Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "RE: NS is Socialism | Responding to your counterarguments and Further Explanation" video.
-
@Paciat @Paciat yes, the very point of Socialism is to do away with a purely meritocratic system. That's like, point one of the scale. You're right, none were 100% Aryan, which is why their ideology doesn't work. Because the natural racial merit that they tried to base their entire society off of didn't actually exist. Still, they perpetuated those myths as best as possible, even when they were not true. National "Socialism," in this way and many others, was not at all Socialism to begin with, as they thrived on hierarchy. They killed based on that hierarchy. Pointing out a crime done by the Soviets, who didn't even call their society communist, in no ways disproved the hierarchical and contradictory way that the Nazis structured their society, in a strict, traditionalist way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Paciat ah, I see you're doing that thing where you take dictators infamous for lying on their word. Bold choice. What you just showed was the dictators lying to the people. They were not just traditionalists in a social sense, in economy as well Thye strictly enforced hierarchies of race and wealth. In fact, the very justification for their entire ideology, built on race, was one of traditionalist founding. Their economics, thus, were built into this system completely. They didn't "Socialize the people," nor is that Socialism to begin with. They structured the people according to their naturally hierarchical ideology, one based on the merit of race and wealth. Not only is that Social Darwinist, but it's a deeply conservative and traditionalism-vased system of economics and societal structure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@limitlessapocalypse2702 Pragmatic Pragmatic Ah, but that isn't true. He said that it was a system in which the state had a majority influence over an economy, and that includes the potential to be controlled, like in Nazi Germany for example. The economy very much was headed by private entities, even if the state technically could take control of them if it wished. As I said, most modern countries are like that. Saying those economies are Socialist is like saying Americans don't have freedom of speech because the government technically can reduce it in certain cases. Also, Socialism is not just state control, that would make things like ancient Rome and monarchism Socialism, which is absolutely not true. Also, state ownership does not make something Socialism. It must be state ownership to the benefit of the entire community. That is not Marxist Socialism, that is just Socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bakters Aight mate, let me address some of this.
For one, hitler did admit he was right wing. That was a large part of his ideology. The thing you're getting mixed up was that hitler thought that there was a form of socialism that was right wing, which is really where the debate stands as of now. I would recommend looking into prussian socialism for this, which was one of hitler's inspiration.
As for that, let me remind you that "progressive" social views, are you forgetting all of the other things Hitler did? Like criminalizing abortion for aryan women? You're forgetting that the nazis believed in the superiority of their race over much else, and only took sex differences into account afterwards. The USA did similar things at the same time with women and minorities, hanging up propaganda posters or publishing photos in order to strengthen a pro-war attitude from those that were typically excluded from helping.
And as we've already addressed the economy, I have to ask... what is socialist about giving women planes?
Mate, you're just talking about youtube. They block shit constantly, and if I have any sort of living experience it's not just against left wing views.
1
-
@bakters Mate, is that really all you've got? "The nazis called themselves right wing and socialists, and followed a right wing philosophy that called itself socialists, based off another right wing philosophy that called itself socialist... but the other guy is only bringing that up because he's calling all righties racist!"
I agree, there is no such thing as a right wing socialist... which means hitler was not a socialist.
And uh yeah, leftists can be racist. It seems a hell of a lot more common for righties to be racist, but that isn't an intrinsic fact.
Your example of all leftists hating whitey is funny though, it's almost like you really don't have anything to actually support your evidence that leftists are commonly racist. Hm. And as a guy with skin so pale it glows in the dark, i'm not seeing it.
Youtube has blocked my views literally hundreds of times, to the point that I often come back to a month old conversation because youtube blocks out notifications from it, only to find the response I posted... never showed up. And that no matter how many times I try to re post it while revising it, it will not post. Mate, some of the biggest leftist youtubers have ahd their accounts suspended time and time again. Maybe, just maybe, there's a problem with literal neo-nazis on youtube that youtube cares about addressing. If you don't like that, well shit dude that's capitalism for you.
And yeah, they aren't going to strike him. He can keep spreading historical misinformation all he wants, youtube isn't going to do anything about it. They literally leave up nazis and holocaust deniers, why would they take down some random history channel?
Mate, that's capitalism. If what you want to say isn't profitable to have on their platform, they can remove it. There is no free exchange of information under capitalism or on social media, because those with the most fame or money are heard the most, no matter how wrong they are.
