literally where the concept of racial/social hygiene came from, elements found in previous Volkisch and Social Darwinist movements. While you're correct that conservatives made a pact with their further-right compatriots with their own wellbeing first and foremost, they were also quite explicit in their view that nazi views aligned with their own far more than any socialist's views, and when the nazis took power, it was them voting for it and them jumping ship into that party. They aren't "completely" ideologically in sync, but they have far too much shared history, foundation, viewpoints and support to ignore.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It did not, though. That was a claim they made to get more supporters, but it is not true. He made excuses for his own capitlaist policy, and you bought it, hook line and sinker.
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
@endloesung_der_braunen_frage
Yeah, notice that I didn't say "Orthodox Marxism," though, nor did I say "Marxian Communism," (those are different things) I said socialism. Yes, those aren't the only forms of their respective ideologies, but that doesn't mean things with no ideological connection magically become parts of the same grouping. At least you're more on point with your definition of socialism, but there absolutely is something that prevents you from qualifying "society" only in terms of one race... the literal definition of society. If you were to change that, any ideology could be anything, so doing so is useless for your points. National Bolshevism isn't "socialism based on race," it's "socialism with conservative social views." It combines socialistic economics with a strong emphasis on nationalistic rhetoric, borders, and military. However, any form of ideology which attempts to artificially restrict access/ownership of the means of production to one specific group or race, by definition, cannot be socialist. That's why NatBols and Nazis are different, because among so many other things, the Nazis call for racial discrimination at all levels, whereas NatBols are just individually prejudiced. National Bolshevism isn't "socialism for Aryans," nor does it line up at all economically with nazi ideology, which still disproves your point. Also, embracing marxist proletarian politics would mean ignoring race in favor of class. In any case, you cannot put in place a socialist state for an ethnic group, because that would literally require a natural ethnostate which results due to no violence, repression, or deportation, as any of those actions would be removing members of the society as a whole from the means of production. The ethnic group doesn't become society as a whole, it becomes another ruling class. In any case, I don't think you're getting this. Socialism can be justified through different lenses, like religion, but religious socialists don't advocate for only that religion to have socialism. Similarly, socialists can have individual views, and individual bigotries, but advocating for those bigotries to have systemic representation makes their ideology by definition not socialist.
Yes, there are variants of socialism that are distinct from marxism, but it isn't a "spectrum," nor could it be one that at all includes far right groups like the nazis. Racist socialists can exist. Racial socialism can't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eb3674
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that no matter how many times your claims are directly addressed and disproven, you'll keep saying the same bs. Having a private economy means, by definition, he did not want, have, or put in place any form of socialism. I'm not saying nonsense, i'm literally providing facts about his regime that even you admit to. He didn't have any form of socialism, he despised socialism in all forms. His desires were clearly reported and he had no desire to have socialism at some point after his private economy, that private economy was what he wanted. It was achieved the way it was intended. What you're calling capitalism, he didn't only "use," but also fundamentally agreed with and wanted in place permanently. He didn't provide for the german people, he scaled back policies that actually did that. You're saying the same nonsense over and over again and I just have to keep replying to correct you. You're wasting both of our times for no reason, because you can't read. I'll keep proving you wrong, and you're free to ignore that.
2
-
2
-
@eb3674
The upper 1%, as in, the people who control the corporations you were talking about. Come on. Yes, a certain group gets wealthy under different economies, and in this case, the rich capitalists just got richer. I'm aware of the fact he wasn't a libertarian... that's why I said that. His policies were not incompatible with a private economy that he ran. And you keep using the word "use," as if it was just a case of convenience rather than ideological support. Business rose because he wanted it to rise, not because it helped them. I don't think you understand the basics here. He couldn't get rid of the name, the name he openly disliked, because he had already convinced millions that the name was accurate, with his redefinition of socialism. That total rebranding would have exposed the ideological hypocrisy, which is why he didn't do it. He kept the term, but changed the meaning. What's the purpose of changing a term when you can just change the meaning? He wasn't a socialist, champ. And again, economics and politics are more often combined than not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, so no offense, but you kind of admitted the fault in your argument here. Hitler was not a socialist in any traditional sense, rather he called himself a socialist and built up a new meaning around that word, as well as distinctly cutting off it's meaning from the other forms of socialism that already existed. His was a "prussian" socialist, which was already not left wing before he got his hands on it. Also, while there is no one concrete definition of socialism, they all have things that must happen, and most have certain factors in common, factors hitler did not believe his ideology should follow, at all. Here is some quotes that show that, as well as some modern right wing organizations that use similar tactics.
The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. Basically, that means to use saleable words – such as freedom, identity, security, democracy. [...]Once we're in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, 'yes, every last one must go'. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you're not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity. [...]There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas, and the British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable."
- Far-Right British National Party.
"Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for
consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal
of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition" - Eco, Ur-Fascism
"We have a great aim before us; a mighty work of reform of ourselves and our lives, of our life in common, of our economy, of our culture. This work does not disturb the rest of the world. We have enough to do in our own house."
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight."
- Adolf Hitler
"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and the fields blue ought to be sterilized"
-Adolf Hitler
Hell mate, you calling the nazis socialists? You fell for their propaganda.
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
- Adolf Hitler.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain-robinson/trumps-ambassador-lobbied-britain-on-behalf-of-jailed-right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-idUSKBN1K331J
So the question now is - how do we use the term socialism? Because the thing is, modern day socialists have no connection with this ideology, despite the implications of the title. Hitler technically called himself a socialist, but how do we define him? He had nearly nothing in common with any other denomination of socialism, even if we consider him technically a kind of socialism, he's the only right wing kind that protects private property, wealth, and nation, as well as many other key distinctions. So why is he a "socialist?"
I suppose that's more of a subjective question, but my view is that no, we should not call him a socialist. The modern socialists have nothing to do with this man, so calling him by that title only muddies the water, and it isn't even worth the effort of applying the title. We already have a word for what he was, a fascist, a far right ultra nationalist leftist hating fascist. So what would you prefer, you call him socialist as a needless attack on modern leftists because the connection between nazism and socialism is practically non-existent, or, we just call him what we've been calling him for a while - a fascist. I say the latter, makes things more simple.
If not, then they may technically be a socialist, as in a prussian socialist. But at that point, they are removed from all other socialist movements, so the name is useless.
2
-
2
-
MajorLeague Yes, you are a bigot and a conspiracy theorist. Thanks for admitting that you support what the nazis actually did as well. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
2
-
2
-
MajorLeague Lol... I did that weeks ago. It's how I know you're objectively wrong. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
MajorLeague I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
MajorLeague I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
@michaelf1900 The alt right was founded in order to push the right wing, like you, further right, and to provide an outlet for people that were already might further right than normal to have a political movement backing them up. They hate the left wing, and only disagree with many (but not all) of the republicans because they aren't far right enough. You seem not to actually understand what it means to be far right, or really, even left wing. If you look into it for half a second without the bias inherent to conservatism, you find that they want what the right wants, only more extreme. The alt right hates leftists, and wants to recruit you. I'm sorry bud, but they're right wing. Not at all left wing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HarryPairatestes363
You really should learn to think (Or better yet, research) before you speak - it truly does wonders. Yes, like it or not, not only was eugenics consistent with conservative beliefs at the time, the eugenics movements that inspired Hitler directly were all conservative. You're not wrong that eugenicism was an unfortunately popular belief at the time, one even some progressives adopted in watered-down forms, but as a matter of its ideological foundation it arose directly from theories of social darwinism and colonialist justifications, all hailing from and contributing to conservatism. Eugenicism was at one point just a "science," and unfortunately, this meant that many tried to work it into their belief systems even when it didn't make sense. However, in its foundation, this "science" relied on assumptions and moral judgements foundational to conservatism, and thus, conservatives were those that acted according to this "research" the most. Put simply, progressive eugenicists were a self-contradictory rarity that attempted to use a new scientific theory hailing from conservative sources, warping it into their own worldview and most often failing in the process. If one believes that social darwinism is a biological reality, it's hard to justify socialism after all. Eugenics were a scientific theory, accepted by many in their day, acted upon most consistently, violently and disgustigly by their authors and loudest supporters in conservative thought. Unfortunately for your statements, Galton was not some outspoken progressive, Wilson was known in his day for constantly pushing conservative social views and running to the right of his rivals as their party split, and Sanger was a rampant religious anti-abortion activist. They seem to adopt eugenicism far more than progressivism, and this is because eugenics didn't just come in any one form, and the more extreme forms were only advocated for among the advocates of social darwinistic systems - the right. It's telling though that only one of your cited figures was actually important to the overall eugenics movement, the rest were just frequent right wing talking points. You're free to get annoyed at the fact that everything I just said was true, but I wouldn't recommend continuing to lie about that. You're also free to call reality a "marxist prism," though I'd caution against it, as that is giving far too much credit to Marx, as he doesn't have all that much to do with why it's so easy to prove you wrong over and over again. You're attempting to make a statement on "the progressivism of the early 20th century," and in doing so ignoring the entire context of the era. The progressivism of the time was progressive in relation to the norms and opposite extremes, those being eugenicists on the right and far right. Yes, some progressives tried to adapt eugenics to their viewpoints or adopt them despite contradictory premises, and this is awful, but it was by no means frequent, nor was it the core of the progressive or eugenics movements. This is why, when the true horror of the ideology was exposed, progressives were the first to point it out, and conservatives support it to this day. So no, I'm sorry, you're thinking of conservatism when you're talking about "social hygiene." And thank you, though everything I've said so far has been plain and true. Now, you're not entirely correct, the word "Liberal" was used in the time to denote certain types of libertarian capitalism, but was also used to denote individuals on the left which either called for limited or removed capitalistic policy. I also hate to break it to you, but modern liberalism also consists of "free markets, private property and individualism." It just seems like you're trying to redefine the term to support your goals. Also, Marx criticized all capitalism, not just Liberalism. Fascism, meanwhile, seemed to accept non-liberal capitalistic policy, and worked with (your definition of) Liberals more than just a few times. But no, overall, the Nazis opposed libertarianism but not private property, trade, economic mobility, and so on -signs of capitalism, plainly. It was a "third position," neither full capitalism nor socialism, but there is no one third position, and this one evidently aired on the side of capitalism and conservativism in social and economic policy. Now, I've done nothing to label the right as inherently fascistic, but if you feel that me condemning fascists somehow includes you, you may want to look at why. I'm sorry you can't handle honesty, but maybe you'll get here one day. I don't find that at all "telling" - one's rampant anti-semetism resulted in a few bigoted pamphlets, and one's resulted in millions dead. If you'd like me to "disavow marx's antisemetism," I will do so (I disavow marx's antisemetism) but I will not entertain the myth that these two are morally equivalent, and that a condemnation of one necessitates a condemnation of the other. PS, looking up "progressive eugenics" and trying to find results rather than reading works well... until the articles in question instantly list progressive opposition and conservative supporters of eugenics. Oops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UC05-ZHg7GSbkgswKyMY9r6w I hate to clue you in child, but as I said, asserting things in all capital letters does not make them true. I do, which is how I translated them and found they supported my positions, which tells me you most likely just copied them off a wikipedia page and didn't even read them. If Mussolini confirming he doesn't support socialism supports your point, prove it. Don't just whine that i'm right. State capitalism has never been a "fancy way to say socialism," the term was in fact created to describe a system that is incompatible with socialism, in which the state works with the corporations to enrich them, not abolish them. State capitalism does not mean the state controls the economy, it means the state works with the economy. Socialism does not mean the state controls the economy either, child.
Nope. That pretty clearly says he doesn't want the base of socialism actually voting for socialist policies. He admits he wants to draw them away with socialist-sounding rhetoric for more support despite not actually believing in socialism personally... which is exactly my point. Are you going to keep crying that i'm right, or are you going to come up with a counter argument?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freedomordeath89 I mean, this quote literally proves you wrong, so i think i'll include it myself. He openly says that he thinks corporations fit into his plan, which would make sense given his other quotes.
"Devo dire per ragioni di giustizia che il capitale italiano, quello legittimo, che si regge con la capacità delle sue imprese, ha sempre compreso le esigenze sociali, anche quando doveva allungare il collo per far fronte ai nuovi patti di lavoro. L'umile gente del lavoro mi ha sempre amato e mi ama ancora."
"Lo stato] non è semplicemente un meccanismo che limita la sfera delle presunte libertà dell'individuo ... Né la concezione fascista dell'autorità ha qualcosa in comune con quella di uno Stato guidato dalla polizia ... Lungi dal schiacciare l'individuo, il fascista Lo stato moltiplica le sue energie, proprio come in un reggimento un soldato non viene diminuito ma moltiplicato per il numero dei suoi compagni soldati"
"l'ascismo dovrebbe essere più propriamente chiamato corporativismo, poiché è la fusione tra potere statale e corporativo"
1
-
1
-
@freedomordeath89 This quote quite literally says that they're not socialists, mate. I know you like to highlight the part that says otherwise, but well, let's quote him further hm? (it's also telling that your quote is from before he openly abandoned socialism for the fascists.)
"Dichiariamo guerra al socialismo ... perché si è opposto al nazionalismo ... Intendiamo essere una minoranza attiva, attirare il proletariato lontano dal partito socialista ufficiale. Ma se la classe media pensa che saremo i loro parafulmini, si sbagliano."
(Mussolini’s speech in Milan (March 23, 1919))
"Il nostro programma è semplice: desideriamo governare l'Italia. Ci chiedono programmi ma ce ne sono già troppi. Non sono i programmi che vogliono la salvezza dell'Italia, ma gli uomini e la forza di volontà"
(Speech at Udine (September 20, 1922))
"... Non era quindi sufficiente creare - come alcuni hanno detto superficialmente - un anti-altare all'altare del socialismo. Era necessario immaginare una concezione politica completamente nuova, adeguata alla realtà vivente del ventesimo secolo, superando allo stesso tempo il culto ideologico del liberalismo, gli orizzonti limitati di varie democrazie esaurite ed esauste, e infine lo spirito violentemente utopico del bolscevismo ."
(Benito Mussolini, My Rise And Fall, Volumes 1-2 Da Capo Press, 1998 (p. 68-9))
"E se oso introdurre il capitalismo di stato in Italia ... avrò le condizioni soggettive e obiettive necessarie per farlo."
(Mussolini’s speech to the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1934._
1
-
@freedomordeath89 ""he outlawed" OTHER socialist parties" No,he outlawed every socialist party. You're working from the front back here mate, not the other way around. Fascism is not socialism, and so when he banned the socialist parties, he was banning just that: all the socialist parties. Putting your idiocy in all caps doesn't make it true.
" Which is exactly what Mussolini did." He didn't, actually, but did you not read the part where those aren't even socialism? For a person with a supposed Phd you sure talk like a child (which you overwhelmingly seem to be)
"AHAHHAHAAH YOU SAYING THAT 1930s ITALY WAS CAPITALISTIC?" Is this what they taught you at the academy, buddy? That all caps laughing and insults was the way to go? Yes, I am actually saying that, as they invited in economists like Alberto De Stefani to help them cut back on spending and whatnot, and largely had a huge workplace reform. But uh... have fun laughing off the facts.
"No he doesnt...WHERE? " Yes, he does buddy. Here, this is from the book where he set out to define fascism, the doctrine of fascism. ""We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century"" he also later says ""Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ..." And in all of that, he not once said that they were even close to left wing. I agree, what was the normal ideologies for the right and left then were vastly different... and yet, it was still the right over the left who supported him.
"" Oh you are telling me that Mussolini, in 1943, after being freed and wanting to show the "roots of the Fascist movement" chose the name SOCIAL REPUBLIC randomly?" Are you telling me that buffalo wings aren't made of real buffalo?!?!?!? Yes, buddy, i'm telling you that Mussolini's name choice doesn't matter if it contradicts his policy.
"READ A BOOK" I have actually, quite a few. People with actual knowledge in history write those by the way, and they tend not to do it in all caps. In any case, you're wrong here again, as usual. You've not actually supplied any evidence that the policies matched the name, or indeed that fascism was a type of socialism. So no, they were not socialist ideas.
" I DUNNO YOU TELL ME! WHY DID LENIN KILL TROZKY??? " You uh... know that he didn't, right? You're thinking of Stalin. Lenin had been dead for decades at the time of Trotsky's assassination. In any case, the wonderful thing is we know why - it's because they ad some pretty major ideological differences. Stalin was ok capitulating to capitalism, Trotsky wasn't. And so on. Same with the rest of the conflicts. Oh, and social democracy is a capitalist ideology.
"WTF IS A CAPITALIST?" Are you joking here mate? Not even the first part, about there being "no capitalist movement in 1920s Europe?" You know the 1920s would mark the rise of modern libertarian politics, right?
"ITS OBVIOUS! TO GET INTO POWER YOU NAIVE KID! " Oh, I wasn't speaking about him allying with nazi germany. No, in his own country, he always supported the right over the left, conservatives over socialists. Those were his allies, internally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J.R.Penrice This is incorrect, and hilariously so. The nazis sit nowhere near the left, they are right wing.The privatization was real, and denying by saying "iut wasn't real privatization" is a fallacy. We knew the nazis were right wing even before they came into power, because they admitted as much. Your historical illiteracy proves you have no idea what you're talking about. Mate, Pinochet's economy was literally inspired by the student of a fascist, their regimes were identical. You just don't like dealing with that face. the left calls you a fascist because you fit the definition better than a leftist ever could.
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
1
-
@Brock1812 Incorrect, the nazis were far right and admitted as such. let's hear from them."We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight Again, dude, that isn't true. You just described an ideology that's about as far from socialism as it gets, but you assumed it was socialist because the state had potential control over it. You've just debunked your own point, what you showed is not socialism. But then again, you defined socialism as any policy in which the state interfered within the economy, what else would you expect? "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anna Hagen incorrect. "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
1
-
1
-
MajorLeague I have no obligation to entertain the fantasies of a proven liar. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
1
-
MajorLeague Stop lying, admit you were wrong. Ah, and some more fun little acts of projection. This is a nice little game. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
1
-
MajorLeague No, you've just ignored the truth. As usual. So stfu. Ah, and some more fun little acts of projection. This is a nice little game. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MajorLeague Ah, and there's the lying again. You did engage (and fail to succeed) in a semantic argument, by denying the definitions. You refused to actually listen to your definitions, and deny what they said even now.
If you accept the real definition of socialism, the one you provided, then you know that you are objectively wrong, and the nazis were not socialists. And, as you have already done that... you lost, mate. Stop defending fascism.
You were the one who started this up again. No, I will only accept the real definitions, not the meaning you try to project onto them. You started this, so shut. the. fuck. up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sorsocksfake I agree, which is why i'm so adamant on this point. National Socialism is a system that has really nothing to do with socialism, and has far more in common with other contemporary political ideologies. I feel like the only reason people even call it socialism, and in fact the only time i've seen it used in that way, is fore the purpose of an association fallacy. In fact, you have images like this (https://prodimage.images-bn.com/pimages/9798613882632_p0_v1_s550x406.jpg) which seek to use that association fallacy to literally call a man who lost family in the Holocaust a nazi.
Obviously nazism is not class socialism, but the point is that class socialism was the foundation of socialism, and indeed the only type, until nearly a century later there came those calling themselves prussian and national socialists. It just doesn't work, what happens if today, someone makes a version of capitalism called "genocide capitalism" which is literally just nazism by another name? Are we to accept it just because "well it's not private free market capitalism, it's a different type." No, that makes no sense, you judge by actions, not names.
And I would disagree. The problem is with the non-class socialism definition is that it has almost none of the history and consistency behind it that the class definition of socialism has. In other words - it doesn't work. Some choose to define this as any time the government does stuff, some say it's whenever there is a goal of distribution, some say it is whenever there is a goal of classlessness or equality. The problem is, none of them is even close to as well substantiated. To lump in Hitler and say, Proudhon, into the same category of being a "socialist," the meaning of the word "socialist" has become so broad it means nothing.
You're right, it isn't one narrow idea, but the thing is that every form of socialism out there has certain attributes in common. They may disagree on strategies, implementation, and what their socialist society may look like, but they can all agree on the basics. I'd like to see what basics you think hitler can agree on, with all the other types of socialists. Because the problem is, it's relatively easy to see how they fit together. Add in nazis? And then you need to get absurdly vague to show a full picture.
I know it may seem more nuanced to say "yes, but," but the problem with that is it just doesn't need to make sense. You'd need to say "Yes, but" and then go on a two hour tangent about all the ways hitler was nowhere close to a socialist, which makes no sense. We already have a term to describe his ideology, which out evoking association fallacies, or twisting definitions. We just call him a nazi. It's worked well so far.
