Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "Why the Nazis Weren’t Socialists - ‘The Good Hitler Years’ | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1937 Part 2 of 2" video.
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Bluearmy76
Let me attempt to correct this with actual historical fact. Hitler himself noted, multiple times, that his ideology was right wing, that he loved private property, and that he disliked the title socialist, but was forced into it when a part of his party that he would later purge chose the name. That same part of his party led the effort of, and created, the 25 point plan, which hilter openly stated that he had no intention of following. You know, the thing you call "socialist ideology." Of course, they didn't nationalize, they privatized. They allowed more private individuals to gain more and more personal wealth. They hated the greater good, and thought society should run on competition. The few other things you note, such as big government, land grabs, and strong central power, are all about as right wing as you can get, and were proudly supported by the right at the time. "Certainly not right wing?" In your dreams. They were anti-socialists/leftist ideology, and they were all about their nationalistic, conservative views.
Hitler himself confirmed they were socialists…. Along with the National Socialist Program 25 point plan, full of socialist ideology! All about big governemnt, working for the greater good, nationalisation, share and confiscation of personal wealth, land grabs, strong central power in the Reich, etc etc etc. Certainly not right wing. They were anti capitalist/free markets, all about the motherland.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wessd Quick problem with that - it's all incorrect. The nazis themselves didn't want to be associated with socialists, hell, socialists were the first to go to the concentration camps. This isn't an issue of association for me, nor anyone who argues they weren't socialists. It's an issue of definition. When the nazis actually defined their ideology, they make it exlicitly clear that they aren't talking about socialism. They hold up wealth, private property, and class differences as good things, all while saying this is "real" socialism. That's the point, when they say they are socialists, what the mean is that they are their version of socialists. Which is to say, not socialists at all by any definition. Today's dems aren't called socialists for an equally good reason... they're capitalist. TIK is wrong in that the systems of russia and italy/germany at the time were identical, they were so radically different that the comparison doesn't even make sense. They didn't do the same thing, at all, unless you describe what they did so vaguely as to render it meaningless.
4
-
4
-
@wessd They just didn't, though. Again, for one, the state controlling something does not make it socialism. For two, the state did not control everything, they set out guidelines and made government contracts to be filled, but that isn't even relevant because even if they did control everything, if they distributed none of that control it wasn't socialism. I also take a bit of issue with your definition of left vs right. Yes, in either party there is a far left and far right, but the issue is in america we don't have a centered overtone window, our window is substantially to the right. That means that the far right of the republicans really are far, and the "far" left of the dems, as rare as it is, isn't really far left at all. Easily the most far-left popular dem is bernie sanders, and the policies he advocates for are already in place in most of the world. Nearly every dem is capitalist, and bernie's platform is social democratic, in other words, capitalist. Most far left types despise the dems, because they prefer the corporate centrists over people like bernie, who they feel represents them more. The dems literally made a huge deal, this election, of denouncing the far left (or what they assumed was the far left) rather than the right. There is no solid left, because the dems just capitulate to the republicans whenever possible. Neither side is a cohesive front, but the issue is it's much easier to get mainstream support being far-right than far-left. In any case, no, socialism is not just the state, nor does it even need to have a state in the first place. Statism is not socialism. They weren't socialist at all, just totalitarian. And the west, in many cases, was far more socialist than them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mountedpatrolman Oh, so you're one of those types. First off, ad hominem is not "when you are insulted." To engage in an Ad Hominem argument means to use insults as arguments. For example, saying "you're wrong because you're stupid" is Ad Hominem. Saying "you're stupid, and here's why you're wrong" is not. Also, proclaiming somebody "has already lost the argument" because you think they engaged in a fallacy is an example of "Fallacy of Fallacies," which disqualifies your nonsense as well. Add that to the fact that within the first line your insult me, (glaring indoctrination) well that makes you a hypocrite. Of course you know who TIK is, you watched his video, as did I. If you would have actually watched the video, though, you would remember that he devotes a surprisingly small amount of time to actual historical arguments, and he openly admits his sources do not agree with his conclusions. So thank you for admitting you did not actually watch the video.
the NSDAP having a government position does not mean that position held any power, or was even used. No, in fact historically we see that businesses were free to refuse the orders of the nazis, and often time only listened because the nazis offered guaranteed profits to businesses that helped their genocidal, anti-socialist regime. If nazi price control existed, and was so strict, why did so many international industrialists come over to do business with them? Why did the majority of rich germans only grow their wealth? Can you make a single factual statement?
The fact that you cannot argue against Mises' connection to fascism, and instead attempt to rebut it with an Ad Hominem argument, proves my point further. Mises was well aware what fascism was, after all, he was a high ranking government official in a fascist country for a time, and he viewed it as an indispensable weapon against leftism and socialism. The fact that you think a praising of genocidal fascism is simply "contemporary commentary" tells me a lot about you. And of course the man had dealings with Rand, it makes sense. Rand, Mises, and Fascism, for example, all had core similarities, including mainly their hatred of the poor and weak. Rand, after all, was famous for praising serial killers, and Mises for praising fascism. But thank you for providing a quote from Mises, where he openly admits that anti-socialist fascist movements have, in his eyes, "good intentions," and while he personally does not want a dictatorship, he thinks they are a necessary tool to use when the poors and leftists get a bit too... uppity. How "libertarian."
The NSDAP economy was crafter by anti-marxists, anti-socialists, and major contributions from conservatives and capitalists alike. In nazi germany, the name of Marx was used to fuel antisemetic crimes, to the level that even jewish children would be labeled "marxists" to justify their execution. Communism and Nazi ideology were in direct competition, yes. Socialism and anti-socialism always have been. However, to claim they were "two sides of the same coin" proves that you can only regurgitate half-remembered lines from TIK. Fascism rejected any sort of class analysis, openly. Fascism did not want a socialism of a race, as they openly said, and showed. Have you tried actually reading any of TIK's sources themselves? I can tell from your statements that you have not written anything hitler has written, or anything written about him. You only seem to have watched the TIK video.
