Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "Amazon (UK) pressured into banning Mein Kampf and other historical Primary Sources" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@[CT CCTCGGCGGG] You should look into the actual history of those who praised the nazis. Hint - it was the right wingers. As in the people who still fly their flags.
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
-
@[CT CCTCGGCGGG] Calling the most right wing people "leftists" is certainly an interesting attempt at doublethink...
Quick problem with that - the nazis weren't socialists, and you're closer to the nazis than socialists willl ever be.
If that's the impression you got from reading marx, then you literally did not read him. He set out no road maps for anything, he's infamous for it.
The nazis quite literally despised those dialectics, ok.
This is the actions of a private company, mate. Not the government. You pretend to oppose the nazis, but as long as you pretend they are socialists you'll never actually be opposing them
There is nothing about the nazi regime that qualifies it as being socialist. Can you name something that qualifies it?
If you can't find that definition, you may just be blind.
State capitalism isn't a contradiction, however socialist nazism is. And you are wrong, you don't know what marxism is. Socialism is based on class, even before marx.
You've been proven wrong, time and time again. Perhaps you should stop supporting people like the nazis as they actually existed by strawmanning their ideology.
1
-
@[CT CCTCGGCGGG] Exactly, I look at those and I find that they were about as socialist as you are. Which is to say that no matter what parts of their propaganda you want to look at, all it takes is a tiny bit of effort to find how objectively wrong you are. Effort you should have put in ages ago.
Ohhh, you're that kind of denialist. You know the term right wing literally started with describing monarchists, right? The right has no aversions to giant governments, bureaucracies, and overbearing social policy and totalitarian rule. The left has no aversion to small or even no government, hell, anarchism is leftist, and libertarianism was used for a long time (and still is in many places) to describe leftists. This is so easy to disprove it's no wonder that you want to erase history, even looking at it for half a second proves you objectively wrong, instantly.
1
-
1