1
-
1
-
Yeah, engaging with you was pointless. Jesus. I'll keep this one short since anything else would clearly be pointless. For one, I am not a socialist. I know it's convenient for you to pretend anyone who disagrees with you rewriting history is a socialist, it makes it easier to blow off their arguments, but that just isn't how it works. Calling me a socialist is borderline ad hominem, because it's just your way of discounting what i'm telling you by sticking a label on me. Next, I have to remind you, the only one redefining socialism is you. To post the definition again, "Socialism is when the workers, as a whole, own the means of production. This can be done through a state that is representative of the workers desires, (as in Democratic/Republic) it can be done through community management, it can be done through a direct democracy, it can be done through workplace democracy, it can be done without a state at all. The key is that the workers have control of the means of production, and they are represented fairly and evenly. Marx personally advocated for a direct democracy that would transition into communism, but all these other systems were non-marxist, but socialist as well. They still held up class, and still wanted workers as a whole in charge of the MoP. " As I said, this has been the definition since day 1. The first socialists used this definition, and the modern socialists will to. I will not claim every foray or attempt at socialism has been perfect, because that just hasn't been true, but the systems you pointed out are objectively not socialist. Even as they were rising to power, they faced heavy criticism from socialists who chided them for not actually, you know, sticking to the plan. The USSR especially came under heavy fire from socialists during the era of the NEP, which Lenin had to go out of his way to explain was not socialist. You're not claiming these places are socialist by any definition, but simply by the fact that you assume they are.
This is reality. You can't claim a country that didn't follow the definition of socialism was socialist, and you can't pretend a nearly 250 year old definition is somehow new. Look, I know you want to strawman arguments and act like a petulant child while doing so, but when you present arguments and statements like you just did, you actually need to substantiate them with more than just your word. We're using real words, with real definitions, and if said definitions don't fit, then they just don't, and we either create a new, more accurate term, or find a better one. I'll close this off by asking the same thing I did last time. If you want to assert that these countries were socialist, and that their imperialism was socialist-exclusive, find me a socialist that fundamentally defined socialist theory and was able to change and adapt it, and find me quotation of there's that defines socialism in a way as to encompass the regimes you pointed out above, and in a way to justify the actions of said regimes. I'll be waiting. Peace.
1
-
It's amazing the lack of self awareness you have. You know that when you actually take two minutes to define your terms, your entire point falls apart, right? And that your fallacious excuses don't actually work when even a second of thought is put into them? Your first point is absolute tripe. I say "that isn't land reform" and you don't address that at all, you just say "but why did socialists do x?" And you're wrong on that as well. For one, you say every socialist movement. And I have to let you know, again, that that just isn't at all accurate. The American abolition movement was driven, and supported by socialists and communists, like Alexander Schimmelfennig, August Willich, Charles Dana, or Horace Greeley. Even Marx endorsed Lincoln. Similarly, the civil rights movement itself was filled with socialist figures, like MLK Jr and communists like Malcolm X. There are literally hundreds of "socialist movements" in art, science, labor, politics, ect that in no way ended with genocide, or land stealing, or murder. You know what movements can much more easily be tied to those actions? Again, early capitalism, colonialism, mercantilism, imperialism. You know, the political ideologies that conquered half the world, starved tens if not hundreds of millions, subjugated entire peoples to slavery and torture at the hands of outsiders? The ideology that had children's hands being cut off in the Congo, had the british declaring war on peaceful tribes, the system that literally led to WW1? The ideology that promoted the ideas of social darwinism and the "civilized" white countries having to invade other countries and show off their superiority "for their own good," an idea hitler himself would latch on to? The crimes you listed are all horrible and should be called out, undeniably, but the simple fact is that the idea of capitalist imperialism has literally been going on for so long, and to such a detriment to the world, that there is no way to call out all the bad things that have happened as a result of it. How many wars, famines, dictators, genocides, slaves could have been avoided and never put into place if european countries had not decided one day that they would sail half way around the world and enslave an entire native race. The thing is, you never actually defined why it was land reform. And you never proved it was exclusively socialist, on the contrary there have been hundreds of anti-colonialist socialist movements since the beginning. So now, I could just as well say that those countries were capitalist, or acting in a capitalistic manner, as we have over 300 years of evidence that capitalistic systems do all that you mentioned with other countries and people, and more. So maybe next time actually try on your points. Speaking of that, your only other "point." Whenever people try to make fun of the "not real socialism" thing, I always ask them to define socialism. Usually, they can't. They just assume that the countries they're talking about are socialist because it was drilled into their heads over and over, and that anyone who dare question that must be a socialist themself. Hate to break it to you, but I am not. To copy paste my definition of socialism from another response - "Socialism is when the workers, as a whole, own the means of production. This can be done through a state that is representative of the workers desires, (as in Democratic/Republic) it can be done through community management, it can be done through a direct democracy, it can be done through workplace democracy, it can be done without a state at all. The key is that the workers have control of the means of production, and they are represented fairly and evenly. Marx personally advocated for a direct democracy that would transition into communism, but all these other systems were non-marxist, but socialist as well. They still held up class, and still wanted workers as a whole in charge of the MoP. " This is how socialism has been defined since day 1. Did any of the countries you just mention have that, or any of those examples, as their systems? No? Thought not. You see, that's the problem. People will always call those countries socialist, but as they cannot ever define socialism, it's a worthless endeavor. No, those countries were not socialist, and yelling about how you don't know what socialism is doesn't change those. It's boring, it's dumb, and it's a lie. If you want to assert that these countries were socialist, and that their imperialism was socialist-exclusive, find me a socialist that fundamentally defined socialist theory and was able to change and adapt it, and find me quotation of theres that defines socialism in a way as to encompass the regimes you pointed out above, and in a way to justify the actions of said regimes. I'll be waiting. Because if you can't? Well then you are just asserting random nonsense without evidence, which is typical, but sadly doesn't work for actual debates. Can't wait to see what you come up with.
1
-
@theoldsaxon6484 Sure.
Socialism is when the workers, as a whole, own the means of production. This can be done through a state that is representative of the workers desires, (as in Democratic/Republic) it can be done through community management, it can be done through a direct democracy, it can be done through workplace democracy, it can be done without a state at all. The key is that the workers have control of the means of production, and they are represented fairly and evenly. Marx personally advocated for a direct democracy that would transition into communism, but all these other systems were non-marxist, but socialist as well. They still held up class, and still wanted workers as a whole in charge of the MoP. Hitler was not just against Marxist socialism, but all socialism, because it disagreed with his "National Socialism" in nearly every way. Hitler, on the other hand, define socialism entirely differently, and i'll use a few quotes of his to show that.
"...socialism is inseparable from nationalism."
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. "
and one more
"As National Socialists, our hearts are full with admiration and respect for the great achievements of the past, not only in our own people but also far beyond. We are happy to belong to an European cultural community that has so tremendously embossed today's world with a stamp of its mind. Bolshevism rejects this cultural achievement of mankind, claiming that has found the beginning of the real cultural and human history in the year of birth of Marxism. We, National Socialists, do not want to be of the same opinion as our church organizations in this or that organizational question. But we never want a lack of belief in religion or any faith, and do not wish that our churches become club-houses or cinemas. Bolshevism teaches the godlessness and acts accordingly. We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest Agrarian State in the world. It would be unthinkable to transfer such a catastrophe into Germany, because, at the end of the day, in Russia there are 10 city dwellers for every 90 country dwellers, but in Germany for only 25 farmers there are 75 city dwellers."
strength
Let's start simple. You are walking late in an alley one night, and see a dead man, bullet hole in his chest, slumped over the ground. You see no one around, and no evidence of what happened. Was what happened... bad? Was it a murder? Well it seems possible, but here's the point. That shooting could have been done for any reason. This man could have resisted getting robbed and got shot. He could have resisted getting arrested and got shot. He could have been attacking, or defending himself This could be a serial killer on the loose, or he could have been the serial killer. You see the issue? The action of shooting this man and leaving him dead is the same in each scenario, but the reasons they were doing it, and the context of their actions, determine if this was self defense, a murder, planned, random, ect. Now, to relate this. Essentially, the nazis were the shooters. Yes, they had some socialistic sounding plans on their 25 point plan. (most of which were never implemented) But I have to ask you... what makes them socialist? If socialist policies are policies that aim to bring about a system where workers are in control of the means of production, then hitler never really put into place any socialist policies. Let's put this into perspective. Let's say hitler nationalizes one industry, and a socialist nationalizes one industry. Hitler keeps it under the control of the state, or sells it to a private market as an incentive to keep up his war time economy. A socialist gives it to a community, or sets up a council/union to control it, or just tells the workers to manage it democratically. You see the difference? Same action, with different motivations and goals. This works for other ideologies as well. Both early america and fascist countries like the FSA instituted heavy reform to put religion in a place of power in society. However, one did so to exercise their religious freedom, and the other did so to crush that same freedom in others. Another example, Marx supported the ability and right for everyone to own a firearm, and didn't want the government taking those guns away, because he wanted the workers to be prepared for a revolution/self defense against the government. The american republican party supports gun rights as well, but they do so for entirely different reasons. Does that mean Marx supported a right wing policy, or that the republicans support a communist one? No, because some actions and policies will fit into different areas of the political compass depending on the intent. And, as we can see from hitler's quotes, he did not have socialist intent. I know this is probably way more than you asked for, but I think it's worth pointing out how things we traditionally view as left wing/socialist policies like nationalizing businesses can be both not supported by socialists (like stateless/libertarian socialists, eg Proudhon, ect) and can be supported by non-socialists (like the nazis, or if you don't like that example, then plenty of monarchist movements across history.) In other words, policies are socialist if they are done with socialist intent, intent that (from hitler's definition of his ideology) we can see he did not have. Thank you for your time.
1
-
@sorsocksfake Yeah, the party name. Which is why buffalo wings come from real buffalo, right? And why you should always believe dictators infamous for lying when they tell you something, right?
For one, yes, Hitler rejected communism, wholly. He also rejected Marxism. However, there's one small problem with that. Hitler accused Marx of re-defining socialism, which meant that thus, all "modern" socialism was defined by Marx. That basically means that he called all socialism Marxism, even when that socialism predates Marx, or even when that socialism opposes Marx, while he was still alive. There is one type of socialism he didn't reject, however, and that was "Prussian Socialism." Prussian socialism was an economic theory, that got it's name not from other types of socialism, but from the idea of the term "social" meaning an in-group. It was created by a man named Oswald Spengler, who defined it as a system in which "local corporate bodies organized according to the importance of each occupation to the people as a whole; higher representation in stages up to a supreme council of the state; mandates revocable at any time; no organized parties, no professional politicians, no periodic elections." In other words, nothing to do with socialism. In fact, he called all previous forms of socialism "Capitalism of the working class," and despised the idea that the rich should even give to the poor. If you'd like to read more, you can skim the wiki page here, or even read the book it references, as it's quite interesting. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus) In other words, Prussian Sociaism, and the National Socialism it inspired, had nothing to do with left wing socialism, and it aligned far more with the revolutionary reactionaries than the left.
As for your next statement, I have to say something really quick. Just, think about it. If socialists almost universally, both then and now, called a system not socialist... then why do you say it is? Socialism is when the workers own the means of production as a whole, and if a country didn't have that, it isn't socialism. Simple as that.
And if you're really basing your understanding of political history on a decades old comedy sketch? The thing is, socialists tend to agree on the basics. That's what makes them socialists. They disagree on the finer details, and the processes, but they have a common goal, if different methodologies. The nazis did not share those goals, and those basics. The nazis actively campaigned against those things, like in their film Erbkrank. There's a reason that even the socialists back in the times of the nazis, even the socialists who found themselves in the nazi's party, knew the nazis were not socialists. Hell, one of the old nazi leaders wrote an article on why the socialists were leaving the party, before he was assassinated. Socialists leaving a party and leaving others behind doesn't really make it sound like that's a socialist party, right? It never really was, there was a mild left wing faction, but they were all purged in the night of the long knives. In other words, just treat history with some nuance. You learn a whole lot.
1
-
I got it from, you know, reality. Might want to take a dip in it one day. The nazis literally cut hundreds of types of social services from their "undesirables," to which they were wholly exempt from. It is in no way an expansion of them when you "expand" the service to the tiny percentage of the population you've decided to let live.
And yeah, sorry, invading a country, committing genocide on it's population, and then taking over the land is in no way "land reform." Maybe to a nazi they could justify it that way, but it was annexation, it was theft, and it was war. And in that "reform" they in no way bettered the lives of their people. They killed millions of innocent civilians and left their surviving relatives to pave over their graves in a new land of industry. As you said even, they literally murdered their way across the country, burning and destroying the old leaders and population. That isn't land reform, that's warfare, genocide, expansionism, ect. That's not to count all of their other points which really didn't get fully, or even partially implemented.
And yeah, gonna have to disagree there. There are some examples of land reform made possible by, and with the backing of, socialists in places like America, with the the whole "40 Acres and a Mule" policy, that kicked off Reconstruction. You're comparing the actions of dictatorial figures with the ideology they claimed to follow, which is just silly. Also, let me remind you, you practically just described all of modern imperialism, colonialism, and merchantilism, so those actions are not at all "socialist" exclusive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MajorLeague "Nazism was a comprehensive ownership or control of German means of production/exchange by no later than 1938 by all accounts. It was unmistakable socialist political economy of a very deliberate and legalistic type. This is the only time that a fully developed economy chose a socialist method, moreover endured socialist 'reform'.
Any idea of NSDAP having had abandoned socialist elements is defined by enabling act and the national socialist revolution period 1933-1937 where German capitalist political economy was transformed to a structural socialist means of production."
By all accounts, except the fact that you can't actually link any accounts, and just repeat back the same propaganda to anyone who you can repeat it to. Mate, I'm not even joking, they directly address your lies in the paragraph above. The means of production were not owned by the people, they were not even owned by the state. There was no socialist economy, at all, and it was nowhere close to socialism at any point. You saying these things and them being true are not the same thing, kid. The nazis enabled capitalism and hated socialism, in all forms besides their own bastardized version... which wasn't socialist. The nazis did not have a structural socialist economy, at every time, and to take a page out of your book this is basic fact and beyond refutation.
You lied, after getting proven wrong, yet again. Screw off kid and leave the people who actually know how to think for themselves and use words they understand to their actual points, not your reductionist, revisionist, conspiracy garbage. The nazis were not socialists. Accept it, repeat it. Go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HarryPairatestes363
That's an old antisemetic conspiracy theory though, not so much reality. In reality, we can see pretty plainly that international industrialists were putting an absurd amount of effort into making sure they were able to work with Hitler, and making sure they could praise him whenever they got the chance. The few cases where there was overlap in support of international businessmen, like Ford supplying industry to both the nazis and the soviets, the intentions were plain to see - in that case specifically, (as well as many others) aligning with the nazis and supporting them based off of that, while opposing the soviets and hoping to destabilize them by giving their people a taste of capitalism. I hate to break it to you, but progressive "intellectuals" were the ones condemning these new ideological forays, while conservatives and capitalists made use of them or supported them directly. I know you're attempting to deflect outwards your cultish adherence to falsification, but if you're going to try to clarify things based on historical evidence, try being backed up by historical evidence next time. While you're right that many workers did support the nazis, it was only through early private involvement by businesses (big and small) as well as the conspiring of the dominant conservative parties that they were allowed to seize power. But you are right in that the dominant viewpoint of the time, and one that stuck around for a while in capitalist ideologues, is that nazism was not ideal, but was certainly a useful tool against the spread of socialism. The big business support started before the nazi party even came into power, and would continue well into the war. These businesses were well aware that the nazi rearmament mission was a very profitable one, and that the nazi party was very willing for them to contribute to it, and reap a part of the reward. You can call this "not fully embracing capitalism," but if they're running around with some of history's most famous capitalists, enabling private business and creating a system that results in the exact same actions, power hierarchies and economic policies as other anti-socialist ideologies, I struggle to see how you can call it anything besides exactly that, anti-socialist in form, function and intent. Despite condemning international capitalism, he didn't seem to have all that much of an issue with the processes of capitalism, or international capitalists themselves - he just wanted them on his side. It's hard to call that opposition so much as a desire to influence, a defense of capital in the attack of all who would use it to hurt him, or his "Cause."
1
-
@sonsvensson2652
Oh I don't disagree that life became more complicated for the average businessman. However, it's impossible to deny that much of this "complication" was explicitly due to the participation of private business in the first place, and the organizations the nazis set up to elevate certain private business owners in order to subvert the remnants of unionism. The "control" in this case was explicitly for the betterment of private business, and most often happened with their approval or initiation. Competing around a central giving figure is, again, simply how private businesses often work.
As for the role of international business, I think you're forgetting the key aspect of the nazi's rule, that being that they'd do pretty much anything to protect or grow "the nation," whatever they were defining it as at the time. So while they absolutely attempted to dissuade economic decisions that would bolster international or Ally-connected companies to the detriment of their own, they were absolutely willing to engage non-german companies if it was an overall benefit to their efforts, especially in war. They might not have dictated all that much, but the huge role they played is undeniable. The holocaust would not have been possible at the scale it happened without IBM, the german war machine as well as several state projects would not have been possible without Ford and General Motors, the third largest oil refinery in the nation that provided absurd amount of useful resources for the nazis was built by Fred Koch, and so on. Sure, they might not have been the leading force in the country, but their influence on the war was more than notable.
And this is another case of economic misunderstandings. Yes, the economy benefited under the nazis (primarily due to looting from the jewish/other countries and wartime job creation) but the people did not generally benefit. The overall quality of life for the average german citizen barely raised even as the rest of the world was climbing out of the depression, and this isn't even mentioning the millions killed outright or sent off to die in war. Sure, “economic output” increased.. because they were heading into a war and purposefully cutting off much of the country’s economic intake. However, if the only increase in profit was from the general increase in economic growth at the time, your claim as to the supposed losses of business owners at the time would still make no sense. Also, I think you have my arguments mixed up. You can certainly argue over the role that private business had in the rise of Hitler and in shaping his party’s appeal, but this is not that conversation, I am not talking about business “controlling” the party. I’m simply pointing out that the party made itself a readily available resource for business to tap into, and part of that arrangement was the nazi party giving more authority and political presence to the companies in question. These businesses may have had a degree of control over some parts of nazi economic policy, but outside of pure economics they were merely complicit.
1
-
@sonsvensson2652
I'm sorry, at this point it just appears you need to genuinely study economics, as the problem lies in your ability to accurately observe and categorize pretty basic economic phenomenon. If the state goes to a private business with a contract proposal, that business is private and that contract is functionally no different than one given by any other person. The process is entirely identical. Even if the owner was themselves a contributor to the party, the actual actions remain entirely the same.
Perhaps more jarringly, you claim that this exchange represents "regulation," when in reality, again, this is simply the nature of private business, taking contracts and adhering to the specifications of them. The "they" who is doing the deciding in this scenario was quite plainly the business owners, who openly bid over the mere opportunity to fulfill nazi contracts. I must ask though, are you referencing the flight tax, the one literally just put in place to dissuade businesses from leaving, like every other country was doing at the time? And no matter what you'd like to claim, it's also a simple fact that the business owning class of germany at the time made more money than they were making before hitler's rise, in no small part due to the repression of unions and the property of jewish citizens that they were granted as bribes. They were not "losing 80-90 percent" of profit through their own regulation, they were making money. Again, if your claims were true, why would any foreign businesses at all support the nazis, not to mention the large amount that actually did? If merely working in Nazi germany lost you 90% of your income, you'd think they wouldn't be chomping at the bit to work with the nazi party.
I'm sorry, it's quite plain to see. Businessmen from all over the world were so excited to work for the nazis for the reason that, like it or not, the nazis were generally good for business, and the nazi state was an incredibly effective tool for private businesses to siphon profit out of. If it were merely a case of the state using business for national interest, you'd think there wouldn't be so many damn international interests working with the state, right?
1
-
@sonsvensson2652
I think you have your chicken and egg reversed here. Yes, private business had close ties with government, but not because they went in and replaced all the private owners with government employees. Why bother when it was so much easier and more convenient to just bribe the existing private owners and only interfere when absolutely necessary? High ranking government positions were given to private owners, not the other way around. The "government" that controlled private business was one that was either made up of or supported by the businesses in question. Compared to the amount of companies active in nazi germany at the time, the number of instances in which the party had to make good on their threats is miniscule. If I as a private owner am given more authority over my business than before, with the tradeoff of more bureaucracy to wade through, exactly how am I any less private as a result? Unmanifested threats don't magically make the same processes belong to an entirely new system. Private businesses, in the vast majority of cases, "Regulated" themselves, because even the nazis knew that the carrot is far cheaper than the stick.
Like it or not, the actual functioning of businesses within germany did not fundamentally change after the nazi's rise to power. Most often, the same people used the same processes to make the same (or more) money. The few cases in which this didn't happen were reflected in nearly every country active in the war at the time, with the notable deviation of the treatment of the nazi state's enemies, which business leaders were generally not included among.
1
-
@sonsvensson2652
In other words, a concept that has nothing to do with the economic definition of socialization, and nothing to do with socialism. It’s a term literally synonymous with “national unity” and to a lesser extent “total war.” I’m not sure if you’re aware but neither of these things are socialism. Socialism, if you aren't aware, is not a philosophical notion on the meaning of nations, nor is it an ethical argument on the purposes of society. It is an economic ideology, not some vague "collective ideal" of the "totalitarian socialized man." Socialism isn't "when people have a common goal" or "when socialization happens with a certain goal in mind." Broadening the term to include such nonsense is simply the sign of semantic failure.