4
-
@franks450
By "bullshit" I must assume you mean "a truth I am not willing to address?" Like it or not, the nazi's right wing economic opportunism was openly in service to their right wing cultural goals. Now as we've been over, the nazis weren't socialists in any form. In fact, hitler openly said that his term, "national socialist," had nothing to do with any socialism, could have gone by any other name, and calls for right wing, conservative, pro-private policy. They didn't desire they actual merits of socialism, nor did they seek to apply them. Even if we take your definition ("the actual merits of socialism could only be achieved through the chosen race.") this still applies neither to the nazis actions, nor the definition of socialism. Socialism is defined as collective ownership by the community as a whole, and thus ownership by one subsection of the community, a race, does not fit the definition. If we were to stretch the definition a bit, we could come up with the idea of social ownership for one race, but this isn't socialism by definition, and of course hitler despised the notion of the average citizen having more power over industry than the private owners that funded his army. Class struggle, and "leftism," for that matter, are intrinsic to socialism, and find their roots in it long before even Marx's work. The nazis hated socialists, leftists, communists, liberals, and their allies and so on so much, precisely because the nazis had right wing goals to be met with right wing policies, and of course, the left gets in the way of that. The Nazis hated jewish people for the same reason that modern conservatives hate immigrants, or the poor, or minority groups that dare speak out. They see these people as parasites, opportunists, as cultural and economic threats that want to subvert dominant nationalist values with multiculturalism and changes in economic systems. The only true difference between the way that modern conservatives see minority groups like immigrants, and the ways the nazis saw jewish people, is that conservatives keep their calls for mass killings subtle. The nazis didn't want utopia, they wanted endless competition, hierarchy, nationalism, conservatism. Ring any bells? Hate to break it to you - there are. Love how people so willingly expose their ignorance, when they think of "all marxist nations" as the USSR, and maybe China. I also hate to break it to you but it's a simple fact that hitler's "demonizing minority groups," and marx's economic analysis and calls for the abolishing of class, are hilariously opposed. It's pretty silly that you assert that every leftist out there is as racist and antisemetic as you can get, given that many of said leftists are poc/jewish people, and of course, the right is openly calling for white supremacy and waving nazi flags. Yes, despite hitler despising the term socialist and actively making known his love for private property and the right, they called themselves socialists. In their own literature, they make note of their hatred of socialists, and their allegiance to the right, but you haven't gotten that far. They were all about their nationalistic, right wing cultural impulses. You may not like it, but their favor of socialism really wasn't that different from yours, which is to say, they actively despised it. And, of course, their ideological intent was about as far from marxism as you can get. And no, socialism and marxism are not equivalent, but distinct and sometimes overlapping concepts. Your ideological stupidity is, of course, relevant to your claims, ideologue.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wessd And i've had the misfortune of watching TIK's videos a few times, only to find out it takes three seconds to debunk his core claim. The german companies at the time were capitalist, and your version of events didn't quite happen. The companies in some areas couldn't make choices, but in some areas not relating to the war, they absolutely could. The USA at the same time had more central control over it's industry than the nazis did. The government didn't control all you said they did, often they just bribed the companies to do their work more efficiently, and even set up deals with other country's capitalists to get things done. The companies even got bailouts and financial assistance if they began to fail. What you're describing isn't socialism, it's just a wartime economy. TIK isn't detailed at all, he rants for hours about how little he understands socialism, and then pretends to prove anything. His sources include a right wing public speaker and an alt right youtuber. That isn't detailed, that isn't sourcing. There's a reason these conceptions are normal, and that's because TIK is wrong.
4
-
@markanthony3275 Tell me, do you actually read the words before you write them, or afterwards? Yes, I frankly do not care what the USSR did, because what is or isn't socialism is the same, no matter what they called themselves. The whole point of socialist collective bargaining is that every worker is represented, and if they are not, it is not socialist. Hitler didn't actually want everything to serve the state, he wanted everything to serve his people and race, which is why he also abused the private market to help in his conquests. But finally, what I was referencing earlier... actually read the words "dictatorship of the proletariat." Examine them. You see the problem? A dictatorship is a system where an individual or group has all the political power over the country. The proletariat are the working class folks, and after a socialist revolution, the citizenry at large. So when you combine them, you get... a system where the citizenry at large have complete control over the government. In other words, a direct democracy. Does that sound like what soviet russia had in place?
4
-
3
-
@rcvisee74 Ok, well, a few things. One, you can be an anti-fascist and be all of those things. Especially anarchist, I mean... how would you even argue otherwise? I know you want to call those groups fascist, but that just doesn't make sense. Second... there are probably like, 2 unironic nazbols. In existence. It's a joke of an ideology, same as posadism. However, most of these people don't much care about the ideology as a whole, they care about the people, the individuals, proposing it. I, and many other anti-fascists, aren't calling the nazis capitalists. They weren't, neither were they socialists. But the problem is, idiot fascists will hide behind one of those names so it's harder to identify their actual views. So if someone who calls themselves a capitalist gets labeled a fascist, there's probably a reason. And I mean, that is literally what happened to weimar germany, mate. But sure, throw them in a helicopter. I'd love to see that happen again.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@burstingwizard975 Two things. One, something like a worker co-opertative is a method of socialism, just on a much smaller scale. I wouldn't be socialism, because it's still done under the constraints of a capitalist system with the profit motive in mind, but it is one method socialism would be achieved. Like if a socialist country had a black market, you wouldn't call their socialism capitalism, right? Even though there are some capitalistic elements. That doesn't mean those capitalistic elements aren't real, either. However, stock ownership is very different from social ownership. Because even if every worker of the facotry owned equal stocks, they would not ave control over the production. Most don't even have that, some have ome tiny stock benefits as part of their jobs.
And I would agree that it was far more disjointed, especially the further back you go, but that's just the nature of etymology. However, socialism as i defined it was still very much a thing back then, but the people often called it something different. You would be right again, that socialism as a term was define in several ways, but the ideology we now attribute that title to very much existed, which was my point. Plato never called his work socialist, but one could apply that title years later. We can do the same with various other people.
3
-
@burstingwizard975 I would disagree, at least with your first statement. To substantiate that, I would recommend reading some figures like Proudhon, and really for the descriptor "unnatural," kropotkin. Just to give some context, Proudhon was probably the first recorded libertarian socialist, and was highly against the state, against capitalism, and especially against monarchy and nobility. He makes a good case for a "decentralized" socialism. And again, just because the descriptor "unnatural" caught my attention, I would recommend reading Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Kropotkin. He was an ex-prince and a revolutionary biologist, both in that he largely discovered/formalized the idea of linking "human nature" and economic systems alongside putting forth several new biological/societal thesis, and also revolutionary because, well, he was an anarchist. The book I mentions basically puts forward that the idea of a natural state of competition doesn't work out well, and that by far the most advanced and successful animals (and societies) are governed by a principle of mutual aid rather than a darwinian "everyone for themselves" idea. He also, like I said, links this to societies, and how it seems natural for people to settle into a tendency for mutual aid, and thus, mutualism. In other words, the system described isn't entirely unnatural. Even then, statist socialism doesn't have to have to be what you described. For example, obviously, the socialists want workers to be in charge. That means that if the state did own everything, that state would have to be representative of the people. That means some form of republic or democracy. Or, perhaps the state could give ownership of factories to the people directly. The MoP could be run by a representative state, by unions, by syndicates, by communities, by the country, by the individuals, ect. There are plenty of ways to achieve it, both withing and without a state, that I at least think would be worth consideration. I would say that yes, the tendency to totalitarianism of socialist movements in history must be examined, and their mistakes corrected, but I would disagree that socialism is by necessity totalitarianism. And same for the case of slavery, after all, one could make an argument that we're in a sort of state of coerced slavery right now, but that's something else. Anyway, yes I see your perspective here and why you think that way, but I would disagree.