1
-
@bakters Mate, just for one second, I want you to search up the context of those party points. Please, come on. Done? Ok. Mate, those were politicians promises. The nazis named themselves socialists, you really think they weren't going to play the part? The 25 point program was a political pamphlet, distributed to gain voter support in a dying economy. You'll notice it was full of things that are hilariously incorrect, like calling for... voter reform. Like really? Voter reform? They promised voting rights for all of their citizens, but ended up throwing millions of those citizens into camps and never ended up having real elections. Most of the policies weren't even socialist by default, they were either reformist or totalitarian, there was almost no mention of actual socialistic policies like redistributing land directly to the people, even through tankie methods like a representative vanguard party. Plenty of horrible people have put good thinks on a piece of paper and said "yes, I want this." That's the definition of propaganda. I mean, listen to this line - "We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness." And yet they literally did exactly that, putting party members in position simply because hitler or other officials were fond of them, or because they were loyal to hitler's corporatistic right wing regime.
And who said they were libertarian? Of course they weren't, they weren't left wing.
Do all of you guys just use "cognitive dissonance" for fun? Don't you have like... any better buzzwords? I gave my reasoning, the actions and worldview of Hitler was decidedly right wing, they allied with conservatives, imperialists, and capitalists from around the globe to gain power, them being right wing has always been historical fact. The question is whether there is such thing as a "right wing socialist," and if there isn't, then he was not a socialist.
Also, mate, not only was that literally hundreds of years ago... conservatives founded the kkk, used leftists and the threat of communism as scapegoats to scare people away from civil rights.
There are literally hundreds of videos saying the nazis were socialist, and hundreds of very popular figures (Ben Shapiro, Stephen Crowder, Dinesh D'Souza) who say this easily disproved shit constantly and just get away with it. They're still online. Meanwhile, contrapoints gets suspended and their channel taken down... for literally making a video on free speech.
Of course that isn't what they do, they want to be profitable. Again, that's capitalism. If you want to take power away from businesses, i'm all for it, but that is a form of pretty heavy regulation.
1
-
like come on TIK, I get that your pride is a factor in making you continue to deny the points that have regularly been pointed out to you, but this is kind of sad. You've been calling those people, people who have called themselves fans,or even pointed out they have literal qualifications in this field, who disagree with you and you've been calling them denialists, liars, politically motivated, marxists, ect. It's so telling that the only comments you give the heart to are ones that disagree with you, and often ignore the debates in the comments by simply "watching the video." I respect your military historical videos, but frankly this is a bit insulting to your fanbase, who has really come to expect better, and less subjective arguments based in a clear misunderstanding of historical knowledge. I hesitate to say that, because i really hope it isn't true, but it's either that or you're lying to us. Because honestly, you sound like one of those "redpilled" teenagers, people who are so caught up in their own ideological framework they are willing to disregard all others as somehow being inferior, as being ignorant, and that some people should take the red pill, and the the world opens up and you can't go back. That shit is cult mentality, and you literally just said something very similar, that once you're this ideologically dedicated to defending this faulty idea, you just refuse to back down. Here, you justify that feeling with "not being able to go back once the facts are apparent," but the problem is more facts and rebuttals have been brought to your attention, and you utterly disregard them. No, I understand that you've addressed some in the comment and made frankly massive videos explaining your points, but there are still leaps in logic and problems in definitions that you still either refuse to elaborate upon or revise, and some basic misunderstandings that you ignore. In short... I respect your other videos, but some on man. You've made what, five videos pretending this theory of yours is true, and you seem utterly unwilling to engage with the major criticism that comes with supporting that idea. I'm done with my rant but let me just say... thanks for trying here, really, I learned a hell of a lot about the nazis, but I also learned that for many of the arguments that the nazis were socialists, there are equal, or more convincing arguments that they were not. Anyway, thank you, and I hope to see some of your other types of videos soon.
1
-
@bakters Ok, first off dude, the contents of a lie don't really matter if we agree that it's a lie. I mean, your argument there was literally "yes it was a lie, but it didn't reflect their actual intentions." like yeah???
For voter reform, they asked for "The right of voting on the state's government and legislation is to be enjoyed by the citizen of the state alone." However, they did not give it to the citizens, they never even held any elections, much less that again, they tortured and killed people who were still aryan germans for daring to be gay, disabled, in disagreement with them, ect.