However, the idea that private businesses were stripped of free will is, of course, false. Hitler had praised their initiative many times of course, in public and private, and balked at the idea of potentially cutting off said private initiative. Sure, in public he made all these grandiose claims, and yet we can see in policy he very rarely acted on these threats, hence so many in international business working with them with no coerced incentive to do so. As for their control, you’ll notice that almost all of these "regulations" were either put in place at the recommendation of business owner administrations and organizations, or that they were near identical to other programs put in place in other nations. The "nazi party" telling the business owners what to do was literally the business owners themselves. Private business not only existed, but with ties that directly to the government, it often flourished. The idea that they were completely subjugated to the state is false, as stated previously the state worked more through positive incentives than negative, but you would think that if your assertion was the case, there would be a lot more hesitancy to work with the nazis from abroad, correct? In any case, I hate to break it to you but "the creation of the Office for Central Planning" did not " completely [crush] the idea of private initiative within the Reich." It literally just directed it. Now I hate to be the one to bring this to your attention, but you are aware that the majority of the plans of the Reich revolved around contracts, bidding and private companies, right? Or did you hear "central planning" and just assume that meant the state seized control of everything? I hate to say it but the state providing a monetary incentive for business to work with it doesn't make said businesses totalitarian drones. Adhering to monetary incentive is what private business does, after all.
1
-
@sonsvensson2652
I'm sorry, that just isn't true. To list just a few examples, the AP (along with most of american media, including huge swathes of holywood at the time) coordinated with nazi censors, Baccarat (french company) produced propaganda for the nazis, Chase bank both helped the nazis access hundreds of bank accounts of jewish victims and sold nazi war bonds to Americans, IBM contributed immensely to the efficiency of the holocaust, the SNCF transported thousands of jewish refugees to nazi camps, General Motors contributed directly to the german's war efficiency, a war that wouldn't have been possible without help from figures like Koch Sr who pitched and created oil processing plants that produced a massive percentage of the army's effective resources. The list goes on and on, and it isn't even mentioning the companies with international spread that were based in germany and still chose to help. I'm sure Ford lost some money, but in all of these cases, companies did this because they knew the nazis would respect them and give them a profit. In the majority of these cases, companies only pulled away when other governments threatened to blacklist them for working with the nazis. I'm sorry but Ford was far from the worst case. The chemicals that made the holocaust possible were manufactured in private plants. This amount of willing participation cannot be ignored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonathanwilliams1065 '
Oh god, that's hilarious. Your conspiracy theory has gotten to the point that you're asserting that the actual primary owners of private capital are secretly socialists, and they enact this secret socialism by... participating in capitalism. Hm, I wonder if there's anyone else who asserted that international wealthy bankers were a part of a secret leftist conspiracy to crush the rightful heads of industry?
Oh but I already have. Again, even ignoring the capitalists he appealed to before the war, the capitalists he appealed to during the war, the conservatives that got the nazis elected and the right wingers that accepted nazis into government to fight the soviets afterwards, the nazis only ever rose to power through the west's policy of appeasement, all the while their ideology was being praised by figures such as Churchill. The Nazi-Soviet alliance, again, was painfully temporary and both parties were well aware of the fact that they were only participating with hopes to screw the other one over worse. Of course, even this would be impossible without things like the Munich Pact, which capitalist countries granted the nazi government. The soviets and the nazis, no matter the circumstances, would not have ever attempted or managed to create a stable, long term alliance. Capitalists, on the other hand, were there with hitler since the beginning, all the way to the end.
1
-
1
-
@jonathanwilliams1065
Bud I hate to break it to you but the M-R pact was one alliance, of which the nazis had previously created with capitalist countries, even ignoring their informal alliance through purposeful inaction.
They were not "fighting allies," they were literally just promising to not fight eachother for that small amount of time, with each fully aware of the temporary and opportunistic nature of the alliance. The nazis, in this one case, "sided with" the USSR, not against the capitalists, but because it gave them the time and opportunities to beat the USSR later. Saying "against the capitalists" here makes no sense. Meanwhile, the nazis in their own country purged the socialist and communist parties while absorbing the conservative ones, and even before their election to throughout the entire war, they maintained and sought out support from capitalists, who happily gave it. Do you really think that some of the biggest american industrialists of the era were secret socialists? So, no. While the nazis were happy to create extremely temporary alliances with ideological enemies that they always planned on doing away with, the historical trend simply shows that they sided with the capitalists against the socialists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@endloesung_der_braunen_frage
It would certainly be useful to this conversation if you stopped repeating arguments that I've already explicitly addressed.
Strasserism was a far more socialistic ideology, but it still contained people with views counter to socialism. In any case, those who did not hold those views of the ideology did not believe it was exclusive in the same way, just that germany had a right to expand and preserve tradition.
Again, we've been over this more times than I can count. A racist socialist is a person with individual bigotry. "Racial Socialism" is a oxymoronic phrase.
We've been over this. If everyone but one race was removed from society, totally, than yes, that society could still implement socialism. However, a) the act of removing those people would be an anti-socialist policy, and b) it would still not be socialism for one race given that it only applies "to one race" by circumstance, not ideology.
Again, if there was a world of only one race, than you could have socialism, but it wouldn't be racial since there would be no other races to compare to or exclude, and the act itself of removing these people from society, and from life, would be against all socialism. You can't have a group that tries to exterminate everyone and then set up a supposedly "socialist" system with what's left, given that the former policy isn't socialist, and the latter wouldn't make sense if it was still "racial." So no, even in such a world, "racial socialism" would still not be possible, as socialism existing only for one group is not due to ideological exclusion, but circumstantial context. Also, I never said "If a Nation Happens to be homogenous, which IT would in this Case, than Socialism would be ethnic or folkish," I said that socialists could only create a system that is socialism "for one race" if there's only one race there, naturally. That socialism wouldn't be "ethnic or folkish," because there's no ethnicities to compare against.
"Persecution" and total extermination are vastly, vastly different things. And though the soviets may have ideologically strived towards socialism, and had policy in places that could certainly be called socialistic, ultimately a combination of outside pressure and corrupt politicians forced them away from the full realization of this goal. That's their exclusion, bud, and it was specifically where they failed socialism the most.. And I hate to break it to you but "inclusion" is referencing social ownership, not party affiliation.
1
-
@destubae3271
That is quite literally attempting to redefine society. In any case, they very clearly did see a place for jewish people in their society - that is, as an oppressed downtrodden group, which would be segregated, used for slave labor, and eventually fully exterminated. Are you seriously attempting to assert that viewing them as the lowest class of society means excluding them from society altogether? Please stop lying to apologize for the nazis, the means of production were not owned by "Aryan society as a whole," they were owned by private owners with the support of a hostile state that didn't care about the people beyond placation. There is no historical basis for the assertion of "Central planning."
Again, the "who" who says is the literal definition.
I've literally already covered this. Society doesn't end at citizenship, and society further isn't something that you can rhetorically define someone out of. "Where does it say socialism can't occur in an state that kicks people out or doesn't recognize them as part of it?" The literal definition of socialism, as kicking people out or purposefully excluding them itself would be an anti-socialist policy.
The definition of socialism - "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Yes, there are "various" ways of organizing this system, but none of them are "racial," as said "Race socialism" would have to exist in a society that was already entirely naturally homogenous, with no need for border control or repression efforts. Anything else would be excluding people, and therefore would not be representative of "the community as a whole." As discussed previously, there can be racist socialists, but racial socialism is oxymoronic.
And I hate to break it to you but one of the most common criticisms of the soviet union is precisely that they didn't actively eliminate class differences, and that the bourgeoisie continued to exist in everything but name. But hey, you've already shown yourself to be willing to ignore history.
=
1
-
1
-
@endloesung_der_braunen_frage
Then you should probably try to keep up. If you were an extreme racist, and a socialist at the same time, than you would have to be advocating for socialism despite your potentially racist views. Literally, listen to your definition. The means of production being owned by the society as a whole. "The Society" isn't just something you can redefine at will, and it doesn't just include one race. So no, that isn't socialism on race, or "racial socialism." You also don't seem to understand that the fact that not all socialism is marxist doesn't mean it doesn't all focus on class - you don't need to be a marxist to focus on class, and class collaborationist socialism is impossible.
But that policy wouldn't be socialist. Removing others from society by its very definition means restricting their access to ownership of the means of production, so making the effort to remove them by definition means you cannot be a socialist. It would still have classes as well, there's no such thing as a "class in a racial sense." This is why I said that you cannot have a one-race socialist society unless that race is literally naturally the only group to exist there. No other group being tolerated means you aren't socialist.
The state wouldn't be racial and socialist, it would just be racial, as it doesn't follow any actual definition of socialism. Restricting socialism to one race is impossible.
That makes literally no sense. You cannot be "egalitarian for one group," that's the opposite of egalitarian. That's like saying you're in favor for equality, but only equality of the super-rich, you aren't in favor of equality, by definition. You cannot be egalitarian for one ethnic group. Marxism is egalitarian in terms of the working class because it doesn't seek to remove the owning class from society through violence or exclusion, but to tear down the class barriers and welcome the owners into the workers. That isn't violent, nor is it discriminatory. Again, "ethnic socialism" isn't a thing, and the fact that socialism wants to remove class differences is not at all comparable with physically removing people. They weren't socialist.
Because their policies were based primarily around forcing the old bourgeois class to join the working class, seizing their property and forcing them to work on it just the same as the people they used to employ. They weren't exterminated, nor were they forced to leave, as class identity can be easily given up and changed, while racial identity, especially in the eyes of racists, is unable to change, and thus you'd have to get rid of the people themselves, which is an anti-socialist policy. There is no such thing as socialism that restricts itself to race, nor is there racial socialism.
Also, this argument is batshit.
How did you even think this made sense?
Yeah, I stand by that quote. It's a fact that any Form of Ideology which attempts to artificially restrict Access/ownership of the means of production to a specific group or race, by Definition, cannot be Socialist.
I hate to break it to you, but socialists don't want to restrict others from working or owning because they're not working class. They want everyone to join the working class. They aren't restricting access to the means of production at all, Marxist thought specifically calls for an ending of class barriers, which would mean everyone is in the same class. You cannot be described as "restricting" something if you're "restricting" it so that only... everyone... can access it. Your nonsense statements about "nothing is socialist" make equally little sense, socialism isn't based on "Group identity," it's literally based on the removal of that identity. That's why, again, christian socialists don't argue for christian-only socialism, socialists want to abolish class not create more classes. There is no such thing as racial socialism. Socialists don't "discriminate against" other classes, they disolve them. Class, further, is not a stand in for racial, religious, or national groups, it's a purely economic classification. Socialism doesn't seek to "uplift its favored class," it seeks to include everyone in that same "class" and uplift them all. You literally don't understand the foundational definition of socialism. The very fact that you think that literally everyone counts as a "group" and is therefore not socialist just proves how little you're thinking about this. Who are they excluding, if everyone is in the same class group, the very thing socialists advocate for?
You've somehow managed to take the fact that socialists want to dissolve class barriers, and turned it into "socialists hate other classes."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eb3674 lol trying to insult me by pointing out that I actually do the work
thanks for admitting that I proved you wrong, and that you're incapable of doing the same.
Sorry that I, unlike you, am capable of directly addressing the responses from my opponents, and I'm sorry that you seem to think of eloquence or descriptive ability as being a fault. My responses was far from "irrelevant nonsense," it was directly proving you wrong, which is likely why it angers you so much, since you know you're incapable of substantive response when you're cornered. I know you didn't bother reading it, because as you yourself has admitted, you lost this argument long ago, and are now just attempting to cope with deflection. Yes, child, I bothered to read your response and provide something of value in response to it. It's funny how you get all high and mighty, claim you've disproven me, and then openly admit that you have no interest in actually reading my comments, and look down on proper debate. Child, you can't claim I'm ignorant and then proudly admit to your own ignorance. Stop projecting. I know, child, you're going to keep typing the same thing, you're going to keep saying "you're wrong!" and I'm going to keep proving that false. You are well aware of the fact that you're wrong, and that I'm right, the problem lies in your inability to admit this, hence your deflection. When have you proved that I'm wrong? Never, as even you admit. Child, I don't need to "Try" to win an argument, I already have. I don't think I'm always right, I'm more than open to being corrected, but again, you've provided me no reason to change my views, given your constant deflection. Child, I'm simply calling you what you are. At least you admit to your constant projection and deflection. No, child, I don't care about your nonsense, hence easily refuting all of your deflections and calling them out by name. What nonsense? You claim to want to "Rub my nonsense in my face," but when pressed, you admit you haven't even read my comments, what nonsense can you see without reading? Interesting how you have nothing but personal insults, hm?
1
-
@eb3674
But you're not. You're not backing anything up, you're just saying it over and over again, as even you have admitted. I know you're not going to listen to my arguments, because you're not here for logical debate, you're here to get the last word. I've clearly shown that you have no idea of the simplest understanding of this topic, hence, me calling you a child. You can feel free to fire back with whatever you want, but like all of my statements, I've actually backed mine up. You don't have something besides an annoying stubbornness to actually commit to debate rather than random assertions. If you're trying to imply that you're in some way correct just because I keep trying to correct your nonsense, you really have even less understanding of this subject than I thought. You continually try to project my own statements of you back onto me, and yet you're similarly unwilling and unable to commit to attempting to prove them. Child, what ignorance? I've plainly schooled you on this subject. No, child, I don't "always think I gotta be right," I do my research and find the most likely and well-supported answer, and change my mind when opposing argumentation and evidence is presented. You have given me neither of these things, nor have you responded to me giving you these things, and thus I have no reason to change my mind. The only thing you've continually denied so far has been history. I have already "won" this argument, hence you backing out and refusing to debate the actual point. Child, I don't care about your nonsense, I care about educating you in such a manner that you, as an individual, can admit when you're wrong. Sorry, "prove me wrong?" "Prove me wrong?" Child, you really are just copy-pasting my responses. At no point, ever, have you proved me wrong. You've barely even responded to my point, and when you do, you openly admit that you have no idea what my arguments actually are. And now you're denying that, and attempting to claim that despite me plainly destroying your denialist assertions, it was somehow you who proved me wrong? Go ahead, child, keep replying, and I'll keep proving you wrong. I've already proven you to be a proud liar, and in your own words, you don't care about that, in fact, you take pride in it. You, unlike I, are a liar. Why would I care about your denialist assertions? Child, that's why I shut them down as quick as possible and am now backing you into the corner of your own ignorance. What about me continually and easily proving you wrong proves I care somehow? And yes, I actually like to respond to people who respond to me. I know you're unable to do that, but you should stop projecting your lack of life and logic onto me.
1
-
@eb3674
I would recommend you stop projecting. I point out that I've proved you wrong, not because I must always be right, but because I quite literally proved you wrong and you have no rebuttals. I, unlike you, have no interest in launching random personal attacks, and child, you're the one that first replied to me, not the other way around. I correct you with factual information, that's hardly "irrelevant nonsense." Maybe it is to someone like you, that seems to despise the facts so much. Cope harder, dude. You've got nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eb3674
Then you should try listening. The upper 1% of hitler's reign not only stayed rich, but got wealthier under his reign, especially due to his wartime policy and resource contracts. That's why hitler was so in favor of private property, he saw the competition as yet another facet of social darwinism, the basis of his ideology. They weren't "used," they were a core part of his ideology and his advocacy. He needed power, and needed money, but what he did wasn't the easiest way to get those things, showing that it really ways a case of ideology. Again, maybe he wasn't a perfect libertarian capitalist, but he ideologically aligned with capitalists and conservatives far more than socialists or the left generally. As I said, he had no problem with national capitalism. Hitler's economy had a market with profit, trade, and competition, just like the rest. It would do you good to listen every once in a while. Capitalism can exclude political ideologies, that doesn't mean it always does, as I've said so many times. Yes, you said that in the beginning, and I corrected you instantly, you've since failed to respond as i've said so many times. As I keep saying, please just read.
1
-
@eb3674
He saw international capitalism as a part of his antisemetic conspiracy theories, but was more than happy with capitalism within the range of his own country. They literally endorsed large corporations and made them more wealthy, even large corporations from other countries and the leaders of said corporations. According to even your definition, he made money the same way the capitalists did. Hitler didn't want germans to be provided for by the regime, he wanted them to work and compete. The nazis were "anti-globalist," but were fine with trade if it benefitted their own nation. Hitler didn't just "use" private property, he actively endorsed private property and made it known that private property was integral to the manifestation of his ideology. You don't need to be born into a wealthy family to be a capitalist, and you don't need to be from a nation to be a nationalist for it, hence so many nationalists from countries that have nothing to do with the systems they're advocating for. Yes, he was a hypocrite and largely irrational, we've been over this. I've never said that capitalism needs a dictatorship, but capitalism absolutely encourages and excludes specific political ideologies, and a dictatorship is one it does not exclude. The fact that non-dictatorship capitalist countries exist doesn't mean that capitalist countries can't have dictatorships, or that the two systems aren't compatible, which would be simply historically false.
1
-
1
-
@DaniboyBR2 Capitalists hated the nazis, hm? Proof? First off, you call the nazis socialists, which we both know is objectively incorrect, and proves you have no backing. Your only evidence for this statement is... it was in the name. Do you also think that buffalo wings are made from real buffalo? Anyway, you know that it was literally a conservative capitalist that got hitler into power, right? If their appeasement towards corporations didn't work, then why was it capitalists who favored them the most? They didn't nationalize thousands of companies at all, they sold them to the private market, over and over and over again. Hell, it was capitalists like Ford and Koch, as well as companies like IBM, GE, GM, ect that went all the way across the ocean to make deals with, and work with the nazis. So despite the nazis apparently being socialists, it was the capitalists who admired and worked with them, while the socialists were thrown into death camps.
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue You realize that no matter how much you want to insult me, it was still conservatives in that pen, right? Far left nazi is an oxymoron, we've been over this, and anything else is a conspiracy theory. Which you seem to love to believe in. And I know you did not ask about any other video, but want to know something funny? The nazis wanted all socialists to leave their country as well. You (right wing, like the nazis) continue to repeat nazi talking points with each new post. So if you hate nazis so much, practice what you preach and call out the far-right fascists. Oh, and you're using the internet, right? The internet, that was made by the government, not the free market? Now that's real irony. I'm not a socialist, child. But keep lying. It's what nazis are best at, right?
1
-
@mcbarberblue Huh. You know, the funny part about that is that it just isn't true. If you want to fool yourself into thinking it is true, I would recommend that you provide actual citation, and not just your word. And i'm looking at your hypocrisy right now, and i'm sorry to say it's an ugly beast. I quoted hitler, and yes, it is important to listen to what he was saying. However, instead of quoting him, you've decided to assert something without proof, and then pretend as if you're right. So, he didn't want socialist in the party name, but once more, it's important to actually listen to what he said. For example, this line: ""'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the * who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. Or perhaps this one. "We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." Why do I ask you listen to these? Because it proves that when hitler said "socialist," he wasn't talking about the same system you and I are. But thank you for proving that you've not studied this subject once in your life. So, let's answer your question - do we listen to him, or do we ignore his word? Well, unlike you, we can't cherry pick lines to push an agenda, we actually have to listen to his whole position, not just the points you like. You seem awfully confident for a guy that just proudly displayed their own ignorance. So yes, I destroyed you. Oh, and I can't hate benny-boy, he's too funny. The only debates he's ever won are against college students, when he comes in front of a professional he turns into a bit of a "wet-ass P-word." 😂 You remember when he said that people should just sell their flooded homes? Or that time he lost an interview? HE's a joke, and he's proof that the right is so fundamentally stupid they just assume anyone who talks fast is smart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue Look, I get it, you want to pretend to have some sort of superiority in this conversation, but as I was replying to TIK and I have already given him this info, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. If you, on the other hand, wanted me to elaborate all you had to do was ask. Let's go though my examples.
First off, ideological influences/roots. The nazis, and fascists in general, were most influenced by the following figures - Spengler, Evola, and to a smaller extent Darwin and Carl Schmitt. First off, Spengler invented the idea of "Prussian Socialism." It was an ideology he was adamant had nothing to to do with any other socialism's, but he only devised the name from the same root word. This prussian socialism was nationalistic, corporatistic, in favor of private property as long as it benefited the state. Sound familiar? It wasn't quite fascism, it was a sort of proto-fascism, but it was nothing like socialism. Spengler was against labor strikes, trade unions, progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich, any shortening of the working day, as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment. Not very much socialism. He, however, did share the same idea that his socialism was an ancient german tradition of sorts, that Marx had stolen. He also wrote extensively on the supposed collapse of western civilization, which heavily influenced the rise of fascism, and personally supported Mussolini. As for Evola, he was also heavily involved with the italian fascist party, considered himself a "super fascist" (I have no idea, his words not mine) but more importantly he was the largely the creator of traditionalism, a social policy that was very similar to the nazi's later sort of german mythos, something he sort of acted as a foreword to. He wasn't as much a fan of the fascist forces as they manifested, he wanted them to be far more reactionary and mystical, but he certainly did count himself among their ranks. As for Darwin, he himself did little to benefit the fascist movement, but Social Darwinism, which was largely pushed by reactionaries at the time, was a cornerstone of Nazi society. They believed in a sort of enforced superiority, eugenics, which the spread of social darwinism had very much popularized. Finally, while Carl Schmitt wasn't as influential as the other figures or ideologies mentioned, his anti-democracy work in the years before the rise of the nazis was somewhat influential in the ranks, as well as useful for radicalizing many other germans. He remained an avid supporter of a new nazi state until he died, sometime in the 80's. While his ideas are somewhat less commonly talked about, regarding the use of democracy and state power you can see at the least he very much echoed nazi sentiments. All of the ideologies I mentioned, and all of the figures (save darwin) were right wing, conservative reactionary figures.