And I'm happy to hear that we could agree on something here, because it really does seem like no political ideology pops out of the ground, then and there. I don't remember it off the top of my head, but I do know that many socialists went by another comprehensive name, which was eventually discarded for "socialist." I'll add it if I remember it later. But thanks for the civility.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@slnwrk Im sorry, what universe did this argument take place in? Clearly not this one, because that isn't what happened here at all. What happened was I asked for a definition, and you provided one that proves you wrong.
Why don't you Google Socialism champ. It's not that hard, I assure you.
Oh but of course, you're so smart that you think you can just rewrite basic terms, like marxism, without anyone noticing.
But it's ok, because in the end you proved me right, you proved that Nazi germany and fascist italy never acheived nor wanted any form of Socialism
But of course, again, it seems like even that basic truth had alluded you. After all, you seem to think fascist cared about class warfare. How silly.
But of course you would even deny that a basic offshoot of fascism in its ourest form is actually Fascism, most likely so you can attempt to defend Fascism
2
-
@slnwrk Except... that isn't the definition. As we've been over, in fact. Of course, that definition has never been advocated for by a socialist, and existed in empires and rulers long before socialism as a concept was created, so how can it define socialism? Do you see the lie i've caught you in yet? And of course, your lie about the nazi economy is also just that - a lie.
And, yet again, I have to tell you that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, and words do not take on different meanings because you want them to. Prove your assertion.
I have given you a definition, one you tactfully ignore. Oh, I wonder why. Wait, I know. We both know.
And I literally just gave you a quote, can you not read perhaps? Or do you think that pro-industrial capitalism right wing "socialism" is actually a system that can exist? As we've been over, your definition of socialism is fundamentally flawed, as is your "understanding" of history.
2
-
@rcvisee74 To be honest, a few most likely are run by lib-dems. Not all, certainly, and probably not a majority, but a good few. Hell, the chapter I used to run with was filled with right wing libertarians and liberals. So i'm going to have to disagree with your anecdotal evidence here, a good number of these people aren't larping for the revolution, they just don't like fascism, at all, which I think is a fair assessment. And maybe you should be targeting the nazis first, not just getting them by surprise
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rcvisee74 Real question - what would the police even do? Seriously, you argued to send in the military. The police, for as underfunded as they are, cannot keep up with literal military tactics. Furthermore, the police would operate under the same government, and would most likely just be providing military backup. If anyone were to survive, they would hate the police and government even more, perhaps to the point of real violence. The problem is with what you're saying is that it wouldn't even work, and that's of course ignoring the sheer stupidity of it. You don't convince people that government is a good thing by running them over or shooting them. Also, one can not recognize the state and absolutely be recognized by it. Why wouldn't they? Every political person seeks to replace the current system/leaders with their system/leaders over time, no one is satisfied with things as-is. So yeah, not only is your plan highly immoral...it wouldn't work.
2
-
@rcvisee74 Ok, so your entire last point was worthless. Again, a government taking military action on it's own civilians has never ended with those citizens doing anything other than despise that government. You aren't going to find security in cracking down on random people, no matter how much you want to declare them revolutionaries, pillagers, or vandalizers. The problem is, the public is well aware of that shit, they just only don't care when it's done to foreigners. When you start getting PMCs and Death Squads on American land, well, that's when they start caring. I guarantee that 90% of those calling for actual federal action against those people would bac down the second the feds actually did something. They would get annoyed by it, but they'd rightfully know it was state intervention from the start. Trump isn't letting anyone do anything, he's fooling his base into thinking they're doing something. The police are already shooting them, and I hate to clue you in, but your hypothesis is incorrect. People are only getting more angry at the state. Even your last lines don't make sense, it's the feds and those calling for state action who got us to fascism, not the protesters. I feel lie you would unironically believe in Operation Himmler if it happened in the modern day... and it is. But, as I keep saying, I guess have fun calling for political genocide. Should be a good time, but honestly, count me out. We're trying to avoid a dictatorship and extrajudicial executions mate, not speed them up.
2
-
@rcvisee74 Most of them, really. But nope, specifically the point where you said that cracking down on people through illegal means would make anyone like the government more, which is utter hogwash. Any sort of electoral reform (as if that's what this policy would be) would end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and likely be entirely unconstitutional, so good luck getting that through. And you really think they have no way to defend themselves? Well against the biggest military in the world, maybe, but against individuals? Absolutely. And I don't think you realize, theres this little thing called history. Because we can see that whenever nations crack down without good reason, the people keep rising up. Over and over and over again. So it's time to leave your echo chamber and look at history as it is, not what you want it to be. There's a reason nobody likes Pinochet anymore, mate. He didn't live long enough for his people to rise up. But now they are, in his memory. Oh, and of course right after that you decide to rewrite history. I should have guessed. No, but if we're talking about figments of imagination that are used to justify your lust for power, let's talk about those "revolutionary" protesters, hm? And you'd be right, many of the trumpers and white americans who are screaming that protesters using their first amendment right is actually oppressive really do want power, so they can oppress. Kind of like what you are doing, right now, with these scary little leftists making you grab your guns. It's ok bud, one day you'll be able to stop complaining about how much you hate people who are actually doing something with their life. Remind me, are you out there, protesting or counter-protesting? Oh wait, no, you're typing to me from your parents basement while denying history. Well, good luck with that bud.
2
-
@rcvisee74 Is that what you think counts as a good political speech? Pointing out the flaws in your argument and insulting you because of them? Wouldn't surprise me. No, that is not a good political speech, and I would know, i've had to write a few. Thanks for the compliment to my rhetoric though, that is after all how I make my money. And, to quote Shapiro, ""Right side of history" may be the most morally idiotic phrase of modern times." But i'm sure buddy, because... anarchists... are well known for taking state power and throwing people into... anarchist... gulags. Brilliant observations as always. And of course you've donated a few pennies to your local fascist militia. Just remember not to get on their bad side, then you're the "marxist" that need to be stomped out. And, pardon my corections friend, but as a man so plae he glows in the dark I think i'm allowed to talk about how a majority of white people voted for trump. Unless that's racist too? Do you need a safe space from the facts? But then again, oh, what was it you said? "It has come to my attention that many who scream "oppression" just want Power so they can oppress. Something akin to Nazis who keep blabbering on about how Jews are oppressing them." Interesting.... Well then, good luck, buddy. Just hold off the police-sanctioned genocide for a few weeks and we'll be alright, you and I.