". We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land."
Well I would say that last part kinda disproves your "no libertarian" line, but this doesn't deal with any sort of actual equal redistribution under the system, it just calls for more land (obviously) and that some of that land should be set aside for public utility, not given to the people. Public utility may have meant roads to them for all we know.
"all of them you had to concede when confronted with verifiable historical facts. "
What points? You mean the point you conceded when using a propaganda pamphlet to judge a political party known for being really good propagandists didn't work out?
"No worky, since they claimed to be Socialists."
And as i've said previously, they were deluded enough to believe both. They thought a form of right wing socialism existed, called prussian socialism (again, look it up) that was far divorced from all socialist ideals, and said they took the term "socialist" not from the already existing ideology, but from the word "social," relating to community. Heres a quote on how hitler viewed the left and the right.
"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."
:It was just economy - No, it wasn't. They allowed women to reach high profile positions in roles previously reserved to men only."
I... never said it was just their economy? Bud, it wasn't even their economy, the best comparison to another economy I could relate it to would be the NEP under Lenin, which was so hated by socialists (because it was basically just reformist capitalism) that he had to rename the whole system. And even then, the german economy was far more lenient on big business and foreign capitalists.
"Their philosophy is clearly outlined and it's definitely a socialistic one."
Wow... what a stellar argument. "Proven incorrect." I'm sorry, where? No, but please keep telling me about how the traditionalist, nationalist, phrenological ideology that bases itself in social darwinism (not economic kropotkinism) and a meritocracy is socialist. In fact, tell me how it was socialist. At all. I'd love to hear it.
Did I say they weren't founded by democrats? I didn't and yet, they were founded by conservatives. You know that the leftists used to run with the republicans, right? Alexander Schimmelfennig, August Willich, Charles Dana, W.E.B. Du Bois, Horace Greeley, ect. The KKK literally used the fear of leftist policies to call everything they didn't like communism. Reminds you of a certain group, right? and it ain't the modern dems.
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2009/10/800px-Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/08/communism-flyer-1535132183-1024x773.jpg
But please, keep telling me how the pro-2a religious southern whites with ideas for strong border control are leftists. Would love to hear it.
And gotta love how you assume youtube gives enough of a shit to have a motive. You know what motive they have? Profit, and profit alone. Preformative Capitalism. Nike can say black lives matter all it wants, they wouldn't dare stop employing the wage slaves in india and china, because that hurts its profit. Mate, they could not give less of a shit about politics, they just learned that being inclusive pays, and they're sure as hell going to exploit that. Same reason companies made racist or sexist adds back in the day, not because they necessarily believed in it, but because it paid. And yeah yeah, you guys hate cappyfornia, and it's totally the worst state around despite having an economy bigger than most countries that also pays a huge percentage of it's tax dollars back to red states to keep them afloat.
https://apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Blue-high-tax-states-fund-red-low-tax-states
And sure, if you want to argue against youtube's virtual monopoly and shitty site ad policies, then i'm all for it. Just don't fool yourself into thinking they give a shit about politics, or that politically agnostic site you're talking about will just do the same shit, sell their adds and policies to the highest bidder.
1
-
@bakters I'm pretty sure you yourself framed it as a lie in the discussion, as a point of propaganda. You yourself framed your previous response before this one as one belonging to those circumstances, of being a lie told with the sole purpose of gaining votes. that's why the contents of the lie don't matter, because it was a piece of political propaganda. As I said previously, you don't think they were going to at least try to play the part? And I have already provided plenty of quotes, but i'll respond with a few of those at the bottom if i can, and if not in a separate response. As for them being "true socialists," at what point did they transfer the means of production into the hands of the community as a whole? That isn't marxist socialism, that's all socialism.
"Voting rights are restricted, not granted"
It implies that there would be voting at all, which was false.
"That's exactly against libertarian positions. They want ad valorem tax and free trade of land. Man, you have ways with arguments..."
You said you were polish, so perhaps the word means differently over there than in america, but over here we absolutely have a large subsection of libertarians who would be happy to do away with land taxes, or even just taxation generally. That might just be a cultural divide though, so it's really not much of an issue.
"No problemo."