Now - associations. I'll try to keep this a bit quicker. Hitler only came into power due to the effort of Franz von Papen, a conservative figure in the government who saw hitler as a way to take power against the increasing popularity of socialism. While he would later be expelled form the party, he also served as hitler's first vice-chancellor, and helped to populate hitler's first cabinet, many of which would go on to have long careers in the party. One of the first economic advisors for Mussolini was Classical Liberal Alberto de Stefani. Mussolini and Hitler both would spend a large part of their later regimes trying to appeal to the religious conservative crowd, Mussolini most of all, although a previous fascist country had managed far better, the FSA. Speaking of the FSA, their fascist party (even before takeover) The Fatherland Front under Engelbert Dolfuss employed a certain man by the name of ludwig von mises. While he would flee later to american after the FF took full control over the country and Hitler began to reach his influences into the country, Mises still taught the same economics that were so popular under the FF, and would later say that while he wasn't a fascist, he viewed it as a necessary tool in the defense of western civilization, like the Spengler fellow, a sentiment that would be echoed in part by later ideological descendants of Mises, and in a way re-contextualized by figures like Hoppe, who shared many of the same bigotries, disdain for democracy, and desire for "physical removal" of those he deemed unfit to participate in society, from communists to gay people. Hitler himself often found himself allied with conservatives industrialists of the time who would go across the ocean to work with him, most notably Ford, who would write books on jewish people Hitler personally praised and was awarded with the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest honor a non-german could receive, and funnily enough Koch sr. The list goes on, as you can imagine.
As for policies, this one is rather simple - hitler opposed the right to collective bargaining, enriched the ruling classes of his time, and never came close to handing the workers the means of production. For a more in depth look at Hitler's betrayal of the "socialist" title, I recommend James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" for the rise in movements, both in capitalism and socialism, which only sought to take power and did so in betrayal of their principles and ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue No, he's just a wannabe dictator. Thought it doesn't surprise me that you listen to tim pool. Let me guess - Crowder? Sargon? Shapiro? Peterson? Oh, and I can "explain" that well enough. It isn't true. The FBI has found no connection between antifa and any of the riots or protests. You should have known that now. Those statues being up denies history, as it paints racists in a good light that they didn't actually deserve from their actions. The only ones who actually despise the history are those who want to keep up the statues that try to fool people into un-learning history. They want them up so they can continue to worship slave owners without their ideas being challenged. It's the right wing that loves to destroy history, as those statues and you yourself proves, because history makes them look bad. And by the way, that quote isn't even real. You just made it up because you don't like people taking a stand against your own fascism. That doesn't change the fact that even conservatives called churchill nazi-ish. Also, you really are a racist idiot, aren't you? Did you literally just say he was the best president in history?! We had presidents who freed slaves, defeated the nazis, gave America her independence. You guys really do hate this country, don'y you? He's probably one of the worst presidents ever. I've proven you wrong at every angle, and you cannot prove yourself right. Thanks for admitting I am objectively correct, champ.
1
-
@mcbarberblue yeah, not really bud. Is that all you have to say? That you respect a wannabe dictator as some sort of god? I did set the bar, with my first apology, and you continue to move lower and lower with your attempts at attacking me personally. You don't get to call me much of anything, not after what you said. If this is what right wing people are like, I should hang out with left wing people more. I know you're sick of my factual information, that's because common sense and extensive research doesn't mix with your rhetoric. I have given you quotes, citation, and factual information, and I would be happy to provide more, but you not longer care about reason or logic. What I give is not my opinion, but utter fact. Your "opinion" is a fabrication of history, and is thankfully not supported by anyone rational. I come here not to troll, but in hopes that brainwashed people like you can see the light, and stop pushing your false narratives. Hitler was right wing, which is why so many right wingers fly his flag and praise his name. I'm literally against the existence of a state, which proves exactly how silly you are. You are an authoritarian, and like authoritarians, you want to erase history, because it makes you look bad. You seem to not understand that no matter how much you cry and insult me, i've given you facts, and you've given me nothing. It's telling that you call it an "opinion," because this isn't about opinions. It's about objective fact. I am happy to be breaking down your false version of reality. The "orange man" has singlehandedly ushered in an era of far-right extremism, and has praised people who fly the swastika. Those are the people that you worship. I know you can't wait for 4 more years, because you really do want all of the people that disagree with you in prison. Sorry bud, but the only triggering happening here is you. People like me resist his authoritarianism and the cult he has created. People like you feed into it. Also, you know globalism is capitalism? And that globalism has been used as a right wing dogwhistle to mean jewish people? Wow. Real mask off moment. And plus, trump has been the primary backer of big corporate buisness, giving them massive bailouts and tax cuts. That's because he hates america, and doesn't want the people to have power.
Here's that quote of hitler saying he was right wing and hated the left again. Enjoy. :)
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
1
-
@mcbarberblue What are you even talking about? Now you're just ranting. No, sorry, trump is not a literal god. That's entirely stupid and doesn't make any sense. You keep trying to insult me to deflect from your argumentative failures. I'm pushing no agenda but the agenda of history. You, on the other hand, seem to despise history and will do anything to cover it up. No, i'm not an anti-semite, and I have no idea where that accusation came from, but it proves that you guys really do care about insults over definitions. After all, TIK is pushing the highly anti-semetic "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory that was used by the nazis to justify the arresting of jewish people, and he was corrected on this front by a jewish person... who he then called a nazi. Authoritarianism started on the right, with monarchism, and given your love for trump I don't think it ever left them. Do you even know what I want? What my ideology is? You claim i'm then stupidest person without a hint of self reflection relating to your own actions. I learned this all, through free thought. And only a brainwashed person thinks free thought is brainwashing. I don't hate jewish people at all, I have no idea where that came from. There are no "jedi mind tricks," im just correcting your idiocy, like it or not. I don't just read politics, I write them. And i'm not giving that up because a 13 year old online told me to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue No, just in historical circles. As in, the areas where those who care about history congregate. I spend my time in areas like this, arguing with people like you. In any case, as I told you before - I did not take any comment down. If it was taken down, that was most likely because youtube did so. I stand by the statements I made. There is no such thing as a left wing nazi, nor would the term even apply to me. If you care so much about the post that i can still see, feel free to post it again, or copy past it in your own words. Stop calling me far left trash, kid. You don't know what that means. Anyway, here's the evidence he's a felon. https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/dinesh-dsouza-pleads-guilty-illegal-campaign-contribution-106882 I never saw any response in which you asked for evidence, because if I did, I would have gladly given it up as I just did. Now all I see is that you, like the nazis, call all that you don't like far left and liars because you can't be bothered to converse with them civilly. I have, in this response, proven you wrong yet again. I am objectively correct. All you've done is prove to me that you know i'm right. You really are totally desperate to believe you are not what you claim to hate the most. So, if you want to post the thing that youtube took down, then go ahead, but youtube may flag it for the same reason it flagged mine. So child, if you want to keep talking, you should probably apologize for lying, insulting, and tainting this conversation with your outrageous, immature accusations.
1
-
@mcbarberblue The problem is that your view largely is uncommon, and for good reason. It isn't true. You're sitting here telling me that there is some sort of left-wing conspiracy in the education system, without proof, and then somehow telling me that this is good reason to not trust the objective facts these people have shown. You also don't seem to be actually reading my posts, because I never denied that I am right now in the middle of getting a professional education, I actually am, but that I never received any sort of education on the matter when I was younger, when it would normally first be taught. So yes, I did have to do quite a lot of my own research. As for me "not showing tolerance for a dyslexic person," I apologized the first time you told me, and then politely asked if you could just add in some more punctuation the second, to which you called me a nazi. The only lack of tolerance here right now is coming from you. I don't "attack" at all, i'm here correcting you because you have yet to actually present facts besides your own personal assertions. I don't care about morals here either, we're talking about facts, solid, objective, facts. I couldn't care less about being the victim, but you used your own dyslexia to call me a nazi, so I thought it was worth pointing out. Are you far left now? I was told to leave it alone, and in all fairness I should have, but I also had expected you to be as accommodating to my problems as I was to yours, which was clearly not the case. Sorry for assuming you would be a moral figure? I want you to believe that the nazis were right wing because it's objective fact, because they themselves said it, and because you can't prove otherwise. You asked me to trust a convicted felon and a propaganda youtube channel, and I asked you to listen to experts. You, and they, don't want to be associated with the nazis, so you make things up. You can't pretend everything you don't like is socialism.
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue Experts decide. Because they are experts.And experts are biased towards the truth. You don't seem to realize, you are pushing an euaqlly biased narrative, that hitler was left wing. The only difference is that those teachers and experts are biased towards the truth, you are biased against it. Universities teach facts, and if the facts "lean left" by saying a single bad person was right wing, then so be it. I am displaying facts, unlike you i've even given citation and quotes to prove that what I am saying is factual. Everything I have said so far is based in facts, and you seem to care so much abut researching for yourself, yet when I actually do it you call it "hypocrisy." I claimed, which is true, that when I was growing up i didn't have the chance to study WW2 and Hitler's ideology, so I studied myself. Years later, as in now, I was given the opportunity for a professional education, and I found plenty of new pieces of evidence that prove that my research in the past had been correct, and hitler was not a socialist. I, as I said, started off in your point of view and then looked at the real facts and graduated from it. I obviously have exposure to both points of view. The simple fact is, this entire time, you've only denied evidence and ran from the truth. I have proven my case, and this isn't a matter of opinion, but historical fact. I couldn't care less about arrogance, but you're acting like you get to be right (despite providing no evidence of your own) just because you say so. You literally called me a nazi because I can't fucking read that well (my own disability) and continue to mock me because of that polite request. If you want to continue being a horrible person and proving no points, go right ahead. I can't stop you, clearly.
1
-
@mcbarberblue The issue with teaching "all sides" of the story is that sometimes, one of the sides is wrong. Should we still learn about those in school that deny gravity, or a round earth? No, because they're objectively wrong. Facts are not a religion, and are not worth being compared to one. You can complain about objective education all you want, but it will not change the facts. All you've done so far is complain that people who have a job to know more about history than you apparently don't know anything at all, but a felon does. Amazing. You weaponized my past against me, called me a nazi, and only because I asked you politely to use more punctuation as it's hard for me to tell lines apart without it, and I can't see your meaning that well if it all blurs together. If you have no more arguments than to call me a "far left socialist" then fine, but know you've utterly failed to prove anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue The man in this video was literally proven to be a fraud, in one of his other historical points it was found out he made up historical figures that didn't exist to justify another false point. Fascism has been right wing since the beginning, does this man know more about fascism than its creator? If this is how you learn your history, from five minute clips made by fake universities, there isn't much to be said. Do your own research. Think for yourself.
"Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free believe that this is the of authority, a , a Fascist ."
- Mussolini.
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
- Hitler
They said it themselves.
1
-
@mcbarberblue Literally none of this has to do with what I said. This is just a paragraph=long rant about you saying "I don't know what socialism is, but I know I don't like it." Could you have at least made an effort to respod to my points, or are you going to continue with this inane drivel. And i'm not sure how you're writing this but please try to use actual punctuation, because your point is practically impossible to read. Hitler was not a socialist - objectively, he was right wing, and a fascist.. You have done nothing to prove otherwise. Your only actual point so far is that the majority of teachers are left wing. Let me tell you this - have you ever thought that might be because having a professional education makes you learn more, and makes you become left wing because of it? Scientists lean left as well, because the left actually supports science and history. Also, do you have any citation that 70% of anti-fascists arrested... anywhere were teachers ? The reason "socialists" don't want to be identified as a nazi is because the nazis were right wing, and not socialists, which you have done zero work to disprove. That isn't bias, that's objective fact. Why would any of them support someone that was far right, a hardcore conservative? Let me ask you this - which side flies swastikas? That's right, the right. As far as Venezuela goes, the country only became socialist in the eyes of right wingers when it failed. Did you know the economy is 70% private? Some "socialism." And I couldn't care less what countries you've supposedly visited, not only because I cannot verify if it's true, but because it's apparent that you haven't actually used that supposed experience to internalize the realities of those countries, which I have by being there for a while, and instead claim to know what they "are" online. Not one part of your entire response even touches one part of mine. Why is that?
1
-
@mcbarberblue Yes, that is indeed what i'm saying. Nobody "taught" me anything, I did my own research from as many sources as possible, and I came to the most educated conclusion. As I said, I didn't have much of an opportunity to study WW2 until recently, so I first learned about it through my own efforts and research. And I have to say this, if it's true that so many schools teach it that way, there's a reason for that. That reason being it's pretty damn true. Hitler himself said that he thought the left would be the downfall of civilization, and that his revolution would come from the right. Mussolini just outright said fascism was right wing. These are both things you learn pretty early on, studying their speeches and writings respectively. And I would agree, that it was hard to change my initial perspective, and I kept wanting to stop researching, because the more I found the more it seemed like yeah, hitler wasn't a socialist. But instead of hiding from that fact, I embraced it, and let it change my worldview. When you look at how hitler defined the term socialist, who he allied with and why, what he said to socialists and did to them, it's pretty clear that he could not be counted as a socialist, much less a left winger. And I would agree, that there is much more to politics than a single sliding line. The nazis show this especially, pulling from both extremes yet founding a philosophy almost entirely unique to them. I would consider myself, on the political spectrum, to be in the libertarian-left quadrant, and quite a while in.
1
-
@mcbarberblue I literally corrected your grammar mate, and if you take offense, not much I can do. I gave my apologies, stated my intentions, and if you want to continue to weaponize a simple mistake I cannot stop you. But I still can find humor in you calling anyone who points that our left wing. In any case, putting that aside, onto the actual "meat" of your comment. As I continue to say, to you, to TIK himself, and to others, I have watched the video, and I have done a fair bit of research personally into the subject, and the vast historical consensus (with good reason) is that hitler was not a socialist. Again, I have done my research, and me coming into this comment section is part of me coming here to understand the opposing point of view. It is, quite literally, my job to understand things like this and I would not participate in these discussions if I was not certain I knew what I as talking about. You act as if I haven't done any research on the subject, yet looking through my own history of positing even in this very chain you should be able to see me posing specific arguments and pointing out some of the holes in TIK's logic. I grew up in an area where we unfortunately didn't much have the chance to talk about WW2 or hitler's ideology, so I had to do my own research, and I found the very same things I am telling you today. I used to be of your same opinion, that hitler was a socialist. Then, I looked into it, and educated myself. Hitler was not a socialist, not even "his own version of it." The only thing he re-packaged was modern revolutionary, reactionary traditionalism, and he sold it well. He, I hate to break it to you, was not a socialist.
1
-
@mcbarberblue Yes, as I continue to point out, you don't understand history. There is no brainwashing going on, except perhaps on your end, as you seem utterly unwilling to provide facts. And as I said last time, if you genuinely are dyslexic, I meant no offense, but i suppose you'll just ignore that, which is to be expected. I do think it says a lot about me that I apologized as soon as you told me, thank you for pointing that out. As for the subject matter, evidently I have not only watched the video, but read the viewpoints and definitions of actual historians and experts, which is something I would highly recommend for anyone interested in the subject. Even if you somehow think TIK is right, you should put more research into the subject, because he is largely misleading you and seems to argue primarily through insults, rather than fact-based analysis,
1
-
@mcbarberblue No, I just literally corrected your grammar. Any other extrapolation from my actions is yours alone to deal with. And I very much doubt that you are dictating this, from the use of emojis and inability to use the correct tenses, but if you are dyslexic then I mean no offense. I am not a socialist, like it or not, and I can assume you very much do not like it, but anyone can correct grammar, not just the "far left." I couldn't care less about a "superior political belief," nor does that have anything to do with grammar. But I guess me correcting your spelling makes me a nazi? We get it, you don't understand the far-right nazis, and you clearly don't understand what i'm telling you, but I guess keep blaming it on the "far left academia..." literally just like what the nazis did. They aren't known for brainwashing anyone, but the nazis said they did. You clearly do not understand history, as you have readily shown.
1
-
1
-
@mcbarberblue Huh, not only is your grammar atrocious, everything you just said is wrong. As in, antifa isn't fascist nor do they use fascism, they do fight real holocaust deniers, fascists, and white nationalists, antifa (again) are not fascists, nor are they "ants" and they tend not to like democrats. Oh, and the democrats back in the days of slavery were the right wing conservative party, while the republican party housed primarily liberals and some socialists. You're the perfect example of doublethink. Oh, and you're making excuses for the nazis. Brilliant.
1
-
1
-
@ToolTimeTabor
Parts of this I agree with, parts I don't. I agree with the notion that attacking the nazis for their economics, or primarily associating them with an economic label, undercuts huge parts of their ideology and the rationale for their crimes. If you solely focus on nazi economics, you learn very little about them as a whole. TIK's emphasis on economics has led him into many of these potholes along the way, in which he has to go out of his way to connect his asserted understanding of nazi economics with nazi social views, which usually doesn't add up. I, however, would disagree even with the assertion that they held socialistic economics in any high regard or that they had "left wing economic policy." Their economic policy largely revolved around a private system supported and enriched by the state, which can't be said to be socialism. That is, unless you're using the "state control = more left wing" definition, which i'd say is historically false but then that becomes an semantics argument. In any case, as you can see from this video and others, the reason TIK doesn't focus on the nationalist/racist side of the nazis, or sometimes even seeks to connect those inseparable and fallaciously from socialism as a concept, is because he wants to attack socialists, not tell accurate history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jean-lucpicard581 I hate to say this, but he really most likely does think that those places were democracies, as he has argued in the past that north korea is, in fact, a democracy. He also doesn't really care what side he finds himself on when arguing the nazis were socialists, as he just pretends everyone who disagrees with him, be it socialists, historians, or even literal nazis are all on the same side, can all be measured under the same flag. I commend your attempt at being civilly polite, but I doubt this is any sort of innocent philosophical effort. From his willingness to call all those that disagree with him (I am not joking) marxist postmodernist anti-semites, then it seems he is more dedicated to his answer that his ability to prove it is true. That, and the fact that he seems to define things like corporations, society, and hierarchy itself as socialist (again, not a joke) and I really can't see this as being any sort of good faith foray into historical economic and political systems, and more some sort of attack on a group he seems to despise. Still, don't let me stop you. If you want to have an honest conversation with him and vice your concerns in a civil and optimistic way, I would wish you the best of luck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is going to be the last response I write to you in this thread, so if you want to get the final word in like a child, just do it already. I tried to engage you like an adult at first, I really did, but then you began spamming for hours on end, making less and less sense, talking in all caps and spamming emojis rather that actually debate. You attempted to call Hitler's dictatorship a democracy, you attempted to say anything that came from germany is fascist, you said things that not even TIK would support. Those things are objectively not true. You also act like just the name "national socialist" makes them socialist, which makes no sense. And at this point, I really don't care. If you came here, not to learn, but to spam me and get the last word, then you never will learn no matter how earnestly I try to explain things to you. As I said before, i'm not even a socialist, much less a nazi. I'm an ex-socialist, and who the hell wouldn't hate nazis? My ideology doesn't have to be perfect for me to say the nazis were bad, jesus... But you don't need to be the founder of the nazi party to see that it isn't socialist, and more importantly, that it was genocidal. But, more importantly, i'm tired. Of this, and of you. So stop your spam. Because every time you say "please explain," you'll have to remember that I did explain, and you just didn't listen... You can claim otherwise, but we both now that really isn't what happened. bye bye now, child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
MajorLeague so in other words, even when your own definitions prove you wrong... You forget on ahead in your lies. I'm happy with your effort, champ, but you failed again. @MajorLeague I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
1
-
MajorLeague nice, so you admit you were wrong? Thanks! Now you just have to admit you lied, which you practically already did, and we're good to go. @MajorLeague I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
1
-
1
-
MajorLeague You realize if you want the objectively correct definition, all you have to do is go back and find it in the week long whooping session I gave you? I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RobynneMerguerdijian Incorrect, they do not a have those things in common. here is some quotes. "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
1
-
Except they did literally none of those things. here are more quotes. "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freedomordeath89 Except even taking what you just said as true (it isn't) that still doesn't fall under the definition of socialism!
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
and there's another response I cannot see. If patty here is attempting to reach me, again, I literally cannot see it.
and another... I suppose i'm blocked? Hm. Well then.