2
-
2
-
@rcvisee74 Oh, buddy. This is the best part. We can all see how you have to so purposefully misconstrue my words to even think that your hypothesis is in any way correct, which inadvertently proves your point wrong. But it's ok bud, it's not like when you lie about my words, people can literally just go re-read what I actually said, right? We both know that your strawmanning and blame shifting, as well as tendency to conspiracy, is a fascist tactic, right? Friend, if you'll recall, I literally said that in the context of civilians not liking a violent dictator, like Pinochet. And I'm sorry to remind you, but yes, citizen revolts are what happens after that. But let me remind you that this whole time you've been advocating for public executions, the removal of rights from citizens you don't like, a police state that upholds your every desire, and your opponents to be raped and sold into slavery. Wasn't it you who defined fascism as a lack of a liberal democracy? Well, I hate to break it to you, but you can't vote in rape and slavery. So, i'm sorry to say it, but your little attempt at a moral high ground built on lies falls right through. We know you're as violent as a fascist, well, because you are one. The fact is that antifa is far less violent than you psycopaths. However, of course, now that you feel me pointing out historical trends to you is somehow me agreeing with that methodology, let's bring out a quote of yours, hm? "It has come to my attention that many who scream "oppression" just want Power so they can oppress. Something akin to Nazis who keep blabbering on about how Jews are oppressing them.""
2
-
@rcvisee74 And that's the best you have? I point out to you voting records, and you call me a racist? Oh, that's funny. So is now saying the word "white" racist? Is that how much of a victim you have to make yourself? You don't seem to be getting the point, so let's repeat your quote. "It has come to my attention that many who scream "oppression" just want Power so they can oppress. Something akin to Nazis who keep blabbering on about how Jews are oppressing them." What I said had nothing to do with racism, in fact, it wasn't even a negative comment. But of course, since you're a small fascist child that is being oppressed by the mean angry youtube commenter, you have to bust out your buzzwords. No sad little insult of yours can deflect from that. So, sorry, the reasoning isn't the same. And your thesis, as unfounded as it already was, has been handily disproven. But of course you'd think the dude who was not a nationalist, not a social darwinist, and not right wing (who also doesn't want a state) is a fascist, right? After all, newspeak is another fascist tactic, one you seem quite fond of, especially after accusing me of being violent because I pointed out the tendency of history, all while advocating for rape, slavery, and public executions of those you deem undesirable. Oh, that and blatant deflection. After all, to quote Goebbles, "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty." But, speaking of that, you seem to have a lot of hate inside of you. The nazis certainly despised civil unrest as much as you. They despised free speech as much as you. And best of all, like you've literally admitted, they wanted a strong police state and executions at all time, just like you. Oh, and of course if you were to replace the word "anarchist" with any race, we find that you're just as tending towards racism as the nazis. So my thesis that you're a racist fascist is long confirmed. However, you're very open about that, so who would be surprised?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rcvisee74 Again, this only gets funnier and funnier. Yes, unlike you, I actually do think that dignity, natural rights, a progressive social policy is a good thing to implement. But you see to have an issue with those. Now, like all other things, you're trying to manufacture a version of events that anyone who just reads through the thread can disprove in a heartbeat. What told you that I was no better than the average nazi? Was it the part where I said we have natural rights that shouldn't be infringed upon? Or where I sad I don't want a state? Or how about that tie I called public executions and genocide bad, something you were unwilling to do? You never had any interest in talking seriously, you just wanted to insult. And, of course, now you're full on animal-backed-into-a-corner, acting like my words are attacking you. Do calm down there, chap. Because we know what constant self-victimization means, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mountedpatrolman I'm sorry, but that isn't true. I love how all of you TIK cultists have to pretend people didn't watch the video, its your only way to rebut their facts, and frankly its pathetic. The nazis in no way, shape, or form nationalized all of manufacturing. Private business owners were given free reign to decline orders from the nazis, and hell, a large amount of companies the nazis worked with were international and existed outside of nazi jurisdiction anyways. "The NSDAP Set prices, decided what the companies would produce, how much they would produce, and when." This statement is false, and has no backing. Private business owners did work with the state, but mainly because that was the most profitable thing to do, which is why so many business owners supported the nazis. That's in no way socialism. You can argue it wasn't free-market capitalism, but it was objectively not socialism, it was a far right anti-socialist system. Also, Mises was an open fascist apologist, and worked for a fascist government, so not sure why you cited him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rcvisee74 Ah, ok. Well, like I said earlier, it's important to treat every ideology with nuance, even if it might seem ridiculous or historically infeasible, when defining it. I mean, after all, there are batshit crazy ideas like posadism out there, but it does no one any favors to pretend they are something they are not. (not accusing you of doing that, by the way.) And I would still have some problems with applying that definition to the nazis. I mean, again, they believed in a type of social darwinism where the weak, either by race or by material conditions, were worthless. Here's a quote from Hitler that I think exemplify that pretty well. "Thus it must be admitted that in the economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal value or of equal importance. And once this is admitted it is madness to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in value, but that is not true in the political sphere. It is absurd to build up economic life on the conceptions of achievement, of the value of personality, and therefore in practice the authority of personality, but in the political sphere to deny the authority of personality and to thrust into this place the law of the greater number — democracy." He didn't really want equality, in any form. In fact, i'd say he wanted a state-mandated hierarchy, with his germans (which is to say aryan, fit, non-disabled, straight, nazi) on the top, and all other people, even citizens of his, either in slums or mass graves. But I would agree that by your definition, one could make an argument that they were socialists... but at least from how I see it, it doesn't work. In america, as you might know, it's socialists who tend to call for things like an end of conservative social restriction, a lowering of funds to the police, and to the military as well. You can argue if these are good policies or not, but they are undoubtedly taking power away from the state. And that's just including socialists who want a state to begin with. And if a definition doesn't include all by the most uncommon outliers... is it really a good definition at all? You point out something interesting, that after the tarnishing of "socialism" many previous self-labeled socialist parties changed names, because they felt that it more accurately defined their beliefs. And that's what socialists now are doing again, finding new names and denominations, because they know they don't want soviet totalitarianism, so the association doesn't really work. Same with the nazis, and i've already laid out my points there. So yes, I would agree that they were more totalitarian, both of them, then they were ever socialist. And I would disagree with the idea that socialism always leads to totalitarianism, hell the socialists have been at the head of some of the biggest civil rights movements of America, but that's another debate.
The thing is, in America, we don't really have a Stalin figure. The last one we had on the left, the Dictator of Louisiana, was Huey Long. Even then, he was less of a socialist (no class lens) and more of an incredibly effective political dictator. Since then however, we've been moving further and further away from that. I mean, arguably the furthest-left mainstream politician is Bernie Sanders, and he literally built a platform off of taking away from the military to give back to the people. But yes, I would say the road Trump seems to be going down, that I really hope he does not, is one that is far more likely, and far more dangerous, than any sort of soviet-style america. And for antifa, I have to reveal my bias, i've been a chapter organizer for the last seven years. We're utterly non-violent, as are most chapters. There are roughly 317 cities in america, each has one or more chapters, yes most go utterly unheard of in the mainstream press, because all they do is stage counter-demonstrations a few times a year. I wouldn't even say we're close to civil war, the only reason the protests have gone on this long is, well, in a protest about police brutality, the protesters keep getting brutalized, giving more reason for them to protest... and so on. So this might serve to kick up flames more then put them out, but who knows. And you would be right, it's an incredibly complicated situation and I myself don't quite understand all sides, I couldn't expect someone who wasn't in the thick of it to do that.