Ok, i'll address each of these individually, but still you realize that you're just quoting a political pamphlet, right? The nazis were literally infamous for being amazing propagandists, the one compliment history affords hitler is that he was a powerful orator. Taking the nazis on their word, without cross examining with their actual actions won't get you far, because you'll just become a phrenologist.
"11. Abolition of unearned incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
"
Unearned income in this case refers to welfare, which is pretty anti-socialist.
"12. [...] personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
"
The nazis worked with foreign capitalist powers, like GE, GM, IBM, Ford, Koch Sr, ect. They didn't just not participate in or ignore war profiteering, they encouraged and participated in it.
"13. We demand the nationalization of all associated industries
"
The nazis literally had the biggest privatization push known to man, even italy at the time outclassed them in terms of nationalized industry. Yes, it was not under full private control, but it was not under the control of the people as well. Also, don't forget that the first socialists were anti-monarchists. Socialism isn't just state ownership of industry.
"14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
"
They did quite the opposite, if anything they targeted small buisness.
"15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
"
They threw people in camps for being crippled, dude. They called the homeless a leech upon the state.
"17. We demand [...] provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
"
Already touched on this, its self contradictory and also unless you count military infrastructure didn't happen.
"16. We demand [...] immediate communalization of the great warehouses [...].
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program,
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health""
These three just did not happen. Unless you count the state building roads or military equipment as a case of public utilit, they rarely invested into the public, and never gave power into the public's hands.
"7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
"
Well first off welfare in and of itself is not socialist inherently, but even then, again, they threw the weak and disfranchised in camps or ghettos rather than deal with them.
"9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
"
I mean, I hope that's just a baseline for human dignity, not just a socialist thing. But again, they didn't do this, because they would revoke those rights if you dared to be anything but their perfect person.
10. [...]The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all
That's pretty much just paraphrasing jefferson at this point. The actions of the individual must remain unhampered except when they interfere with the actions of other individuals, or a collective.
Not only are none of these things really true, most are not socialist. A person could nationalize 100% of the country, like monarchs and feudalists would do, and the system would not be socialism unless it gives control of that industry directly or indirectly to the people.
We can forget that whole bit, but just to clarify my point, back in the time of the American Civil War, after which the first KKK was formed, the parties were very different. Today's Republicans are known for trying to decrease spending on public projects, cut down taxation, and adhere to the free market, while increasing funding for things like the military and police forces. They are often also nationalistic over patriotic, live in the south and center of the country, are traditionalistic, conservative, and are more religious. Conversely, today's Democrats stick to the idea of total free market control much less, and are willing to ramp up taxation somewhat for more effective public utilities, as well as being wiling to cut into the massive defense budget for that. Dems tend to live in bigger cities, along the coats, and in the north primarily, are either patriotic or ambivalent, are progressive, modernistic, liberals, and tend to be less religious. However, in the time of the civil war, the republicans were in the north and on the coat, they were the ones advocating for heavier taxation/tarrifs, saying the government should be able to take away property if that property is immorally owned, and even revoking free speech for a bit, which i'm sure you'd put in the lefty category. The names I listed previously were open communists and socialists in very high positions within the republican party. The dems back then were the southerners, the "no unfair government oversight" types, strict constructionists, and much more conservative traditional, and religious than the north. Doesn't sound much like the parties of today, right?
But the thing is that youtube is not a collective - they don't all share political views. I would guess that most of their employees are part timers living in 3rd world countries who go over their reports and manual reviews for them. They are just a company, a big conglomerate, with a single goal. In the case of both of your examples, well for one those are each projects meant to deliver a meaning, written by a person who does have their own opinions, but two... the very creation of a new star wars trilogy was a cash grab. The very act of slapping "the last of us" onto a game is for the purpose of money.
As for your last point, I would recommend watching this video, which even goes over one of the things you mentioned and speaks more on the subject of performative capitalism.
ill add quotes and some bonus citation in a standalone response
1
-
@bakters (it was too long the first time, but rest assured i'll split it up again) here are some quotes and citations on the viewpoint and words of hitler, with some exrta historical citation thrown it. also, please look up otto strasser and prussian socialism.
In Otto Strasser's Hitler and I (1940) he recounts a discussion with Hitler from 1930 (he published the transcript shortly after the talk and republished it in later books):
https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Adolf Hitler stiffened. ‘Do you deny that I am the creator of National-Socialism?’