Oh well, I'm off to sleep. If Patty would like to present some counter arguments, in a format I can actually see, I'll be waiting. If not... well, I wonder why.
I suppose he's just fully admitted to his inability to argue the points in question, the simple fact that his assertions aren't based in reality, and most importantly, the objective historical truth that hitler wasn't a socialist. For all his insults and deflections, that one ain't going anywhere.
If Patty was actually able to refute my arguments, he would do so. Sadly, after yet another mystery response, I can only conclude that he is simply unwilling to give me an opportunity to point out the bs for what it is. I guess when you know you're wrong, and that you've been easily proven wrong (like Patty) running is all you can do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patricksachs3655
Er, no. Come on, this would actually be a good argument for you, but rather, you let your assumptions do the talking and said something that was openly false. The nazis themselves didn't use the term "privatization," though they did openly (and privately, ha-ha) praise private property on numerous occasions, and cemented its supposed superiority in their ideology. They didn't use it as a rhetorical device, rather, later historians/economists would correctly note its accuracy.
Now, we've been over this, but hey, repetition is key. The notion that owners were reduced to "shopkeepers" is silly, given that in most cases, the owners themselves were given economic and political priveledge that they had not had before the rise of the nazis. All property did not belong to the state, rather, the state simply said that it maintained the ability to seize property, an ability seldom used against "german" industry. The owners absolutely did have a say in their business, and in fact, the government created a number of organizations with the explicit goal of promoting the power and abilities of private owners. The vast majority of the decisions garding production, pricing, distribution, salaries, etc were dictated by the owners, with rare wartime exceptions. The owners were valued, and more often than not enthusiastic, parts of the nazi machine. The privatization in nazi germany is simply undeniable, no matter how you look at it.
And come now, this is just silly. The list of American industries that openly set up shot in the USSR is a long one, as is the list of Soviet industries which were entirely reliant on external private ownership.
Socialism, like it or not, is not defined as the state control of capital and the means of production. The nazis did not have a system of "nominal ownership," but in all honesty, even this would not qualify as socialism. They still march with you today, bud. All the nonsense in the world will never change that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patricksachs3655
Again, I really do hate to bring this fact to your attention, but simply agreeing with a person does not make them right, nor does it make evidence appear when none is to be found. The Austrian School is an ideology like any other, and like many others, they've been given their fair shot and failed. For all the problems with "socialism" Mises noted, those same policies have led to one of the most powerful forces in history simply reinforcing its power and position in the near center of a web of global capital, something that Mises would argue was impossible.
Being "right" as an economist doesn't mean making a few good guesses, a few broad assertions, and retiring. It means promoting a comprehensive system that survives implementation enough to actually achieve its goals, or at least, to be reformed with that ideal in mind. There are plenty of worthwhile critiques of Mises' work, specifically because he never managed to achieve this, his ideological descendants are fractured across tens of ideologies and yet none has brought about this libertarian paradise.
If your numerous spelling and grammatical errors which you have had ample opportunity (even long after posting) to correct are any indication, than fascism is far from the only thing you need to study up on.
Fact-based refutations are not simply saying "you think they're right, but they're wrong," it's actually providing reasoning at the least, arguments, backing it up.
Your inability to do that is very telling - you argue not by actually critically thinking about the concepts in question, but by repeating back names and talking points that you've memorized, and when those are questioned, you simply insult and bear down upon those that point out your lack of real support or effort.
You gave the sources of an ideological manifesto for a person that will not, and has not, achieved anything with their time here.
I bet you really wish they were.
1
-
@mitscientifica1569
Ah, MIT came up with a new copy-paste spread of nonsense! Of course, all of it is false.
Child, what is utopian about the goals of fascism? Endless struggle, constant domination, hierarchy and authority. The goals of fascism specifically reject utopianism, in favor of constant struggle. Neither erased traditional concepts regarding good or evil, you just consider both evil from your own perspective. Fascism is specifically against the idea of any sort of international order, fascism facilitates the existence of the upper economic classes, and fascism specifically rejects utopia, though recruiting individuals into an ideology is about as baseline as you can get.
You consider both on the same level because you understand that the nazis were horrific, evil right wing ideologues, and in order to attack the left as well, you need to minimize the crimes of the nazis by attempting to equate them with things that cannot be equated. Your assertions are, historically, false and serve only to benefit those in favor of nazism.
So let's try this again.
Here is why conservatism, capitalism and fascism are similar.
These three\ deeply unequal, murderous abhorrent and vile ideologies promised a return to a tradition, and a natural human hierarchy, vision that would ensure infinite happiness. They both stemmed from a political, social, and cultural construct that erased traditional ideas regarding good and evil. Both believed in the destruction of the old world, to build a new international order; each deplored what they saw as the left, progressivism, and any movement against their hierarchy; each ideology’s shared purpose was to recruit members of the new utopia.
Both evil ideologies brought an orgy of violence, killed millions, and led humanity to its darkest hour, where the final destination was deplorable mass starvation/forced famine and the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
Of course they are opposite, but to claim that they share similarities such that you assert is quite ahistorical.
Jeffrey Tucker, American capitalist economics writer of the Austrian School, noted frequently that even as members of the American right tried to declare their ideology one wholly separate from fascism and nazism, the matter of right wing collectivism was one that mirrored nazism in all but name, and gripped onto many who claimed to hate collectivism in all forms. He noted that this deeply authoritarian form of collectivism relied on the state to spread right wing ideas, and that it opposed many of the things that right-libertarians claimed to stand for, all while relying on the radical right, traditionalism, statism and hierarchy to spread its ideological goals, in constant conflict with leftism of all forms. This one man hierarchical rule is further explored in "Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty."
And of course, we both know that this is not the only figure to point out the similarities between the modern right and fascism.
Robert Paxton, for example, a world-renowned historian of the foundation of fascism, detailed in "The Anatomy of Fascism" the forming of the ideology, and how it took from the right, from traditionalists and conservatives, to construct its whole ideological foundation, noting again the spread of right wing collectivism in the interwar period and how exactly this influenced the burgeoning ideology of fascism, one just as authoritarian and right wing as its founders. This is how he proves, quite openly, that to consider fascism closer to communism or the left than its foundations in conservatism and the right is a fundamental error.
So, MIT, i'd recommend you stop stealing from sources that prove you wrong.
1
-
@patricksachs3655
And again, nothing but sad, frantic insults. Why am I not surprised? No, all your arguments here are backed up by a religious adherence to your own ideology, and a denial of any facets of reality which conclusively prove it wrong, which seem even more numerous than you might dread.
You don't like sources that prove you wrong, of course, so you dismiss them, and beg me to "move along," because you know you've already lost. I don't think I'm going anywhere, pal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patricksachs3655
"Unlike you, I am not parrotting other people's opinions to form my own... "
Your entire response here is just naming people you are attempting to parrot the opinions of, from modern entertainers like TIK, to more historical ideologues. I highly recommend you actually read the sources that TIK cites, rather than just TIK.
Now, if someone wanted to learn economics, why exactly would they go to Rothbard or Mises, two advocates of a failed economic school that split more times than it found commonality, who's members have contributed to more dictatorships than supposedly free economies? Oh, wait, you just cite people you agree with.
I actually would recommend reading the Vampire Economy, as even TIK notes that the book comes to the historically sourced conclusion that the nazis were not socialists.
I note a few things here, however, chief among them being that you have neglected to actually post a source on the history of socialism from the perspective of anyone but rabidly biased ideologues.
Could it be that you don't want better understanding...
but blind acceptance?
T
1
-
1
-
@patricksachs3655
Again, I'll remind you that baseless insults are far from an effective way of proving your point, and in fact, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are well out of your depth here. You attempted to "Refute" an argument with baseless assertions that were easily countered with historical information, but of course, you have no ability to realize the depth of your ignorance.
Fascism is, of course, relevant to the conversation, being that it's the right wing ideology hitler himself subscribed to, and developed his own brand based off of. But I guess you reject that, because you're a contrarian?
Again, insults are not arguments. For one who seems to care about the former, you spend far too much time focusing on the latter, and seem to run away when people correctly note this about your behavior.
The assertion that killing socialists doesn't matter when examining ideology is quite silly. Stalin killed specific socialists, Hitler killed off socialists, their allies, similar ideologies and those that supported them. Do you not see a difference?
1
-
@patricksachs3655
Now, you're free to come up with baseless assertions, accusations, and insults, as is your right as any person, but you are aware this shows that you are losing, yes?
I would have a lot more faith in your arguments if you had actually managed to bring up factual information yet.
When Hitler referred to marxism, he referred to far more than just the soviets. He used it not only to refer to general cultural trends, but to countries which were openly opposed to the soviet model, as well as to individuals with zero connection. He used the term as a general stand in for the name of a conspiracy he believed undercut the whole modern world, centered around leftist politics. Now, marxism is not a synonym for socialism, but however, it is neither a term for a "socialism that maintains direct ownership over capital and property while attempting to replace culture and tradition with state ideology."
And no, this myth is long debunked. The nazis did have a major campaign of privatization, transferring huge amounts of previously public services and pieces of property into private hands, to appease the private owners. They did this because they realized that the most efficient way to appeal to these people was not through force, but through incentive. The state did not maintain control over these industries, much less "EVERY aspect of ALL enterprises," and in fact, they openly stated their belief that such a policy would ruin their great, private economy. Production, pricing, distribution, wages and employment, were ultimately in the hands of private owners, though at times temporarily subject to wartime restriction. The law you're referring to didn't say that "all property is owned by the state," it was essentially a ruling that declared that all property had the ability to be seized by the state. There is, of course, a difference between owning/controlling something, and having the ability to do so.
Of course, the nazis despised the notion of a centrally planned economy, but you were already well aware of that.
The nazis neither had nor wanted "Direct control," and the majority of the "control" they implemented was through positive incentive, both in capital and political gain, that incentivized private leaders to side with them. This cannot be described as socialist.
And sure, for example, the fact that Hitler used the term socialist does not at all mean he wanted any sort of socialism by the definition you're using, which he was more than happy to declare.
He lied to get support from the workers, and gave that support to the owners.
Hitler didn't call the plan in question privatization, that was a label attributed afterwards by historians and economists, which accurately describes his policy.
Now, I know you don't have much beyond appeals to authority, but there is very little use in trying to tell someone to watch a video they will only come out of all the less educated on the subject. I would know, I watched it.
1
-
@patricksachs3655
Yes, we're well aware of the fact that you are incorrect on the issue of socialism. The fact that you're attempting to paint a roundly private system as a "type" of socialism, while lying about the economies of the countries you are naming, is very telling. You can't even keep the same story straight, as now you assert that the nazis had "Direct state control."
Of course, you assert that socialism is impossible without a state simply because the definition of socialism you came up with requires a state. Luckily, you are not the only source on this, and in fact, you just aren't a source on this, beyond your own bias. The examples given were literal cases in which the definition of socialism was adhered to. You are asserting that the proud goals of marx, and socialists before and after him, are in fact not socialist at all. Do you not see a problem with that? Socialism is essentially defined by the ownership of the community as a whole, and you're asserting that as long as this community has separate industries that themselves see separate uses and rewards, this doesn't count as socialism? You're asserting that a group of private individuals is still just an individual, and not a group, not a facet of society? Now, I hate to educate you on this, but a group of private individual workers equally owning something... would be "social ownership."
The leninists held one view of socialism, that is, that the will of the people is best represented through a central party that would attempt to codify their desires into policy. But, of course, this is just one interpretation of socialism, and does not comprise the entire ideology. Further, the VoP was not "a euphemism for the state," but just a single part in the state.
No, if industry is socially owned, it is socially owned, not completely ownerless. Collective ownership does not require any sort of representative or middle man, though some would argue that it works best that way. Your assertions are unfounded.
You can very easily have socialism without the state.
The fact that you instantly jump to citing your ideological thought leaders is very telling. No, reading those two will not help you understand what is and isn't socialism, it will help you understand what they do and don't oppose, and why they feel justified in calling capitalists who oppose them, "socialists."
1
-
@patricksachs3655
"Then, by correctly defining the terms, my other faulty assertions would thus be incorrect as well." Why yes, they would be, because they are. The fact that you feel the need to ahistorically revise the definition of socialism to fit your openly "simple" understanding of the concepts. Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Not "outright ownership by the state," and certainly not some version of private ownership in which the state continues to play a role. Further, that silly assertion doesn't describe the nazis in the slightest, the state did not have or desire "total control," nor were the owners reduced in their role of owership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mkzhero Did you... think that trying to drown out the truth in a massive paragraph works better than just stating your lies outright? The caps don't help you here much either, friend. Ok, so your first "point" is to assert that the definition of socialism includes more than just the collectively owned means of production, and I would agree. It also includes an equal distribution of resources, representative industrial systems, abolishing of private property, ect. However, of course, you go into none of this. You just say there are more things and leave it at that. Oh, by the way, don't forget that even if there were many more things, that wouldn't overwrite the original definition. Which hitler does not fit. So, sorry, but you've already admitted the faults in your argument. Furthermore, I have to remind you of something else - how has a system in which the workers own the means of production led to poverty and tyranny? An argument can be made that chasing that system has led to those things, and I would be happy to contest that, but even then i've never heard someone mess up the argument enough to think they can reverse the order of events and get away with it. By the way, ad hominem doesn't count as a point, neither does baseless assertions. And yes, what does it have to do with gender? Well... you don't actually say. Ever. You just call me a post-modernist, which is ironic, because in order to do that, you'd have to redefine postmodernism... which makes you the real post modernist. You also fail to actually state your position on gender, so I'd have to agree that often people will deny reality and pretend that gender and sex are the same thing. It's an awfully large problem on the right, one I hope you yourself are not guilty of... right? In any case, in your next run on sentence, you don't actually make a point, really. If I was to be charitable, it seems like you're trying to say that a single central organizing power doesn't work... in a capitalist economy. This is obviously incorrect, for two main reasons. For one, the lesser reason... that economy wouldn't be capitalist then, would it be? If it were centrally organized, you wouldn't really need to worry about things like, "division and value of labor, the incredible value of the unhindered money system and the completely free signals of investment and development goals it sets, as well as free, fluid prices." because none of those things make up any value in anything but a capitalist economy. Why would they have to worry about investment and prices when they would control all of that? But more importantly, the second point... that isn't what socialists call for. At all. I thought you would know this, after all, you reference some "sociologically, politically, and economically educated" people agreeing with you, so you would know the basics of what socialism calls for, right? I mean after all, you did concede to the base definition above, a system where the workers own the means of production, and that is not at all what you described. In fact, the problems you point out of a single entity trying to micromanage an entire economy might well be solved under socialism. After all, now you don't have a single massive corporate entity ruling over half the worlds economies, you have smaller amounts of workers or committees managing their own means of production, meaning that really you've made the task of managing all of these properties far more decentralized, and far more efficient. Well, let's take a loo at the next bit. Lot of caps lock here, lot of commas, not a lot of points. First off, like I said earlier, you have yet to name any actual experts that agree with you. Personally, I imagine that's because they're either Shapiro or Peterson and you don't want to get called out for taking your information from idiots, but that's just a theory. Because here's the thing - I can point out numerous of the most influential and intelligent figures of human history who were, in fact, socialists. And you have... and unnamed "smart person." Good for you, bud. Another thing to note, we must also find out what "OBJECTIVE STANDARD" you are using. Because after all, if it is actually based on the definition of socialism you conceded to, then in that case the example of "socialism" you gave (China) never actually reached socialism at all. We'll get to the "utter failing" in a second, but let's talk about China. For one, you are right, they are becoming more free market by the day. However, I have to remind you, things really are not getting much better. We can see some jumps in quality of life in China, notably the massive one after their own industrial revolution, but as of now, life is not getting better except for the top few. Which is of course fun. On top of that, I think you're confusing your strawmen. The green movement wasn't shipping trash overseas, that was private companies. Similarly, the people destroying jobs in the west are not socialists, rather they are private companies who just figures out that you can hire a man halfway around the world to do the job for 1000x less. It's actually the socialists in China who were trying to fix problems like these, and it was a large group of socialists that were silenced at the tiananmen square massacre. In any case, onto the important bit - have the socialists ever done anything good? Anything right? Well, we could point to things like Rojava as systems where nothing at all like you suggested happened, but rather, let's look at something a bit closer to home. The socialist movements in the US of A. Without going into too much detail, as i've already written a bit and have a bit more to write after this, socialists have been at the front of some major movements in the US. Abolition of slavery, for example, was a movement supported by socialists. In fact, a few Union generals and leaders were socialists, namely August Willich, a man so far left he wanted to duel Marx (who also wrote in favor o fAmerican slavery abolition) to the death for being too conservative on some issues. You can look at the Civil Rights movement as well, led by Democratic Socialist Martin Luther King Jr, and Communist Malcolm X. You could look at both earlier and later Women's Suffrage movements, backed by people like Emma Goldman and Kropotkin. Hell, to get really socialist, you could look at the Labor, Famer's, and Populist movements of the US, which pretty much single-handedly got us the two day weekend, 8 hour work day, labor laws. and a right to collective bargaining. Of course, that's ignoring the work by individual socialists elsewhere, like Einstein and Van Gough. And on and on and on. I'd say that's far from a failure, yeah? And that brings us to your next point. managing
1
-
@DrCruel Orwell most certainly wasn't ostracized from the mainstream Left at the time, as I proved. This attitude by fascists hasn't abated - to them, he's still a traitor, but the left back then, and even now, has for the most part accepted him The hate coming from right wing fascists like you really began in earnest after the publication of the anti-Bolshevik and anti-National Socialist book, Animal Farm, but Fascists had generally hated him long before that, ever since he began to speak out about the problems of imperialism.. In fact, he's pretty much always been considered a pillar of the left, and rightfully so.
It's a bit like how the conservatives ostracized the their fascist bretheren for supposedly for "anti-conservative behavior," accusing them of being socialists, and yet the conservatives never seemed to return the favor. This conservative right wing infighting didn't suddenly make their regimes socialist. Nor did Mussolini's strained history with the Italian socialists mean that he at all promoted his short career as a socialist, nor that fascism itself did not arise out of conservatism, which by your own admission (and shown by your continued actions) it most clearly did.
"You realize, of course, that Orwell did not write book 1984 partly as an autobiography?"
I most certainly do. Indeed, his description of Winston Smith's dilapidated state after torture is a reflection of his own ravaged condition from years of tuberculosis. He uses the term IngSoc to talk about Manegerialism, which he describes as a traitor to the left, and an anti-socialist system. Of course, he does this when he makes frequent references to The Managerial Revolution and James Burnham, an old friend of Orwell's. O'Brien might even be a not-especially veiled reference to him.
From my earlier link:
"His many book reviews also reveal much about his political influences, but one name, James Burnham, stands out.
In the book, he found two of the crucial elements of his novel: a world ruled by three super-states, and the idea that the overlords of the future would not be demagogues or democrats, but managers and bureaucrats."
And yes, I am glad you are certain that many people had noticed that two and two did not make five, but rather four, long before the fascists like yourself proposed otherwise. Certainly the Bolsheviks had a short poster that seemed to hint at the latter the latter in particular on the poster provided, but the translations show some different interpretations. I do not doubt that the National Socialists proposed the same, and in fact, their right wing fantaticism was much more likely what inspired it. But you are the one who argues that the Bolsheviks and National Socialists are ideological brothers, and somehow your only point in this is that they used similar propaganda. So I suppose every nation that has ever said "[X Nation] First" is a nazi, right? You would be right in that they were different, and by the majority and not similar ideologies, all though both regimes were certainly. horrors cut from the same authoritarian, anti-socialist cloth. In fact, that's one of their biggest similarities, that they both rejected socialism, however the nazis did it on principle, openly, whereas the soviets did so more subtly, but were still rightfully called out for it by proud leftists and socialists, like Orwell. Orwell, unfortunately for you, seems here to be agreeing with me - that in fact neither regime were socialist in the slightest, and he voiced as much, which directly goes against your assertions. In fact, he related the rise of both systems to equivalent rises under capitalist systems, and said that this "manegerialist" rise in popularity was happening, specifically, across the isle. By your logic, we could then accuse the nazis of being capitalists, or monarchists, and in fact (as orwell said) there is no reason to call them socialists in the slightest. Oh, and thanks for the proof!
Yes, I do think you'd manage better with insults and unmatched assertions, as this response proved. Hell, you utterly sidestepped every point I made, proving you wrong, and then repeated your same nonsense as last time. What's that fascist line? "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Oh rights, sounds quite a bit like you and your long disproven "left fascist" myth. I, personally, would rather continue as I have, and let you continue to make a fool of yourself with every new post. You clearly have more experience with the strategy, and seem to be more comfortable with it. I personally find such behavior childish and distasteful, which is why I try to be the better man here and avoid the kinds of bad-faith tactics you're doing. After all, unlike you I don't adhere to an ideological religion that demands the constant deflection of blame as a sacrament. So I'm good, thanks.
1
-
@DrCruel Sorry, had to step away for a moment.