And honestly, thank you as well. I think, per your recommendation, i'll look further into the connections with Rousseau and state-socialism and also more on the common European understanding/attitudes/definitions of socialism, because to be perfectly honest I hadn't heard much about it in my own time learning political theory, which is a bit of an oversight on my part.. But aside from that, i'm glad to have been able to point you in some interesting directions, I thank you for offering the same to me, and most importantly, thanks overall for just remaining civil and keeping an open mind during this discussion. I understand these are some pretty controversial issues, so it's always nice to meet someone so willing to actually sit down and chat about them, and like you said, the best parts of life are learning about and understanding new perspectives, and adding them to the "mix" that makes up your understanding of the world. So, thank you again for the interesting perspective, and Greetings from Connecticut!
2
-
2
-
@burstingwizard975 Oh god, another right wing moron who doesn't understand what socialism is and wants to pretend the most anti-socialist far right regime in modern history besides the US is socialist. Go figure.
I love how you guys all have the same regurgitated talking points. "socialism predates marxism." Yes, and? You can't define that term either! He didn't embrace socialism, nor marxism, nor any form of leftist thought. Your bizarre ad hominem attack does not thing to prove this. Your strawmans of his argument are to be expected, after all, no person could actually prove that hitler is a socialist, so in order to seem like you have any credibility, you have to lie and make things up. Also, again, you don't know what socialism is, and it's painfully apparent. Socialism does predate marx, and does not demand communism, but you seem not to understand that even by pre-marx terms the nazis were in no way socialism. You literally have to label random things socialist to even try to make the comparison. did you know that even the fascists said they were right wing, they frequently allied with conservatives, and that hitler said he despised the left? You do not know what the term socialist means. This video, and many other, prove you wrong instantly, and you only seek to prove yourself wrong further by continuing to talk. We know they weren't socialists, it was the conservatives and capitalists who loved them, and the socialists who ended up sacrificing millions of lives to defeat that right wing threat of fascism. It truly is embarrassing that you, like so many others, can pretend to know anything about history while spouting off nonsense like this. You should know better. The problem is, you want to pretend like the only definition of socialism, the correct one, is just marxism. It's pathetic.
Again, socialism is not marxist, yes. He also does not fit any pre-marx, post-marx, or anti-marx definition of socialism out there, at all. The only people who even can define him as a socialist are idiots like you guys who don't even know what the term means. Hitler worshiped hierarchy, he was anti-modernist, he was highly conservative and traditionalist. He hated socialism, and hated the ability of Jewish people to get rich in capitalism, so he makes up newspeak terms for both of those. He, like you, calls anything that follows the traditional (and only) definition of socialism "Marxism," for the purpose (lie you said) of connecting it to, and blaming it on, a Jewish figure. Even though he finds himself in league with many capitalists and industrialists who came from all the way across the ocean to work with him, he still claims to hate capitalism, yet works with capitalist both foreign and local. Nazism is not third way because it's to the right of marx, and trust me, there are things to the left of marxism. Hell, even people like August Willich, an American Republican, were calling marx far too conservative on this issue. Nazi economics were third way because they steal elements of many systems, capitalism, socialism, monarchism, and mix them all up into one thing. Their philosophy however, of traditionalism, hierarchy, and social darwinism was right wing. The nazis were not socialists, and were not right wing.
And again, I agree. Marx was used as a target because he was ethnically jewish. However, it was not just marxism that hitler targeted. He targeted all socialist thought, he just pinned it all under Marx's name as an excuse to do so. And I ave to disagree here, as germany was not swinging left after the left wing Weimar Republic fell. Looking into the actual positions of the time, and especially the nazis electoral strategy which involved distributing films much lie Erbkrank, it was a right wing social movement that toppled the Republic. It was, after all, concern for the failed welfare system darning the state and the failure of democracy. Hell, it was a concerted effort of conservatives like Franz von Papen that even got hitler non-democratically elected in the first place. The capitalists didn't lose under hitler, that is, if they weren't jewish. Take Ford, or Koch Sr, or IBM, or GE, or GM, ect. Those were all companies that found themselves dealing with, selling to, and making trades with the nazis, completely of their own volition. Hitler didn't want any socialism to gain power... HE just wanted power. And as for Hayek... I mean, the man spent his whole life talking very similarly to Carl Schmitt, decrying the failure of democracy and the need of a purge of authority. He praised fascists in his own time. Not the best example.
2
-
2
-
@burstingwizard975 Oh god you guys are doing this again. You know I... addressed these arguments already, correct?
What I said was not an opinion backed by nothing, it was historical fact, like it or not. And if you want to make up bullshit in order to respond, just don't bother with a response at all. That was pathetic.
I did explain it simply. Again, it's a multi-century old political ideology, which has had several thousand books written on it, by thousands of different people. Literally more work than can be gone over in a single lifetime. Three paragraphs is fine to explain that. You shoud not expect anyone to have to simplify things down for you so much, because it shows utter laziness on your part. And again, I already addressed that claim, that that definition is marxism. Not it is not, it was around before marx, it was an opinion shared by anti-marx socialists, and long after marx is dead non-marxists still believe in that definition. As I said earlier, I already addressed this nonsense. It's sad that you have the ego to pretend I don't know what i'm talking about, when you so clearly don't even know the definition of socialism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@burstingwizard975 No, you have not. The road to serfdom proves no such thing, and you cited it in relation to an entirely different argument. The gulag archipelago is in no way centered on the ideological definitions of socialism and marxism. The communist manifesto not only proves you explicitly wrong by citing socialist theory prior to marx that goes long the lines of what you call "marxism," but is also a short political pamphlet made for illiterate factory workers. None of those citations actually prove what you allege to be true. I could cite to you the works of Plato's "Republic" as an example of early socialist thought, or Aristophanes' "Ecclesiazusae." I could bring up Mazdak and his early proto-socialist religion, or Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice," or Charles Hall's "The Effects of Civilization on the People in European States." I could use socialists in the growing movement, like Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc and Saint-Simon. Hell, I could bring up socialists that detested Marx, and agreed with him on nothing, like August Willich, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. And every single one of these figures and works, even the earlier ones, proposes a system in which the workers own the means of production directly. But of course, you don't know what socialism is.
2
-
@burstingwizard975 Well, I already gave works by some of these people in my longer response, but ok then.
And that's my point, those that seek to use the "state control" definition, like TIK for example, aren't really using the actual definition, and that's the problem. Even besides, and before marx, they didn't advocate for a system resembling full governmental control of the means of production, they in fact argued against that, specifically. So I would agree, those definitions are not at all indicative of the actual definitions.
And I have to ask how, really. The means of productions being owned by the workers collectively, the workers as a whole. In capitalist systems, theoretically a single person can own the means of production, and the full means of their own labor, yes. Marx wasn't even opposed to that, he thought things like Art could and should belong to those who contribute, and if it's one person who "contributed" towards making it, than that art is their personal property. The thing socialism focuses on is owning the work of others, and why that's bad in capitalism. A socialist isn't going to take away your painbrush, they'll take away your factory. If you have something that already requires the work of other people to maintain, to function, and to gain profit, then that is the "means of production," that is the things the workers should fully own. So while the systems you describe do exist in capitalism, they are not uniquely capitalist, they don't really deal with private ownership. They are also not uniquely socialist.
2
-
@burstingwizard975 Oh yeah, sure. By the way, you can probably find some PDFs and what not online, for example, here's one of Mutual Aid (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution) but I can understand not wanting to stare at a screen for hours on end to read it, so a hard copy might still be preferable. And if i've learned anything personally, it's that when ideas tend to stick around for a few hundred years,they at least know what they'redoing. They can still be wrong of course, but at least some real thought has gone into explaining/justifying them.
And I would agree, I always prefer civil conversations to shouting matches. I'm afraid I haven't quite broken your streak with socialists, as i'm personally ex-socialist, but trust me I appreciate the compliment nonetheless. I just have a lot of time to spend, so I read into a lot of different ideas. But still, thanks, it's rare that something like this starts off a bit hostile, and thanks for turning it around to civility where I didn't. I will say, after this I have a few more avenues to look down and some more things to consider, so thank you for that as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slnwrk Oh you gave me a definition, sure, but you don't seem to be adhering to it in the slightests.
It's ok, you can admit even your own definitions don't at all support your argument.
And it's right there, you assert that marxism (a method of analysis) and communism (the utopian end goal) are simply the same, with no evidence.
Oh, and there you go, calling anyone who dares disagree with you a communist.
Again, it seems that not even you adhere to your own definition, nor do you make a good case for it
https://g.co/kgs/tJ9srD
And your argument so far has been: lol listen to the dictionary even though it disagrees with me.
And I thought you said you had read into their works? Hitler openly declared that the left would be the end of civilization, and Mussolini declared that the era of fascism was "a century tending to the right."
1
-
@slnwrk *you're
And I know, you say that because you're losing the argument.
And here is here you are lying, as I literally linked the corrected definition of socialism, which you proceed to ignore.
You just say that your definition is right, despite it not actually lining up with the one you provided.
I gave you a quote, one you refuse to acknowledge, and I can see why - because it utterly proves you wrong, amazing. What a good reason for you to keep lying.
Hey, it's not me doing that here, you're the one that can't even deal with reality.
And uh yeah, pointing out fallacy is kind of important. But of course you would try to deflect from that.
And i'm sure bud, keep on lying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franks450
Oh I quite agree, right wing ideologues like yourself love to redefine words around their arguments, using whatever you feel like in the moment to justify your frankly laughable claims. Anti-socialists always try to say that any failure in the modern world is a result of socialism, their only explanation being the words "it clearly is," and more often than not, a willingness to lie about the figures/countries in question, and of course, the definition of socialism itself. These figures will try to argue that, despite the nazi's openly right wing and anti-socialist sentiments, the failure of their economy must be a failure of socialism, and not a failure of the right who openly embraced said economy. On this at least we can agree, market economies can see good or bad conditions, Hitler's for example saw horrible conditions, hence his failing economy. The type of system of course doesn't change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jimmy-sz5wd
And I hate to break it to you, an wartime economy with state direction is nothing new. Further, you manage to overstate even that - while things like wages and investment decisions were examined by the state, this was almost always done through the DAF, an organization openly run by private owners, for their own benefit. In the day-to-day operation of the vast majority of nazi germany's businesses, very little materially changed from the previous private system, as opposed to the new one. The biggest changes and directions could be felt in the area of wartime industry, which again, was no outlier among other western countries at the time. This given, your metaphor falls flat. A better one would be "If you notionally own a bike, but someone else can technically fine you or take it away for damaging it though they never really act on this, is the bike still yours?" In Nazi germany, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the business owners were the ones that determined "when you can use it, where you can go with it, and with whom.: In any case, the answer of course is "yes, in every way that matters" and the supposition that state direction means private property is not truly "private" is quite silly when one extrapolates that to other forms of large-scale direction which force businesses hands in certain directions as a mere matter of good business. Also, I'm not sure what your goal is in quoting Hitler saying that he could help his country better than socialists, or in quoting something Hitler openly rebuked many times over. It's almost as if you're fixating on the surface appearance of the words, instead of even trying to find the meaning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rcvisee74 Individual citizens? Not really. Private entities lay claim to customers, as a group, not citizens. They don't advertise, or pander, to individuals, they pander to groups and demographics, and most importantly the giant interworking collection of individuals known as the market. That's the important part, any ideology can be shown to fit into those rough categories if you twist them enough. And isn't it just a bit telling that the thing the government has to protect us against is also the thing they're trying to protect in the first place, the market? In any case, I just don't think the comparison is all that relevant. And, on top of that, you're assuming all socialism has, or requires the intervention of, a state.
1
-
@rcvisee74 Yeah, just one thing... according to who? You? Oh it's associated with state control, by those that refuse to read socialist literature or history. Mate, the first socialists didn't want a state. Even marx didn't want a state, he wanted a transitory Direct Democracy, after which a central state would cease to exist. The problem is, according to your definition, there are famous capitalists like Hoppe and Hayek which are more socialist than famous socialists like Proudhon and Maréchal, and that just makes no sense. You cannot simply say "statism = socialism," when even Adam Smith stood for things like graduated taxation, public spending, and public property. Hell, if you consider any ideology with the state in supremacy socialist, than the vatican is socialist, because the religious figures are the governing force. The ancient egyptians, romans, or monarchs are socialists, despite socialists literally first popping up in opposition to that last one. My point is that the distinction you tried to create really can be seen in any ideology, and so again, the comparison is useless. When defining a word, you have to take into account all of it's similarities, and discount or re-categorize outsiders. Since long before marx, every socialist has advocated for the workers, as a whole, to be in control of the MoP. That is the one thing that pulls them together. The thing that differentiates them is not in spite of that goal, but goals in addition to it. And that's the problem, every socialist ideology falls neatly within this classification, and has forever. The only outlier is prussian socialism, national socialism. The only way to actually count it as a form of socialism is to take them on their word for it, and thus redefine socialism to be any statist ideology. By that point, you're not saying it's socialist, just that it's authoritarian, and using socialism as an unqualified synonym. And I don't think anyone would disagree with you there, but by phrasing it as you do, you're associating people who just want higher taxation and less tax breaks in america, with the literal nazis, all while protesters are literally being abducted in unmarked vehicles and federal police and troops are being sent into individual cities. Maybe, just maybe, you've got your target on the wrong group. I don't mean to be rude with this response, as you've been very civil so far, but I carry over the annoyance of having to explain that socialism is not statism from my days as a libertarian socialist, and one of my pet peeves is inconsistent terms in argument, even if it's unintentional. In short, sorry for any hostility, but statism is not socialism in any meaningful sense, and when examining any ideology, even ones you feel would never work, a certain amount of nuance must always be applied, beyond single sentence, or single word even, definitions.