Orwell wasn't vilified by the mainstream Left. He was not even accused of being an "FBI informant," for a few reasons. One... he was english. What would the FBI want with him? Two, you're misrepresenting the situation. He did actually sell out a number of bolshevik sympathizers, or rather, alleged bolshevik sympathizers to various sources. He also showed a bit of an anti-gay agenda in this list, which was another thing he was called out for. One catch though - this was all years after his death. The left didn't know about this, and the right was proud of it, they actually popularized it and bragged about it. It's why a well-heeled "Right-wing capitalist oppressor" named David Astor had to pay for Orwell's treatments for tuberculosis, particularly of streptomycin, because we all know that anecdotal evidence that a single capitalist is a good person is totally indicative of an entire ideology. Hey, did I mention MLK? Meanwhile Mussolini was hesitantly regarded by the Left when he first came to power, as he was campaigning for things they said they liked, but he was doing so alongside a bunch of conservatives and traditionalist social darwinists. The Fabians were especially enamored of him, and we know what the left thought of those managerilaists. He was expelled from the socialists for anti-socialist views, because he was in favor of Italy's participation against Germany and Austrio-Hungary in WW I. Seriously, the socialist party was against the war, because it was just a big tramping of the bourgeoisie who all got pissed off that their perforce country wasn't lording over the others enough. Supporting a war, not fought to save people, but because some rich asshole or government official said so is specifically the criticism many socialists made of the war. I mean, I know it's an old joke, but why would someone who cares about workers be in favor of a pointless war against adversaries they don't care about, that they were drawn into because of faulty alliances, and would send those workers to their deaths?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list
https://web.archive.org/web/20080706011317/http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3475771.html
You realize, of course, that Orwell did not write book 1984 partly as an autobiography? That his depiction of what the Party does to Winston Smith wasn't actually supposed to be an allusion to how Orwell was treated by the socialists? I mean, you linked me a source that specifically said otherwise earlier, that it was meant to be a satire that portrayed the rising totalitarianism from both the left and right, and most importantly, not the socialists, the managerialists were those that opposed him, and we all know what he thought of them.
Want to know where 2+2=5 came from? Well, I hate to break it to you, but it didn't come from a propaganda poster in the 1900s. It was used as a line to decry a bizarre impossibility long before that.
"That twice two are four, a man may not lawfully make a doubt of it, because that manner of knowledge is grauen [graven] into mannes [man's] nature." - John Wigand, 1562
The line is referenced in Don Juam, in 1682.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120301171143/http://moliere-in-english.com/donjuan.html
In Ephraim Chambers Cyclopædia published in that year 1728, the an example for the word "absurd" is as follows: "Thus, a proposition would be absurd, that should affirm, that two and two make five; or that should deny 'em to make four."
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Cyclopaedia%2C_Chambers_Volume_1.djvu/page56-2096px-Cyclopaedia%2C_Chambers_Volume_1.djvu.jpg
In 1779 Samuel Johnson said that "You may have a reason why two and two should make five, but they will still make but four."
An 1813 letter by Lord Byron has a section that reads as, "I know that two and two make four—& should be glad to prove it too if I could—though I must say if by any sort of process I could convert 2 & 2 into five it would give me much greater pleasure."
This is not something some obsure propaganda poster invented, it was a common colloquial phrase for literally centuries before that. After all, where do you think they got the phrase from? But none of that matters, because it actually most likely came from the nazis. "Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. ... The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened" – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs." This could have come from a speech by Hermann Göring, who once declared that "If the Führer wants it, two and two makes five!" https://web.archive.org/web/20041227105306/http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x18/xr1883.html
So, yeah, not your best point.
Honestly. You were doing better with your insults and unmatched assertions. Better get back to it.
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel I'll help you out here. Mussolini got kicked out of the Italian socialists . This is not the only reason that Mussolini wasn't a socialist anymore, again, we can trace those back to him actually having, you know, anti-socialist views. Not just anti bolshevik views, or anti italian socialist views, but anti socialist views. Orwell wasn't really kicked out of the socialists, he was praised by many for speaking out against Bolshevism and totalitarianism in like Animal Farm and 1984, respectively - but he's still a socialist. What gives is that Orwell never said any anti-socialist things, in fact, i'd argue he said pro-socialist things against the bolsheviks. Mussolini was a very different case.
You're guessing that Mussolini isn't a useful person to claim, while Orwell is, but that just isn't true. Neither of them suddenly became a "capitalist" or a "state capitalist,"
these wre comparisons that were already being drawn.
By the way - guess what? Socialists are not state capitalists, but at this point I don't really care.
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Mussolini was a prominent socialist, the editor of a famous socialist newspaper at the time.... before he got kicked out for spreading anti-socialist sentiments, in response to which he instituted Classical Liberals in positions of power, courted the conservative religious right, and outlawed both eh party and publication he had belonged to all, while calling himself a fascist, and fascism a right wing ideology. Talk about a bad breakup. But hey, "Mussolini (the right wing totalitarian) is an anarchist." is certainly a new one. Hitler was a right-wing conservative National Socialist, although I would say that Goebbels was a more committed propagandist.. You should read his diaries to see his literal support for social darwinism, his praise for conservative and capitalist figures, and his hatred of the left. I might add, it was as useful for his propaganda as fascism has been for every other right wing conservative fascist. regime before or since.
You clearly haven't been keeping score. But hey, capitalist doubleplusgood, etc. And good luck with all that, Boliboy.
1
-
@DrCruel The ironic thing is that capitalists don't seem to understand the difference between private property and personal property either. They treat both as property of the market, or the race, or the nation in every fascist regime thus far in existence, and take it for themselves whenever they please. This sort of behavior has caused economic ruin, the collapse of retail markets and often mass starvation in regimes so ordered. Meanwhile the elite become rich.
It's no wonder fascists are so keen to dismiss or ridicule dissent, or even kill the dissenters when convenient, (remind me of those right-wing terrorism and police britality stats?) and police rather than address their own contradictions head-on. Like I said before, a moral person cannot long remain a capitalist, but if they see themselves as a moral person first, and a capitalist second, then I see no issue. Like Orwell noted, the thinking of a totalitarian, either left or right, is always muddled by doublethink, so that he can hold onto outrageous and contradictory ideas and engage in the most blatant hypocrisy without a twinge of conscience. This of course explains why you are willing to call me a fascist, all while excusing things like police action in portland. It's mastering these kinds of mental gymnastics that makes it possible for a fascist to retain any level of sanity, and to hold fast to the idea of an aristocratic oligarchic market ideology as a positive ideal. That, and, of course, a total lack of scruples.
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Who are "conservatives?" Does that refer to fundamentalist Muslims trying to conserve traditional Islam? l Leftists in Vietnam trying to preserve their socialist privileges? Greek polytheists trying to conserve religious sites for the worship of Zeus?
No, not really. It just means those on the right that like to preserve the status quo, in some form or another.
There is no alternate ideological faction to the fascists. All there is are targets the fascists intend to rob and purge, which are deemed "socialists" (that literally included free speech protesters in Chile - I read you say as much as much) and Marxists" (because they're trying to stop capitalists from forcing some policy or tax or the like on them) and "Progressives" (because they fight back). The most ironic terms are "racists" and "fascists," because right wingers, that are by necessity fascists, are some of the most cynically racist people in the world and because the Right are literally run by fascists, who impose fascist regimes whenever they come to power.
And this comes to the crux of the matter. If we are going to determine whether or not something is part of a more general class, we need to find common characteristics that make one entity similar enough to another entity to make it a member of that general class. We've already determined that you have no idea how to define Marxism Marxism , and that Bolshevism, Fascism and National Socialism have almost nothing in common with eachother, and many explicitly reject marx and his teachings.. If we were trying to create a polymorphic class in an object-oriented language, we would look for common elements from which we could derive specific variables that can be common to all members of that class, and find... none of them. Again, all these ideologies are nonsensical, and share common elements like a secret police, labor camps of varying levels of lethality run for state profit, a political army like the NKVD or Waffen SS, and a general lack of basic freedoms for common people in these societies (for example, a right to emigrate, or to travel freely in the country, or to accept the job of their choosing). However, this could also be said of many capitalist societies, thus it clearly isn't a specific enough term we're going for.Indeed, in capitalist societies daring to use your right to life without paying is literally a crime, according to capitalist theory.
There really is many reasonable arguments to equate Fascism with "late stage capitalism" or to claim that "world capital" was behind Fascism. The ideology was devised as a clear counter to the rise of socialists, it was meant for the destruction of socialists, in response to a capitalist crisis. It makes much more sense to see Fascism as a byproduct and a mutation of capitalism, monarchism, and social darwinism. - especially given the fascist and neo-fascist behavior so typical of right wing conservative fascism today. We need only to watch the events in Portland to be reminded of the blackshirts and brownshirts as the police abduct more innocent civilians, and those anti-fascists who dared stand up a century ago. Very little among the Right has changed, including their tactics, regardless of what absurd and hypocritical version of fascism they happen to profess. We need only note the duplicity of armed white police officers murdering black teenagers in America, a system right wing conservative fascists defend, to realize where the right really stands.
1
-
@DrCruel Yes. Oligarchical Collectivism is part of what describes the Party's ideology as an oligarchical collective which "rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it does so in the name of Socialism." That is, in a nutshell, what James Burnham was talking about when he spoke of managerialism. "Oligarchical Collectivism" is literally not at all what socialism has come to mean in the 21st century, however, it's just what fascists like you like to write it off as. I have actually gone to a meeting of the International Socialists out of curiosity, as well as several loacalized meetings of anti-fascists, and if they wax poetic about the Bolivarians in Venezuela, or the "socialists" in Cuba, or in Vietnam, or in """"communist"""" China, or even, among true tankies, in North Korea or Stalinist Russia, (though few every speak kindly about any of these places) then they are often laughed off stage and corrected, succinctly, or with great detail. Because, like you, they are wrong, and objectively so.
I believe in democracy and economic equity. I believe in social justice and fairness. I am not a socialist, (at least we can find commonality in that) but I see those things within the socialist movement, and respect them. But capitalists? They fight for the opposite, daily. No person can be one at this late date and remain a decent human being for long. The same moral problems that an ethical National Socialist will ultimately face will inevitably have to be faced by all the other types of right wing conservatives, you see it today with them locking people up for daring to protest, brutalizing the people, elected officials, reporters, nurses, and unrelated bystanders alike. How long will it be before you claim trump was a socialist? Conservatives know all this, and they don't care. Either they reject the self-serving contradictions and lies or buy into them and become a fascist. Simple as that.
But I cannot believe you mate... Here I was, thinking I was talking to some sort of intellectual. And then you advocate for (gasp) equality! You know hitler said social justice once, right? Wow, you're as bad as Lenin! No, Mao!, No, Hitler! I cannot believe I've been conversing with a left-fascist this entire time....
1
-
@DrCruel I do agree that capitalists and conservatives have a knack for changing their names to suit the respective ideological markets of the day. Capitalists may behave in very racist ways, often championing one race over another (virtually every conservative faction of the 20th century, be it American or English or African, was essentially both nationalist and fascist in ideological practice, although many of them would lie up a storm arguing the opposite), but capitalists are never committed to principles. The one interest that capitalists have is the acquisition of power. They will do anything, say anything, betray anyone, so long as the act increased their authority, influence, revenues, or whatever other measure of power is available. Nothing else matters to capitalists. Their ideological stances are utter nonsense, dropped at a moment's notice in pursuit of some tangible gain or advantage.
I have heard fascists claim to be "anarchists" when on the ropes. Leftists no less prominent than John Paul Sartre and Noam Chomsky are actual anarchists, which of course provokes your fascist ire. This is also quite annoying for you all, because as right wing writer Rothbard said of anarchism, " that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines." Righties always hate this line, because it shows that they've always been the real totalitarianism. Many fascists suddenly noticed that the Nazis , well known to be right wing for decades, were suddenly discovered to be "state dirigists" and still not socialists at all. The Soviets, on the other hand, were open with their state capitalism from the beginning. Rightists to this day make up a lie that Chomsky to this day refuses to acknowledge his advocacy for the Khmer Rouge in 1978, of course, this is completely disproven when his actual words are examined.
In September of 1939, the Bolsheviks offered an alliance to the National Socialists, which was temporarily accepted. On two separate occasions they tried to formally join the Axis Powers. When this turnaround happened, domestic socialist groups and advocates largely opposed war, and any sort of ally-ship with someone so ideologically different.. Those on the Left who did not have the stomach for such bedfellows were largely accepted, and made up the vast majority.. George Orwell was made a hero because of it, and his work is still well known to this day. The pact was unstable since the begging, and once the National Socialists turned on their Bolshevik "allies" did any pretense of peace vanish, and the right-wing Nazis had to be stamped out with utter ferocity and mercilessness. P
Like I said. These are facts, unlike the drivel it seems you love to spread. When I participate in game design projects, I am compelled to work with the facts. If I am rating the effectiveness of the I-16 as a fighter aircraft against the Me-109, I must take into account various facts about these respective planes - turning radius, top speed, acceleration weapon load, etc. If I am working on a game with political components, I need to assess the nature of a political system in a way that can be measured by metrics - what nations did historically, what their relations were with other nations, so on. The relationship between Bolshevik Russia and National Socialist Germany was an uneasy pact, where both sides hated eachother from the first moment, and could never have lasted longer than it did.. Their systems were very similar in structure in some places, but very, very different in others, and neither achieved socialism. For example, both the Bolsheviks and the National Socialists had a secret police, a political component of the military, labor camps, death camps, and so on. But then again, so did many capitalist and imperialist nations, so this is in no way indicative of anything other than authoritarianism. Both the Bolsheviks and National Socialists made war on civilians in their areas of control, exterminating people by the millions in state-managed genocides. The Western democracies did do this, in many cases, as did western imperialists. Or are you denying fascist genocide again?
I understand the importance that fascists have in trying to dismiss fascist sects as "socialists," much in the same way that the medieval Catholic Church dismissed the devoted of Islam as "servants of the devil" (and how Muslims said as much about their opponents and victims, especially if they were not "People of the Book"). If you are a devout Fascist, this must be an important theological issue for you, but I cannot allow your nonsensical religious beliefs to confuse issues of fact. If that causes you to fume and shake your fist like a petulant child, it's not my problem.
1
-
@DrCruel The Left and Right were once simple metaphors to describe the split between feudal absolutists and republicans. Rightists supported governments by hereditary monarchs and nobles, while Leftists supported democracy and representative government. The revolutionary Jacobin autocrats of course muddied the waters (to say nothing of Napoleon), but the dichotomy stood, and shifts to this day. Then Karl Marx posited that within the old bourgeois Left, there was righting a "new Right" out of the proletariat or working classes - industrial workers, farmers, so on. It was pretty true, as we see with cases of working class people getting into power, and it gained traction as first the Capitalists violently crushed their opposition among rival radical factions.
To accept the definitions of the Right as "capitalists" and the Left as "socialists," one does not at all need to accept Marxist theory. The problem is that many people have no idea what Marxist theory is, and blame it for everything they don't like. There is a unified "capitalist" class. Capitalists, insofar as they manipulate and invest capital in business enterprises, form an exclusionary and neo-feudal subset of capitalist activity. There has been no socialist regime so far, as the act of persecuting workers so obviously and so brutally is fundementally anti-socalist. But of course, righties still don't know what"dictatorship of the proletariat" means This is what not at all Orwell was on about, and not what Christopher Hitchens was chiding his Leftist comrades about.
The term "capitalist" has come to mean a government ruled by autocratic despots. This is because capitalists, once in power, have ruled like autocratic despots time and time and time and time again. And this relates to the crisis of the early 20th century, the crisis that brought the Bolsheviks to power, ushered in the rise of Fascism as a right-wing counter to Leninism by a famous and popular Italian capitalists, conservatives, and traditionalists, led to the foibles of the Wiemar Republic and the rise of a National Socialist movement mirrored in part on Conservative and on Capitalist methodology, and would eventually lead to a short lived and long broken alliance between the National Socialists and their Bolshevik t rivals and ideological oppnenents.
In 1941, a Marxist and Trotskyite named James Burnham wrote a book called The Managerail Revolution, in which he attempted to explain what was going on in Europe at the time. He explained that both Bolshevism and National Socialism were incidents of a new kind of government, called "managerialism," wherein the rule of big money capitalists was not to be replaced by the rule of workers, but rather by the rule of managers. Think of it as similar to the rise of the Merovingians in France, or the rise of the shogun over the imperial dynasties of Japan. I do not agree with everything James Burnham posits, but even at this early date the common nature of Bolshevism and National Socialism was recognized, and by Marxist intellectuals no less. Despite the last sentence where you tint the nature of the passage with your fascist ways, this is almost correct. You see, he pointed out that both were not socialist. Good job proving my point!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Ah! There it is, perfectly exposed! You just admitted to your circular logic, this is amazing. This is the problem with you children, you aren't even talking about socialism anymore. I couldn't give less of a damn about the criticisms of the system you're actually critiquing... because it isn't socialist, it isn't what socialists want, and it isn't how socialism is defined. And no, i'm sorry, you aren't arguing that a cow and rat are both animals. You think that the cow is a rat acting like a cow, and now that i've pointed out that hole in your logic, what's your rebuttal? "No." Amazing. YOur logic is circular, it gets you nowhere. Leftfascists exist because they do, the nazis were socialists because they are. Instead of taking into account counter-points, you seek to explain them away by redefining the terms you are using, stripping them of all meaning. Actually, it seems you're the one supporting a group of brutal and violent socialists, and trying to claim they aren't so. That group? The republican party. Let's see how this plays out, hm? And also, gotta love the fact that I literally referenced a source you have not once addressed in my opening paragraph, a source you now proclaim does not exist. Doublethink, much?
Again, your definition of socialism has nothing to do with the actual ideology, it has to do with the fact that you dislike it. So... who gives a shit? I don't like ideology based religions, you do. So why are you a socialist? Hell, most capitalists fit this definition of socialism better than socialists, because in defining the term you don't give a second thought to actually, you know, defining it.
And uh... you have a problem recognizing sarcasm? Come on dude, you'd think a fascist like you and the fascists you love to promote would have taught you a little bit about how rhetoric works. But then again, you follow a fascist ideology that exists only on the right, so why should I expect any more.
Ah, but here's the thing, bud - according to your rules, I don't have to give a shit if you call yourself a righty. Because, to you, ideology is not defined by the thinkers that put it into words, or the writers that expanded it and categorized it, but by shithead children online who think that right wing fascism is cool, like yourself. You hate socialists and leftists, in fact anything right of center, so you are a righty. Ideas like that, ideas like hitlers, are those that created the greatest genocides of the 21st century. IDeas from the right, like the genocide of jews which the right wing nazis committed, still caryy weight among the right in the modern day. The fact that you can even try to use the term "righty" and draw parallels to many right wing genocides tells me that really, you're just here to spread fascism. And I don't much care. You see, the simple fact is, I don't care how you consider yourself. Because, as a result of your actions, you've given me the right to define your ideology by how little I agree with it. Talking about the bolshevik revolution doesn't change the fact that to you, socialists are the new kulaks, the new jews, the new group to be ridiculed, censored, and eventually killed. If you all had your way, we'd be having much more than just the right wing genocides hitler committed.
I notice how you, the fascist, keeps trying to defend fascist policies, many of which could be found in nazi germany. Is the mask slipping? You here try to talk about the economy again, but oh what's this, another bit of righty propaganda slips in. Tell me, how is killing massive amounts of people, starving them, impoverishing them, silencing them, torturing them, an increase in living standards? I mean, I know you as a righty (like hitler) support the silencing of all you disagree with for contrived reasons, but I had hoped you'd at least pretend otherwise for a bit longer. So, i'm sorry, living standards went down after the fascist takeover by Pinochet, and the fascist economic policies of the Chicago Boys.
Well considering left fascist is a made up term used by fascist children like yourself to justify another mass murder of whatever outgroup you've chosen this time, I have to assume you're talking about the innocent free speech activists, opposing politicians, and random people that you supported the state-mandated silencing of. But of course, the JE-... i mean left fascists deserved it all, right? They control everything, and everything is their fault.
1
-
@DrCruel I don't know how many times I have to remind you children of this, but not liking, agreeing with, or even considering a political idea possible does not give you a pass to rewrite the definitions used and history behind the words. When you do that, you lose all credibility, and show yourself to be motivated by ideology and all else. You're essentially claiming a cow is actually just a rat acting like a cow now, because you can't actually ever accept that perhaps, acting counter to socialist beliefs, principles, and goals, is by definition not socialist. It makes no sense, because the logic is circular. What is socialism? "Socialism is a lie against socialism." Perfect logic, mate, astounding. Of course, you don't realize about the slippery slope you've started, but I honestly doubt you care. Well guess what buddy, you're now a socialist. Oh, what's that? You don't call your self a socialist? Tough shit, you must just be lying. What's that, you want the opposite of what socialists want? Well clearly this just shows the hypocrisy embedded within socialism. You hate socialists and never wan them to take power? Ha, simple ideological infighting. You see the problem? But please, keep promoting the work of an opinionated man with no credentials in the field against a critically acclaimed writer with personal experience. I'm sure that'll hold up.