1
-
@rcvisee74 Yes, because very few people use it with any sort of nuance. Even the nuance you present here, which I don't quite agree with (but i'll get into that in a bit) is more than you usually get. I'm not sure if you're speaking as a European, or just with a European perspective, but in the States such nuance does not exist. If you're left of right-wing, or rather left of whoever the right holds up, which at the moment tends to be people very deep into the right, you are fair game to be called communist, socialist, marxist, anarchist, and now, nazi. As I said previously, I want to drive that nuance. Now, onto the Rousseau bit. He... wasn't really that important to socialism, as a movement. He certainly influenced thought, but not as something to be followed, as something largely to be critiqued. They saw his claims, like "Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains," and in part used them to show how things like private property, capitalism, and unequal wealth distribution were fundamental societal ills, "chains" holding people down. One could argue they took more inspiration from Adam Smith than Rousseau, and he was fundamental in certain critiques of capitalism and his own system, like the pin factory example he gave. Rousseau, for all he contributed to the world, remained a tiny part of Socialist thought. And i'll remind you again, this socialism you decry was not the socialism of the time, nor really any time. The socialists then were rebelling against the state, against central authority of the rich and nobles entrenched within government. That isn't really conducive to any sort of general will. Alongside that, your interpretation of the info you set forward is just all over the place. You say that the task of General Will socialism is to make everyone equal... and then list the nazis? The nazis, whose very ideology was built on the fact that everything was inherently unequal, and it was on the strong to rise and dominate the rest? I mean, you can't claim the nazis, the social darwinist phrenologists who threw people in camps for daring to exist gave one crap about equality, even formally. They reviled democracy, because it gave the weak a voice. I would recommend watching Erbkrank, if you can stomach it, and find an english translation. It's a nazi propaganda film that depicts images of disabled people, and gives figures for the drain they are on the economy and the state, justifying their sterilization. That's how much they cared about equality. They didn't care about economic equality either, everyone was poor while buisness leaders were admitted into the party and deals with american capitalists across the ocean were made. The act of "socializing people," as you describe it, is... nonsense. Your definition of socialist, again, runs into the same problem pointed out last time, which I will quote. "The problem is, according to your definition, there are famous capitalists like Hoppe and Hayek which are more socialist than famous socialists like Proudhon and Maréchal, and that just makes no sense." Similarly, your definition is basically saying the same thing, but longer. "socializing their people" means nothing of the sort, to you I suppose it's just controlling them regimentaly, although the purpose for that seems to go wholly unstated in your mind. Similarly, "controlling the economy for equality," is... a few things. One, it is not socialist. Adam Smith, again, recommended certain types of taxation in order to curb economic inequality in things like housing. He was not a socialist, nor is that policy socialist by design. One can strive for a far more equal society under capitalism, and one could make an argument the serfs were among the most "equal" it got, being that the vast majority were at the same economic level. And finally... how did either of them strive for economic equality? An argument could be made for the early years of the NEP, perhaps, but Nazi germany? They took away any chance at equality, through either guarantee of socialism or opportunity of capitalism. They took property away from the workers, both for the workers to work on, and to own. They rewarded party members and compliant/friendly industrialists and capitalists over their own people. Hell, and I cannot stress this enough, they threw people in forced labor camps. That is not equality in any sense, even state-driven. So again, I can only assume socialism to you relates directly to totalitarianism. So, in other words - I disagree.
As for the last bit, I would recommend reading this, "Ur Fascism." (https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf) The thing is, fascism has most often risen out of the failure of liberal democracy. And that could either be through wholly external factors out of their controls, like massive amounts of debt, worldwide depressions, or war, or it could be due to things like rising internal tensions, racism, ect. The Weimar republic is a great example, external factors driving extreme economic hardship, which led to internal feuding, which justified a totalitarian takeover. One could argue the same in Chile, a candidate disliked by higher powers, (The American Government) was democratically elected, so a coup was staged to overthrow them, and instituted a fascist dictatorship. And i'll get to arguing this case in a second, but you see something similar right about now. That's kind of the point though, when they go totalitarian, they are no longer democracies. To paraphrase the old joke, "What happens when countries run out of cash? They either go commie, or they go fash." Generally, hand conditions and large amounts of tensions, manufactured or natural, usually lead to the end of liberal democracy. And onto the events in modern day America... just no. For one, these are military-garb, federal officers, driving around in unmarked vehicles. That is already highly suspect, but they don't just target people near federal buildings, they arrest people miles away, and in some cases hours after a protest is over. That is not justifiable, by any means. Similarly, the president is now putting into act a plan that will send more federal officers and troops into cities run by politicians he disagrees with, to "keep the peace." You must understand, the last time this happened on this scale was the Nullification Crisis, and that happened with a state threatening to leave the Union. Yes, the last time we pulled out these big guns on our own people, they were literally threatening to illegally leave. Ironically enough, that was done by the president widely thought to have suffered from lead poisoning, and one Trump has called his favorite. This is not normal. This is not justifiable. He is sending federal troops into places because he does not agree with politicians in those places, under the pretense of keeping order. This cannot be normalized, because if it is, it'll only get worse. As of now, the police have killed, raped, beaten, blinded, broken, abducted, harassed and crushed thousands over the past month. They have targeted medical personnel, public officials, journalists, and innocent bystanders not even protesting, and in many of these cases have cause serious, irreversible injuries. And now? Now we're pushing them into cities even harder, giving them less legal accountability and more power. No, this is the start of fascism. And I hate to appear rude, or callous, but the justifications of these acts are how we normalize them. Again, Ur-Fascism. You'll hopefully see the uncomfortable parallels. Grouping all of your enemies, however unrelated, under one label while blaming that label for terror and widespread political tension was literally, not figuratively, literally, how hitler rose to power. And honestly, I hate to appear cynical or overdramatic, but I cannot see Operation Legend turning out as anything but an unintentional (hopefully) Operation Himmler, which will raise tensions only further and justify even more power being held. I could be wrong, but it doesn't look that way so far.
1
-
@burstingwizard975 Ok, cool. A few of the other figures I cited may be on the same website, so i'm not sure.