Oh, accusations of bad faith? Unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith? Well hell, what else is knows.
We actually do have objective proof, being that, you know, he taught the Chicago Boys you talk about so lovingly, and we can clearly see his influence in The Brick. But please, keep praising Pinochet. Even better, lie in order to praise Pinochet. That's even better! It's telling that you put economic system before living standards, because most rightists leave it at that. You know why? Including living standards is a huge mistake. Literacy went down, infant mortality went up, the average citizen had less nutrition than a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. Oh, and if you spoke out? Well then, it's death by torture, or if you're lucky, a public execution. Can't forget the free chopper rides, can we?
Again, very, very telling that you've apparently done research on this. As i've said, most righties stop at saying "the economy went up," because aside from starvation and infant mortality rates, that's about all that went up. Oh, that and wealth inequality, which actually was skyrocketing. But we can also go into the corrupt nature of the government towards business, how the government dismantled labor rights (such as collective bargaining and unions,) retirement care, healthcare, ect. Unemployment ran rampant, the public health care system was replaced by a free market one that 90% of chileans still can not afford, again, the list goes on and on. Not to mention the human rights, of speech for example, being utterly discarded. That? That's fascism. That, specifically, is the only type of fascism - right-wing fascism. Under Allende, the life expectancy was already going up, public programs were actually bringing people out of poverty. The economy suffered, but the people didn't. And then, fascists like Friedman, a man who literally spent decades promoting fascist economics under the employment of a soon-to-be fascist dictator, decided to reverse it. Now, the economy thrived (for the few) while the people, the vast, vast majority* suffered. Those "left-fascists" you say were the targets of pinnochet's attacks? Those were what we like to call "free speech advocates." OR, "Union Leaders." Or even, "random citizens and their families." So it seems the only fascist here... is you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Yes, you already quoted that bit. And I already addressed it, with actual opposing arguments. Just for fun, like you did, i'll paste that in as well.
And you've really got to be joking me. So after all this time, your answer to that question really was "if they call themselves socialists?" I mean hell buddy, Mussolini never even called himself a socialist. What's your evidence there? And no, i'm sorry, getting kicked out of the socialist party for heavily disagreeing with socialists, and then admitting your ideology is right wing doesn't count as socialism. I also love how you're back to asserting, without proving, your point, and even go against the quote you just linked, by pointing out yet another difference. Yes, I saw the quote. I responded directly to it, with someone who actually has qualifications in the field (damn leftist academia) and lived through fascist italy.
"Mein Kampf is a manifesto of a complete political program. Nazism had a theory of
racism and of the Aryan chosen people, a precise notion of degenerate art, entartete
Kunst, a philosophy of the will to power and of the Ubermensch. Nazism was decidedly
anti-Christian and neo-pagan, while Stalin's Diamat (the official version of Soviet
Marxism) was blatantly materialistic and atheistic"
Well there's a few differences right there! But, let's delve deeper.
"Italian fascism was the first right-wing dictatorship that took over a European country,
and all similar movements later found a sort of archetype in Mussolini's regime. Italian
fascism was the first to establish a military liturgy, a folklore, even a way of dressing –
far more influential, with its black shirts, than Armani, Benetton, or Versace would ever
be. It was only in the Thirties that fascist movements appeared, with Mosley, in Great
Britain, and in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece,
Yugoslavia, Spain, Portugal, Norway, and even in South America. "
Well that seems to show why figures like Mises wished to distance themselves from their past, yes? But let's delve further.
The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much
older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after
the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical
Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them
indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at
the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had
6
remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages – in Egyptian
hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says,
"the combination of different forms of belief or practice"; such a combination must
tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and
whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are
alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already
spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major
traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic,
occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian
right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right,
in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by
De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.
"Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Action being
beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is
a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical
attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism,
from Goering's alleged statement ("When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun") to the
frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs,"
"universities are a nest of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in
attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional
values."
"To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only
privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of
nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its
enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot,
possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve
the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews
are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time
inside and outside. In the U.S., a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found
in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many
others."
"Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally
aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people
of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can
(or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without
plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him
democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the
weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group
is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader
despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the
sense of mass elitism"
"Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist
transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which
implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual
habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the UrFascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise."
Oh, so this is news to you, Mises' past with the fascist party? Well, to educate you, he worked for a prominent fascist, Engelbert Dolfuss, for years. He left that country soon after the highly conservative and religious fascist party created the FSA, as it didn't have the influence to beat off the nazis that were already influencing its politics. Throughout the war, he in fact asserted that fascists would be a stalwart against the spread of socialism. He only began denouncing it, funnily enough, after the allies had won. He was in america for the war. As well as that, we have objective proof that Friedman helped to contribute to the rule of Pinnochet, if that's what you mean, through the Chicago Boys. And yet again, we find that he praised aspects of Pinnochet's rule for years, only letting down when the rule was over. We can find similar stories in Hoppe and Hayek respectively, right wing figures that seem to support the idea of a strong government silencing opposition. But i'm sure you do find history ironic, yes.
Funnily enough, as am I! And worse yet, the person I am conversing with seems to prefer ideology over history. As i've said previously, I am no socialist, and any title given to them does not impact me in the slightest. And yet, I still afford it the respect of trying to define it. Same with capitalism, or even fascism. You don't get to throw that under the bus because you disagree. And you correctly say it did mean something (although you mean communism there, socialism while it strives to abolish classes can be implemented by only reducing class strife) although from there it goes off the rails. For one, we've already been over this. The term you use is not the one that socialists use, and if it somehow became mainstream, they will find another. In any case, you also seem not to understand socialism, and it's relation to marxism. For one, socialism predates marx, by quite a while, and numerous socialists even during the life span of marx disagreed vehemently with him and denounced those that claimed to follow his teachings. As well as that, you are right in that capitalist arrangements being exploitative is part of marxist theory, but marx didn't even want a state. Not entirely sure how there would be these socialist aristocrats in that system, but i'm sure you'll come up with an "explanation." Also, socialism and marxism are not interchangeable terms. Even TIK laied that out. I wonder if he feels embarrassed, having hearted your comment?
And i'm sure you can see where you think that idea will go, and i'd agree. Systems that propagate wealth in the hands of the few under an authoritarian state where the rules of politics are either governmentally enforced or societally enforced are no fun, really. Too bad you won't really accept that answer, will you?
1
-
@DrCruel Well simply because you declaring the statement "everything I do not like is socialism," and defining socialism as "when people do socialist things," is not reasonable or logical in the slightest, and you know that. You argue from a place of ideology, not history, and your flippant attitude towards the choices of words you use proves that much as fact. We know you don't care about what socialists say about these regimes, because I already gave you numerous examples of socialists denouncing them. That, like the other things, will go unaddressed, i'm sure. And yes, saying something like"absurd and debunked" to describe a system is idealistic, for a few reasons. One of course being that it isn't, and the second being that you seem to be under the impression that Marxism is an economic theory. Might want to catch up on your reading. The LTV is an economic theory, and Marxism-Leninism is an economic theory. Marxism is a historical theory. Saying, "I am objectively correct, how am I being an ideologue?" Is kind of the point. Of course you think you're objectively correct. That's where the idealism comes into play. And you obviously want to keep on trying to normalize "left fascist," hm? Nice deflection tactic.
And yet again, it's quite funny how you contradict yourself in the very point you try to make. Because framing everyone who disagrees with you in the very aggressive manner of "socialism apologist" isn't deceitful, vindictive and utterly uncharitable at all, right? Oh wait, I forgot you're utterly convinced that you are correct in everything. My mistake. And again, you perfectly describe capitalism, a system willing to sacrifice hundred*s* of millions for the comfort of a select few, only to have people like you defend it by calling everyone you don't like your little oxymoronic buzz word.
And would that same tactic also apply to say, the pro life crowd? They have an unfortunate criminal history. Or hell, we could do the far right as a whole, what with 76% of american terrorism in the past decade. Not the most tolerant of other ideas, are you guys? I would say that ties the redhats together with the blackshirts far more, but say, isn't it time for you to apply that nuance to ideologies you agree with?
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-report-right-wing-extremists-killed-38-people-in-2019-far-surpassing-all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States
*you're
And sure, I can agree that it's certainly inappropriate. But the last time I checked that isn't called fascism. Similarly, as I said earlier, even if we take the incorrect assertion that they were "unilaterally and violently decides what others may or may not see and hear," that still may not make them fascists. The Sons of Liberty did very similar things, and I don't see you all leaping to call them leftists communist fascists, or whatever the new buzzword is.
Yes, the group you're speaking of was highly conservative in nature. But let's not let that pesky fact get in between those ears, can we?
You appear to not have grasped what I said. Tell me, are you always so willing to trust the government? Especially a government literally infamous for being masters of propaganda? Your last source you mentioned was literally all about how totalitarian governments are really good at lying to their people, and you think that this man was a "cheif spokesman of an ideology?" No. I would call him more a salesman. And if you want the truth about a product, you don't ask the salesman, you find online reviews, or ask other "customers." So no, you don't need to listen to "marxist approved sources," but then again to you i'm sure that means all non-right wing sources so perhaps you should. Empirical evidence would be nice, but you don't seem to like that either.
Saying you've done something and actually doing it are very different. Again, your last quote explains as much quite well. Yet, you try the same tactic. You gave names, yes, but didn't actually explain why they are socialist, unless you consider your definition of "socialism is when someone does socialism" to fill that role of an explanation. The simple fact is, your assertions are not evidence. They are assertions. The only actual evidence you've handed me so far are two videos and a quote from an ideologically motivated individual (like yourself) whose assertions can be undone by looking at the works of those with experience in similar areas. I would love to be able to "pretend" no sources exist, but they really don't. I do like that you included that line though, as if it covered your bases. No, i'm sorry, you have failed to answer me. In fact, if i may be so bold, you've failed to even debate me, past the first response at least. You quote a few of my lines and then go off unscripted. I've had better debates, to say the least.
And yes yes, we know, history is clearly something that you can gloss over by pretending that everyone else are the ones embarrassing themselves. Is that all you've got?
1
-
@DrCruel Oh, and you added a bit! How nice. Let's address this as well, shall we? Also, i've got to love how you can only reply to a few of my sentences at a time. Really shows how much you have to ignore the evidence that goes against your point.
Ok, so let me get this straight. Part of how you determine socialism in countries... is by seeing what anti-socialist principles they uphold. Not to count them out of course, but to call them socialist. That's pretty entertaining, really. Furthermore, saying "I don't agree to something," really isn't a method to defining it. You could make the wrong assumption, if you'd like, that all marxist theory is bunk. Good job! It still has a definition to adhere to. One that you actually have to use. Not just say, "oh they used marxist methods."
I also quite like how your source, of course written by a devout Libertarian (an ironic title) manages to quote Mises, which I find quite ironic. Mises, the same man who praised italian fascism for holding out against socialism. Mises, the same man whoworked for a fascist figure for years, and helped to set up a fascist economy. That Mises? Well it seems he has a vested interest in distancing the right from, well, his own past. But that's besides the point. I notice also how your source, much like you, has no actual qualifications in the matter (thought you probably view that as a plus) and furthermore, makes a claim that not even TIK up here was bold enough to make, that the fascists and communists were the same on all fronts, which is quite funny. Even looking at their regimes, much less their philosophies, we notice constant differences. For example, to quote Umberto Eco's (a man who lived through fascist italy) "Ur Fascism,"
"Mein Kampf is a manifesto of a complete political program. Nazism had a theory of
racism and of the Aryan chosen people, a precise notion of degenerate art, entartete
Kunst, a philosophy of the will to power and of the Ubermensch. Nazism was decidedly
anti-Christian and neo-pagan, while Stalin's Diamat (the official version of Soviet
Marxism) was blatantly materialistic and atheistic"
Well there's a few differences right there! But, let's delve deeper.
"Italian fascism was the first right-wing dictatorship that took over a European country,
and all similar movements later found a sort of archetype in Mussolini's regime. Italian
fascism was the first to establish a military liturgy, a folklore, even a way of dressing –
far more influential, with its black shirts, than Armani, Benetton, or Versace would ever
be. It was only in the Thirties that fascist movements appeared, with Mosley, in Great
Britain, and in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece,
Yugoslavia, Spain, Portugal, Norway, and even in South America. "
Well that seems to show why figures like Mises wished to distance themselves from their past, yes? But let's delve further.
The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much
older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after
the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical
Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them
indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at
the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had
6
remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages – in Egyptian
hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says,
"the combination of different forms of belief or practice"; such a combination must
tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and
whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are
alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already
spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major
traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic,
occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian
right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right,
in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by
De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.
"Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Action being
beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is
a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical
attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism,
from Goering's alleged statement ("When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun") to the
frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs,"
"universities are a nest of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in
attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional
values."
"To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only
privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of
nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its
enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot,
possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve
the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews
are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time
inside and outside. In the U.S., a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found
in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many
others."
"Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally
aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people
of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can
(or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without
plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him
democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the
weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group
is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader
despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the
sense of mass elitism"
"Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist
transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which
implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual
habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the UrFascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise."
Hm. None of this sounds very leftist. Well, here you have a un unqualified libertarian quoting a previous fascist trying to deflect from their own past, compared to a man with first hand knowledge pointing out these differences. Paints a certain picture. Everything your source describes, it does so to its own detriment. It, in the very action of trying to liken the two ideologies, points out how radically different they are. If the best source you have is a man saying "communism calls for x, and fascism doesn't, but it doesn't really count." Then I can see why you're running into issues. Let me clear it up - If it was not internationalist, it was not communist. If it was not democratic, it was not communist. If hierarchy was forced, it was not communist. If it was not equal, it was not communist. We can argue whether or not this ideology is actually attainable, but the truth is that it doesn't matter. We know what the ideology calls for, so we attribute that to our definitions. If it does not fit the definition, no matter how many times it calls itself communist, it is not. I don't understand how hard that is. Communism, since inception, was at it's base defined as a stateless, classless, moneyless society. If it was not that, it was not communist. And again, saying "well that's impossible" doesn't change the definitions of the words. If I asked you to described a well-known fictional creature like a Goblin, or asked you to describe a debunked scientific theory like phrenology, you would be able to, no problem, despite them not actually existing. Definitions don't change like that, because if you try to force the idea that communism=fascism, the people advocating for a stateless, classless, moneyless society will just find a new word. It's as simple as that. This man? he is not criticizing communism. And that, my friend, is why it all falls flat.
1
-
@DrCruel Ok, again. Here you have a bunch of assertions, with nothing but your hatred of anyone who dares think differently than you to back them up. It's typical of you at this point, but I was hoping you'd at least understand by now that that doesn't fly. It's comically easy to "obscure" the connection between leftists and Nazis, because one doesn't exist. You, however, are trying to oscure the connection to the right. Which is only customary, we've established at this point that you, and TIK who seems to agree, are more interested in ideology than history. Left Fascism isn't a redundancy, by the way. It's an oxymoron.
"If you want to see Left fascists in academia, here's some videos:"
Hm. I see... protesters. I see people espousing opinions. Is that all it takes to be a fascist in your eyes? You know, there was another group with as much contempt for protesters at you. They also loved to see them grabbed off the street, thrown in unmarked trucks, and interrogated. They were the nazis, a group you agree with on more than a few points.
The problem is that right wing fascism (the only type) is long past normalization, it's the accepted norm now. And now, since you're all getting called out for it, you're getting up in arms about how clearly, the left are the real nazis. Ignore who's actually carrying the swastikas, right?
And there you go again, saying "well this proves it," and not actually, you know, bothering to substantiate that claim. Should I quote hitler, on why he believes private property is the path forward, and the most successful tool of human history? Or perhaps Mussolini, stating unequivocally that fascism is right wing? Saying "the writings of Joseph Goebbles" doesn't prove much when you can't actually state how he proved it. Oh, and that was Hitler's chief propagandist. Not the best source, eh? You also fail to realize that what you described, even as inaccurate as it is, if it was accurate... would still not be socialism. The system you are likening it to in the Bolsheviks wasn't even called socialism by then. We, again, run into an issue that the critiques of yours fall flat, as you aren't actually critiquing the thing you claim to be talking about.
I actually gave you some important information, stuff that you yourself can look into. I did that because I know how your type of arguer functions, I provide a source ans you guys decry it as biased (leading back to that anti-intellectualism you all love) and then demand I provide another source, which leads to the same results. So I give you names, philosophies biological frameworks, for you yourself to look into. Was that a bit too much to expect from you? Hell, what I did is still orders of magnitude better than linking a youtube video of protesters.
And don't you think that definition is a bit... circular? Come on now, that's a bit silly, even for you. "The definition of socialism is when people use socialist theory..." Like yes? And what are those pieces of theory? You actually have to define the term before you do that, bud.
And again, here we see you constructing an audience that you conveniently forget to actually substantiate. What a shame. You know, I gave you names of people, socialists, that opposed the Bolsheviks from day one. Hell, I showed you that Lenin himself, while he was alive, did not consider the systems he was putting in place to be socialist in nature. You claim a historical record proves you right, but that's all it is... a claim. You also seem to not realize that regimes often change politics. A supporter of the russian revolution might have cast aside that support as soon as the government began to actually materialize and implant polict. But of course, this goes over your head, as you think no nuance can be applied when talking about things you don't like. But things you do like? Well, then we need to find every excuse out there. Say, by your logic, the fascists were not just capitalists but straight capitalist/conservative, because they enjoyed the praise and help of capitalistic enterprises/industrialists like Ford, Koch Sr, IBM, GM, GE, ect. Or conservative thinkers, like Carl Schmitt, Franz von Papen, Julius Evola, Alberto De Stefani, ect. Hell, we can look at current socialists, like Otto Strasser, a party leader who wrote an article titled,"The Socialists Leave the NSDAP!" because, surprise surprise, they realize the only similarities to their ideology were name-deep. But of course, that must be written off in your mind, because this broad, undefined group called "the socialists" supported everything you don't like. Convenient, isn't it?
You've actually provided no evidence so far. Well, sorry, you've provided two videos that are edited and missing any sort of context, and claimed that this somehow proves that the nazis are socialists. Well done. Well, we can see that TIK agrees with your historical revisionism, so that's enough, right? There's more to research than a google search, but I somehow feel that you haven't even managed that. You didn't answer my question, by the way.
1
-
@DrCruel Well yeah, sorry bud, but you probably should care about what definitions you use regarding "apologists for marxism," considering you actually need to define marxism for that statement to even make any sense. Obviously, you haven't gotten that far in your thought process. And you also clearly don't care about any sort of accuracy, political, historical, ideological, considering you insist on thinking that "left fascists" are a thing. As I said earlier, it's like you think using the word over and over will fool people. Or, perhaps you're trying to remind yourself of your conditioning, lest you have a... independent thought. And yes yes we know, academia is run by the Je- I mean leftists. Funny, that's usually a pretty big part of fascism, as per Eco's definition. An aversion to academia. Odd, hm?
Fascism actually traces back most notably to the writings of conservative traditionalists, like Evola, and of social darwinists. Obviously conservatives and socialists don't mix well, but we know as a fact socialists tend to follow a more Kropotkin-ish understanding of biology and social structures, not Darwin. That's always been a right wing thing. The connection between the right and fascists is crystal clear, but people like you love to muddy the water so you don't tarnish the right's perfect record. You know that the first, and really all, books written on fascism (some by the first fascists) called it right wing, right? And that a person in this very thread pointed out that "socialism," as in Prussian socialism (or essentially Hoppean Capitalism) has been used to describe right wing ideas that have nothing to do with socialism? All you can do to deny this fact is point to "all the socialist regimes," which is just another example of you manufacturing a public, and even worse, a history. You, right now, are dong what you accuse the socialists of doing. Do you see the irony in that, or did you think that accusing your opponents of projection grants you a free pass to not be called out for using it?
And this is where you go off into Cuckoo land. Because you link together a whole bunch of stunningly different regimes and ideologies and say, "oh, these are the same." Again, asserting without proving. Let's address some of these, yeah? The assads are social democrats, capitalist. Castro was, at best, an ML, which I know you don't care but it's not a form of socialism. North Korea, i'm sorry to say, is not socialist, nor has it ever been, nor have they ever really claimed to be. There's a reason Kim and Trump get along so well. China is currently one of the most capitalistic areas in the world, to compare it to the Gilded Age of America would be a good start. The nazis, as it has been proven to you, were more capitalists than socialist, as can be seen in their writings, actions, alliances, ect. The russians didn't even claim to be socialists for literal years. And on and on and on. You seem to think that by labeling everyone you don't like as part of one group, you get a fee pass from examining the flaws in your own ideology. Sorry bud, it just doesn't work like that. The problem with people like you is, by not caring about actual, accurate, historical definitions... it's hilariously easy to rebut your points. The issues you find with socialism? You can't even properly define socialism, why should I care about the issues you have with another system when we're talking about socialism?
The problem is, you have not yet provided evidence, nor have you shown how this goes against "me." Did you forget I said i'm not a socialist? Wait, you just call everyone who disagrees with you socialist. Never mind. The issue is, you gave me a list of names and said that this is "evidence." The best part about history is, as i've always said, that the correct readings will always have the most evidence. And I would be happy to drop onto truckloads of evidence, both contemporary or otherwise. In fact, I already have, given you some names to start research on. But you couldn't manage that, could you? I thought not. I look forward to handing out some more. :)
The only people who rob for a living are capitalists. The only people who work, deserve what they actually work for. It's as simple as that bud.
But hey, let's start this simple - define socialism for me. No, not "terrorism and evil and it's really bad," give me your actual metrics used to decide if a country, or leader, is socialist or not. Is it if they call themselves socialists? I bet it is.
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel You realize saying "left fascists" as some sort of argumentation tactics doesn't work, right? It's an oxymoron. No matter how much you try to use the term to normalize it and to trick people into thinking it's a real thing, it doesn't work on anyone with more than a single brain cell.
And there you go, diverting from the actual definition of socialism, and more importantly, fascism. Fascism is not socialism, if anything it's a variation of capitalism. So yes, by you deflecting from that fact, you are defending it, by attacking ideas that are not fascist. Fascism is not a variation of socialism, even it's creators were open with that fact. But I suppose where there's history to be found, there will always be denialism upon those that it shines poorly upon. Fascism is a right wing ideology. Easy, clear as day.
This is another one of those little assertions you guys like to make, with no proof. It's that little thing you do where you manufacture a public rather than deal with the one that exists. Who were "the socialists?" Were they like Orwell? Were they like Trotsky? Were they like... oh, Lenin? Who described his system as not socialist? Jeez mate, if you're going to pretend a popular opinion existed at one point, you can at least try a bit harder. And again with the "left fascists." The fact that you need to make a distinction tells the truth there, doesn't it?
And yes yes, we know. You perfectly describe the actual policies of capitalism, just pin it neatly onto socialism, because that's far easier than actually engaging with the faults of your own ideology. Hell, people were calling capitalism theft within years of the term first being used, and it's only recently that reaction ary fascist-defenders like yourself have even attempted to pretend otherwise. And you uh... know socialism is a direct result of enlightenment philosophies, right? Or did you not get that far yet into your 9th grade history class?
Capitalism, objectively, is theft. It is, and propagated, enslavement. It, of all other ideologies, has the highest death count associated to it's name, and the greatest number of murderous and dangerous elites. The ideology itself comes from the false concepts of social darwinism, an ideology the nazis shared with capitalists. And we know what the end result of that is, right? You also throw out a whole bunch of words you don't know, which is ok, I more than expected yet. Surprised you didn't start ranting about postmodernism or cultural marxism. But at least now, you'll know that the nazis were on the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialists, and you'll promptly apologize for wasting my time with yet another historically denialist take, right?
Oh, by the way - before you jump into hysterics, i'm not a socialist. Depending on how fucked up your political definitions are, I might even be right wing according to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "Lol, he abolished it with the Reichstag fire decree, oh he protected it like he did with Junker’s? Seizing it and giving it to a party member?"
I already addressed this, kid. He didn't actually enforce that law, he protected private property, not outlawed it.
"Or maybe he protected it like he did the non-Nazi welfare and healthcare help groups; disbanded them and sized them under the socialist party"
You mean privatized the healthcare they already had, right? Also, there was no socialist party. They killed all the socialists, remember?
"The zero sum theory, shrinking markets
Again they’re described in the books hitler referenced
And what I’ve cited many times."
No, you haven't. You've shown yourself to not at all understand the subject matter you're talking about. You haven't cited a single thing so far.
"Sped, so I even need to cite your many insults?"
That's another personal attack.
"Meanwhile never looked up the work specifically by them I cited "
You mean the work you didn't cite, but vaguely alluded to.
"And again with more personal attacks :) "
did you seriously just try to use the "ur getting mad" meme as an argument? This is sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "Imagine reading Marx to understand Capitalism, right?"
Nice assumption. I didn't.
"Darwinism marx pushed as his idea."
No, marx followed kropotkin biology.
"You could’ve also found him by linking the work of his I referenced "
You didn't reference any work, though. You said that they vaguely wrote something a while ago. Whoop de doo.
"never mind his work, practices and so on."
Looking at those works and practices, that's how you tell he wasn't a socialist or a marxist.
"Again it isn’t right wing fully in the economy level; aka: free markets, hands off."
That is not the only idea on the right. Monarchism was right wing, and there were no free markets.
"Where did Mussolini call himself a capitalist? :)
"
I would recommend reading James Gregor's book on fascism, he quotes mussolini saying this in a speech.
"He also referred to himself as a socialist since he was a kid, worked at a socialist news paper and started a few protests and riots including the march in Rome.
"
You know he got kicked out of the socialist party for not being a socialist, right? Also, that's another fallacy.
"Also his words were ‘I am a socialist’
"
The ones he said before he became a capitalist, yes.
"Now a Marxist objectivist?"
Thanks for proving my point.
"No, you’re staring the Marxist scholars and so on aren’t Marxist, the ideas don’t share the same and so ‘can’t be similar or practice the same’ or anything else I guess"
Because you call everyone you don't like marxist. You only now have given me a single name.
"Funny... hmmm; everyone owns their own economy in communism, no state government, free to work and trade
Couldn’t be capitalism, right?"
I know you're being sarcastic, but literally yes.
"fuck’n reminds me of the doctor in dead space with that line."
Knew it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "[Marxist has evolved into: Grammar Nazi]"
Ah, so that's a personal attack fallacy.
"Also can’t even look up the guy and I’ve named him fully multiple times."
I did look him up, he doesn't exist. Link me his works.
"Mussolini was a Marxist capitalists... aka: following the Marxist ‘we can’t have socialism during capitalism so we must have the same thing’"
No, just a normal capitalist. No marxism involve,d he (like the nazis) hated marxism and socialism, and was good friends with libertarians and conservatives.
"State capitalism isn’t right ring economy :) he also was a environmentalist, followed Marxist theories- his fucking books are online for free by the way, read them for context."
Aww, getting triggered? Nope, state capitalism is right wing, always was. There are plenty of right wing environmentalists, and I already gave you a quote where he explicitly says he hated marx. So will you apologize for being wrong?
"Last I recall Lenin called Mussolini a socialist and met with him, Mussolini also never had full power as Italy had a king at the time "
You recalled incorrectly, i'm sorry to say. Mussolini called himself a capitalist, and was proud of that fact.
"Also didn’t you just pull the ‘not a true Scotsman Fallacy’ ‘they are wildly different’ "
So you objectively don't know what the no true scotsman fallacy is then.
"Not to mention Lenin was alive when Marx was"
Lol this entire massive paragraphs proves that you have no idea what marxism even is, because you just called a capitalist system marxist. Why don't you understand politics?
"Hmm... I wonder if this means Hitler was still a true socialist/Marxist since... you know, he described their ideas, theories and so on "
Which theories? The ones where he said he loved capitalists, gave them awards, and vowed to protect private property? Sounds a lot like hitler was more of a capitalist.
"Oh a personal attack, as usual. :)"
How is correcting you an attack?
"Never mind me citing Marxist philosophers and so on you’ve never heard of, quotes and so on."
Well I never heard of them because... they don't exist, dude. I've already proved that. You also didn't provide any quotes, from anyone. That was me. But yes, you're stupid for not knowing who Rothbard was.
"You mean your definition of those ideas... again a personal attack.
"
It isn't, those are the objective definitions. Why is reality and facts an attack to you? Do words hurt your feelings that much?
"But it’s to be expected since you go by biased sources such as Marx."
lololololol yeah imagine reading marx to understand marxism, right?
"Also still refusing to cite the work who mentioned the word ‘capitalism’ first lol"
So you're blind then? Because I did cite it.
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "The ‘assertion’ that CHAZ made a cop’s free zone, that RAZ tried to ‘keep things civil’ or some shit, also never mind Antifa, BLM (lead by a trained Marxist) and so on promoted Chaz"
Yes, because most of those things are things that you have not even bothered to try to prove. It's most likely because you know they're lies.
"And the people also got food by donation :) and of course the CHAZ community Gardens
"
Which are capitalist! Good job.
"Also nevermind the robberies and so on, or their blocking of roads restricting trade of said business
Cherry picking Fallacy :)"
The one you literally just committed? Wow, that's some stellar self awareness. Hey, did you know none of those things happened? Why do you hate the truth?
"Let’s see, can’t leave unless you give a minority 10$
Cops can’t enter
Roads are blocked"
Let's see:
1. False, not true
2. As long as they're not on duty
3. Nope, false again
"Okay, I’m laughing my ass off now at that notion, tribal."
ate, you didn't know who rothbard was. You don't know what capitalism is.
"Sure, keep asserting that, still ignoring the Antifa, BLM (lead Marxist) black panthers (Marxist) and so on groups lol
Also wasn’t Marx getting a painting a there at some point? Lol or am I thinking of another autonomous zone?
"
I'm "ignoring" them because guess what? All of what you just said was a lie. Do you admit to lying?
"Oh here we go with the ‘not a true Scotsman Fallacy’ "
Yes, I called out you using it.
"What’s your definition of community?"
You really like deflection, don't you?
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "i’m sorry, but i can lend someone a sandwich for trade"
Again, i've already explained to you that that ins't how private and personal property work. Why can you not tell the truth? Is it an allergy you have?
"evermind the trichotomy I mentioned, the history ether
The Composition/division Fallacy (Keynesian FDR idea) with the genetic fallacy, Cherry picking of ‘oh I claim this is right ring (ignoring what was presented) and so every other bit of data means nothing’ right? Such as the example presented."
aaaaaand more deflection. We're talking about monarchism, kid. Which is a right wing idea. FDR was a capitalist, as well. You also have not even tried to rebut either of those claims.
"So that’s why you keep referencing Marxist, not socialists... feeling defensive?"
Yes, you are. Because i've proven you wrong. Why can't you admit that?
"Context being I already mentioned this such as with George sorwell and be ‘race matters’ idea Marxists came up with."
The ideas that I disproved, and the man that doesn't exist? Oh, right, that's it. You don't actually know your histor.y Link to me a work by this sorwell.
"Also ignoring the Marxist idea of ‘feudalism, democracy, capitalism, socialism, Marxism’ stage ‘ought to be’ Fallacies and ‘intelligent design’ ideas lul."
So you admit you don't understand history and are engaging in fallacy? Good.
"Personal attack Fallacy... which you’ve been doing constantly."
Me? You started this off with a lie, and have yet to actually debate. I'm still waiting for any proof. Stop being a child, and either shut up or prove me wrong. Oh wait, you can't. because I am objectively correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "Private property: I own this sandwich, I own this car I paid for it."
So you just admitted you don't understand what private property and personal property are, ro how they're different. Well as long as you know you're ignorant, that's step 1.
"Sure... because we totally fought the British over that, and them not protecting rights of their citizens ether."
What does this have to do with monarchism being a right wing ideology? Oh right, nothing, because it's a fact.
"And here is where a socialist will screech: ‘Marx was communism not socialism’
Or a Leninist would say: ‘the end goal of socialism is communism’"
I'm uh, not a socialist mate. And we all know how much conservatives love taking that lenin quote out of context.
"A socialist Marxist guy in the 70’s (I think) had to pick what socialism was... he couldn’t because they said one thing or another so he settled on Leninism"
So in other words you don't even believe your own lies anymore, and have abandoned all pretenses of grammatical soundness because you don't want to admit I already proved you wrong.
"Sorwell which you somehow believe is marx but isn’t marx even tho I mentioned him by name sis marx was right at the start, not at the beginning writings "
1. Work on adding punctuation, kid.
2. Quote me saying that.
3. Link me a work by "Sorwell."
"His works following that is what influences Lenin, Mussolini and possibly hitler who was influenced by mussolini, Marxists, Leninist"
You just named a bunch of wildly different ideologies and pretended they were the same. You know Mussolini was a capitalist, right? And that hitler was a state capitalist?
"Didn’t Marx break up with them around 1850?"
Nope, max disagreed with some anarchists but still held the belief that the state should be abolished.
"Also someone hasn’t listened to the socialists such as AOC or the Marxists in the America’s ‘red era’ praising FDR and honoring him by naming their bills after his"
I already corrected your childish notion that AOC is a socialist, kid. Are you blind?
"Who’s Rothbard?"
hahahahahaha holy fuck. you're actually that stupid.
"So... ‘I own this and can trade it at my own will’ somehow isn’t anarchism?
But... ‘the party/whoever is in charge of he community says I can’t have this so I can’t have it’ "
So it appears from this, you don't understand what anarchism is, you don't understand what leftism is, and you don't understand what capitalism is. Good job!
"Funny you mention history and ignore some recent anarchists "
Like who? Noam Chomsky, the leftist?
"Hmm let’s see: no police, RAZ and so on basically, also never mind the open socialists, commies and Marxist groups there in charge lol"
All of this is more blind assertion that you can't actually prove. All you've done is show that you're willing to lie when you've been corrected.
"Not exactly, mob rule remember... ‘the community’ deemed food and free shit; also ignore the whole
"
Mate there were still stores open inside, selling food. That's what we call capitalism.
"And last I checked... they violated free market by restricting who can leave and who can enter... regulation lol
"
1. They didn't. Anyone was allowed in. Try again, kid. you can see videos of people just walking in. No ID check, no walls.
2. Borders are capitalist by definition.
"Sorry to burst your bubble; Marxist groups occupied the zone, ran it by mob... "
Oh don't worry, you didn't burst anything. You actually proved me right and then lied a whole bunch, which effectively means that you've proved that CHAZ was capitalist, not socialist. Good job!
"Tell me; what of anarchism is: ‘mob rule, community government’ the thing, oh right... left wing anarchism/government
implements by mob rule
"
Why don't you actually try to read some anarchist thinkers, or listen to actual anarchists, first? Because what you're doing, like always, is defending the fascists and lying.
"Aka: tribalism
Tribes are communities, right? ;)"
Incorrect yet again. But please, keep lying. It's fun to watch history begin to catch up with you as you flounder after being exposed to historical fact.
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 Uh, nope. Socialism isn't regulated capitalism, we've been over this. All of what you just stated is just regulated capitalism.
Yes and kings were right wing, good job! So you acknowledge that the far right is not always capitalist.
Oh gosh, you uh... you've never read any marx, have you. Do you even know what private property is?
Oh, and I always love whipping this quote out for ignorant right wingers. ""we must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical"
Who said that? Oh right, Rothbard. It's almost like anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Actually, it's exactly like that!
Mate, I hate to burst your right-wing rant bubble, but CHAZ wasn't any system. It was a protest, that was all. If anything, it was capitalist, because they were selling and buying things like merchandise and food within the premises. You just perfectly described the failures of supposedly "free" market capitalism when actually tried. They promoted no ideology, but the ideology they acted out was undoubtedly capitalist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "Wow... someone hasn’t read his writings"
I have, actually. PErsonally, he was pretty bigoted, but he advocated that any socialist system, or communist even, would do away with race, and that race is a less important vector of social impression.
"Also someone hasn’t read the people mentioned such as George sorwell"
Did you mean George Orwell? Because there really isn't any "sorwell" that i'm aware if. If you did mean orwell, then he was inspired by dictatorships, and was a left wing libertarian. He wasn't a marxist, and hitler didn't read him at all.
"Reichstag fire decree: suspending acts of the Weimar constitution including the right to property."
Ah, you mean the law they never enforced? The regulations that they never actually implemented? The private property that they granted corporations?
"So the far right isn’t capitalists, right?"
Some are, some aren't.
" Since fascism is regulation... extremely strict regulation where you need state approval to buy stuff and of course the party seizing property is somehow ‘free’ too and somehow ‘property rights’"
not only is that not true, it also doesn't disprove it being right wing.
"So Labor theory isn’t communist or socialist.."
Are you actually reading what i'm writing, or just making new stuff up since I proved you wrong? You known hitler didn't follow the LTV, right?
"since he also described the Jews and Bolsheviks as capitalists, specifically Marxist capitalists lol"
Oh ok, you're insane. That's cool. There is no such thing as a marxist capitalist, he described socialism and marxism as a jewish plot, mate. Again, nice job proving yourself wrong.
"Oh right... he ‘rejected’ them, obviously not their ideas tho lol."
No, as i've proven to you time and time again, he rejected their ideas in full.
"So Marxist writers, or self proclaimed Marxist writers and socialists aren’t socialists
"
You haven't actually named any of those yet, bud. So in other words, you have not provided evidence yet.
"I guess Engles is also not a socialist, as is AOC, Bernie and so on"
I mean, literally yes. Engels was a utopian communist, and AOC and Bernie are social democrats.
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 The best part of the 25 point plan is that all of it is right wing, and most wasn't even implemented. Let's look at some quotes, kid.
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
- Adolf Hitler.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "sorry to offend you somehow by pointing out some obvious bullshit in your unbaked statements."
Where did you do that? I'm still waiting.
"Let’s see
Left: we need regulation, we need worker mandates, we need government to do this’"
You really think that's all the left wants? So you admit that you're politically illiterate, right?
"Also you far left: ‘we need no government, no mandates, no regulations’
Sorry to bust your bubble, but where the fuck does the ‘we need government’ suddenly turn into ‘government bad’ spill?"
It turns into "government bad" when you drop your strawman of the left. I'd recommend trying that, kid.
"Funny, you don’t even remember I mentioned this was outside looking in, and not what the Germans used for said term and I can’t mention it ether as it’s a fuckin long German word"
Because not even you can make a convincing argument to dismiss the facts, so you deflect. Typical.
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 "*ignoring the literal term: dictatorship of the proletariat*"
Read what you just wrote, then get back to me. Let's see if you realize where you made your mistake by yourself, or if i have to correct you.
"By Engles definition: ‘our core philosophy is the abolishment of private property’
They were 100% socialist on that part since February 1933-1946"
Nope. Not only did they not actually abolish private property, you took that line out of context and tried to ignore the surrounding definition. You guys do that a lot.
"As is called by Marx and Engles who preach about Control of wages and prices/production
Marx and Engles following the theory of labor follow the wage control of: paid 8 hours wages
Which Hitler managed to enforce and control with wage controls "
Literally none of that is true. I already explained this to you, price controls is just regulated capitalism, it has nothing to do with socialism. The labor theory of value isn't "8 hours paid wages," what? So in other words, yet again you just proved hitler wasn't a socialist.
"Also Hitler followed Engles, Marx and so on
"
Nope, he explicitly said he rejected all of their teachings.
"He described he shrinking markets in meim kamf, followed the zero sum Fallacy and is why he stated he needed soil; so to manage this he followed what mussolini did; instead of relying on class he relied on nationality because people responded more to that than the class bullshit."
Not only is this not true, but even if it was, it means that what you just described isn't socialism. Nice self own.
"He also followed Marxist writings such as George Sorwell and the ‘race matters’ Marxist; one saying ‘race and tribalism’ is the true core not the class, and sorwell doing what Lenin did: ‘they’re too stupid to do something for themselves so we have to do it for them’"
What are you actually on? Seriously? Marx literally said race didn't matter at all, and socialism explicitly rejects tribalism for community. In other words, you just proved he wasn't a socialist again.
"Oh and maybe look at a bit more than: ‘muh definition on Websters’"
I have, actually. Which is why it's so comically easy to prove your lies incorrect, time and time again. Why do you support fascist politics?
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 huh, funny. You're wrong on all counts, yet again. You guys are really good at making fools out of yourself. You can absolutely look at Hitler's privatization efforts to prove he was right wing, but that's far from the only proof. Actually, there will always be far more proof that he was right wing. Always.
He actually wasn't a Socialist, as you know I'm sure. Socialism isn't a right wing term, and since he was right wing, far right in fact, he couldn't have been a Socialist. In fact, he was far closer to modern conservatives to modern socialists. This is what we call an objective fact.
And I'm sorry to burst your childish bubble, but uh ... Anarchism is far left, dude. Anarchy has never been a right wing idea, it's left wing by definition. The right has always preferred large government power, and despise any form of anarchism. You might want to brush up on your historical context.
And saying "privatization is basically nationalization" is funny. It's like you don't even remember your own arguments, but you keep failing at them anyway. So now, you'll apologize for being incorrect, right? You'll show some form of humility and admit that you have disregarded history and correct definitions to push your right wing historical denialist agenda?
1
-
John Dillinger nope. The "community as a whole" is not the state, not even close. The community is is community, and it is democratic. If a dictator controls the means of production, and the people have no say in any of it, it isn't Socialism. You disproved that the Nazis were Socialists by actually providing the official definition, which is quite funny. By the correct definition, the Nazis were not Socialists. Hell, they weren't even socialists by your rewriting of the definition, that's how objectively wrong you are. The people, the community, in Nazi Germany had no control over the means of production. They could not control their profits, their production, their wages. The right wing dictator Hitler did that. Hitler was not the community as a whole, you proved yourself wrong. Good job realizing that. Why did you need to rewrite the definition to try to prove your point? Is it because you know you're a liar?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1