And that is a fair point, that sometimes ideas are popular for all the wrong reasons, but I was mainly referencing how ideologies are usually able to iron out their weak points. For example capitalism has been around quite a while, and reading the early works of people like Adam Smith, you see a whole bunch of things you really wouldn't expect a capitalist to say. That's largely because ideas get more specialized over time, more in depth, and as I say, usually work to appease their critics, or at least prove them wrong. That's why when I discuss an ideology that's as old as capitalism, it might be important to see how it's shifted over time, or what it first promised, or if it's working now. I'm not saying you're not doing that, it's just something i've personally been trying to do. Everyone thinks their ideology is good, and most aren't completely shut off from criticism. It's just that in most cases, when you have some sort of socialist trying to debate against a meme page funded by billionaire oil tycoons, you hear that response much less often, and it has less of an impact.
Yes, I think most people go through a lot of political phases, especially those that get interested in politics when they're younger. But that sort of shift is a good thing, it helps to gain new perspectives. And yes, I have to agree, i'm glad we talked.
1
-
1
-
@Bluearmy76
Why is it that right wingers have such a tough time accepting their past? I'm sorry, but your denialism holds no water. What you just quoted was hitler years before his actual election. Do you want to know what he said when he actually was in power? "Death to marxism." I could fill up a comment section with the amount of times one can easily quote hitler talking about his hatred of the left, support of private property, and hatred of socialist principles. He didn't hate entrepreneurs, he worked with them. He didn't hate the "free market," he made its greatest advocates even richer. Individuals in private business weren't "controlled strictly by the state," they were bribed by a state that put their protection into law. And, bud, I hate to break it to you, nothing you said was the "complete opposite of right wing." He was a proud right wing anti-socialist, through and through. He wasn't a "true marxist," nor was he a marxist or leftist of any sort. The assertion that "literally none of his ideology was right wing" is hilarious though, given that literally all of his ideology came from, and was supported by, the right, as even he admitted. The notion of fatherland and "big government" to enforce strict obedience to it is a key aspect of right wing governments going centuries back, how is conservative policy "as left wing as is physically possible?" It seems you want to paint even modern right wing policy as left wing. Look, I'm sorry you hate the fact that hitler was a proud right wing anti-socialist, but making a fool of yourself wont change that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@starkat70
But, they didn't believe themselves to be socialists at all, and they openly preached systems that were entirely counter to socialism. They were statist authoritarians, yes, and right wing. They were not socialists in every form of the word. You're trying to project your modern day political views onto history and it isn't working out well for you, given that you don't even know the definitions or history of the terms you're using. It isn't defending socialism to correctly point out that the nazis weren't socialists, and the fact that you jump to an ideological attack proves that you don't care about history in the first place, only the ideological attacks that your version of history allow you to make. If you actually cared about death counts you would reject your clear right wing ideology, but we both know you don't actually care, and just feel the need to do anything to strike out against the socialists, just like the nazis did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mob135
Communism doesn't equal central planning, though, communism is literally stateless. Fascism comes from reactionary conservatism. Fascism is antithetical to communism, socialism, and trade unionism, as shown in history and ideology.
Your "studies" most likely consist of trolling online and watching videos like that of TIKs, who openly admits that his "100s of books" disagree with him fundamentally.
So you, according to TIK, would be a socialist. And yet, you take his word as gospel, never daring to question it in the slightest.
I know you can't deal in facts, only emotion, because your response didn't actually address or include any sort of factual information, just sad insults.
1
-
1
-
@oslier3633
Here's what even you have to admit happens: You work and someone else gets the resulting profit
What you say "happens in reality" in no way contradicts this fact, funnily enough.
Funny, the creation of a screw has nothing to do with the supposed "need" for private property.
You can try to make it yourself, but to actually industrialize, you need a force of workers.
Paying for something doesn't negate the labor that went into it, nor does it justify taking labor from others.
Sure, you can funnel your money into someone who does none of the work in a multitude of ways.
However, none of these ways are as fair or efficient as... letting the workers own the product of their own labor.
Either way, the concept that some vague concept of "ownership" transcends your right to your own labor is silly.
Funnily enough, your definition of private property puts most socialist ideologies in favor of it, so you might want to reconcile that internal conflict. Socialism is not "state ownership of everything," and never has been, hence the majority of socialists being anti-state to a degree, or totality. Central planning, of course, is not exclusive to socialism. Of course you have "flavors" of socialism, like libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, marxist-leninist socialism, ect. However, your "flavors of socialism" are not at all socialist, according to the definition of socialism. "Race socialism, nation socialism" cannot exist. What you're thinking about are the flavors of anti-socialism, like nazi anti-socialism, fascist anti-socialism, capitalist anti-socialism.
Of course, you have no idea what socialism is, but then again i'm not surprised, you seem to think marx was a hegelian after all. Your rejection of logic is quite impressive, but sadly for you facts will triumph over your nonsense in the end.
1
-
@oslier3633
"No, socialism is not "pro capitalism". Socialism as defined by his "inventor" in the french revolution is the state ownership of everything and it is called central planing. Then you have "flavors" of socialism like class socialism, race socialism, nation socialism, etc."
Thank you for so eloquently pointing out your pro-fascist propaganda. Socialism is not "State ownership of everything," nor is it "central planning." Those are some of the most absurd strawmen i've ever heard. 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." Your "flavors" of socialism seem to put nazism and fascism as socialism, which is funny, given that they neither fit your nor the actual definition of socialism. Your definition of socialism is so broad, one could include capitalism as "owners-socialism." You seem to have a problem including your nationalist and racist anti-socialism with the very ideology it despises.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@starkat70
Child, you don't even know the historical definition of left and right, and yet you claim I don't?
The historical, and modern, definition of left and right deals in adherence or rejection of hierarchy, not "small vs big government," those meaningless terms. The first labelled right wingers were authoritarian monarchs. The first labeled left wingers were liberals, socialists, and anarchists. Your definition is not historical. The more right wing you go has nothing to do with the less government, given the right, including you, loves authoritarianism. And, given the left's long history of anti-authoritarianism, your propaganda is revoked.
You can easily go left without going socialist, and the nazis were openly not only anti-socialist, but anti-communist and anti-leftist. Child, communism is literally stateless. You really don't know what you're talking about, huh?
Calling both equally evil is a defense of the nazis.
You should be ashamed for so easily leaping to the defense of those you claim to oppose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@starkat70
So, in other words, not the historical definitions of left and right. Not even the historical american versions of left and right, which also feature the same authoritarian rightists and anachist leftists. No, you just want to make up your own version so suit your own agenda, that has no basis in history.
Liberalism was declared left wing, as in, to the left of monarchists. The overton window has shifted, I agree.
Liberalism does not, however, emphasize anything for the individual beyond their life of servitude to capitalism.
Socialism and Leftism don't even require a state and can openly be quite anti-state, but again, your assertions are not based in history, but in your own ideology. Am I a leftist, though I am loyal to no state?
The fact that you so openly lump in the private market with the public sector proves my point exactly.
You are now calling the natural, eventual, inescapable end reality of capitalism some sort of statist authoritarian echo chamber. And yet, this is what right wingers defend. Interesting, isn't it?
I really wish you would realize i'm not a socialist, and that you would stop defending far-right fascism.
1