‘ I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of the times in which we live. It is in the hearts of millions of men, and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in so many minds proves its historical necessity, and proves, too, that the age of capitalism is over.’
At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove to me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize world commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or in Hitler and I socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but dilettantism, not to say Bolshevism.
Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of Hitler’s official programme.
‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.’
Shortly after this Otto Strasser left the party and published his manifesto "The socialists are leaving the NSDAP": https://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php
Gregor remained in the party but continued losing influence at a catastrophic rate, until he and the remaining part of the socialist wing were purged during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. From time to time the leading Nazis did use the word "socialist" after that, which however by that time was empty of meaning, a zombie-word if you will.
Winston Churchill on Italian fascism
“If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been wholeheartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. But in England we have not yet had to face this danger in the same deadly form. We have our own way of doing things. But that we shall succeed in grappling with Communism and choking the life out of it - of that I am absolutely sure… the great mass of the people love their country and are proud of its flag and history. They do not regard these as incompatible with a progressive advance towards social justice and economic betterment.” - Churchill, statement to Journalists in Rome on 20 Jan 1927
“The Roman genius impersonated in Mussolini, the greatest law-giver among living men, has shown to many nations how they can resist the pressures of Socialism and has indicated the path that a nation can follow when courageously led. With the Fascist regime, Mussolini has established a centre of orientation from which countries which are engaged in a hand-to-hand struggle with Socialism must not hesitate to be guided.” - Churchill Feb 1933
Fascism on private property and the markets.
“In brief definition, Capitalism is the system by which capital used the Nation for its own purposes. Fascism is the system by which the Nation uses capital for its own purposes. Private enterprise is permitted and encouraged so long as it coincides with the national interests. Private enterprise is not permitted when it conflicts with national interests. Under Fascism private enterprise may serve but not exploit. This is secured by the Corporative System, which lays down the limits within which industry may operate, and those limits are the welfare of the Nation.” - Mosley, Fascism 100 Questions P22
History of the Nazi party.
Tubluer “On 5 January 1919, Drexler created a new political party and proposed it should be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but Harrer objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP).”
“To increase the party’s appeal to larger segments of the population, on the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech on 24 February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party", or Nazi Party). The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers.”
1
-
@bakters (quotes/citation continued)
"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.
From these you can see that hitler was utterly against all of the teachings of socialism, and in times against the very word itself. However, he used the word to gain appeal in the crumbling economy of germany, all while defining it completely incorrectly. Just remember that when you hear hitler calling himself a socialist, that he defines socialism as a national system that embraces the possibility of private property ownership, markets, meritocracy and the elite. So in other words... not socialism.
In the winter of 1925/6 there was an internal debate in the party on the question of the compensation of the property expropriated from the former ruling royal houses. The Strasserite wing wanted the party to jump on the expropriation without compensation bandwagon. Hitler was strictly against this. At the Bamberg conference of 1926 Hitler's position as the absolute authority in the party was confirmed and the socialist wing lost on this issue, and, consequently, their overall influence was significantly reduced. They continued their activities for some time.
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
-
@bakters 1. Not really. As I said before, politicians lie, but that doesn't mean they cannot tell the truth, or that they would not. Look at the context of the words. For example, a private discussion between two parties that is recounted later is probably more reflective of the actual views of hitler than a pamphlet meant to be distributed to the masses.
2. Yes, I do, and I gave you evidence and examples. You really think the parties haven't changed in 200 years?
3. Yet I am using the basic definition, and parts were, but some parts certainly were not.
4. That is not socialism though, we've had a word for this forever, one that nazi germany's economy has been categorized under, and it is called State Dirigisme. I never claimed that there was a free market, nor did I claim it was capitalist, I just made the objectively true claim that they were not socialist. You seem to think any system besides free-market capitalism must be socialism, and that is objectively incorrect. You cannot label everything you don't like socialism, especially where policies like this when implemented in the NEP constiuted a "tactical retreat from socialism," and that's to the people who actually followed socialist teachings. As I quoted previously, fascism is when the economy works for the state, and capitalism is when the state works for the economy. Socialism is neither, socialism is a system where the state, (if one is in place) the people, and the economy all act as one entity guided by public will. A system in which the government allows private property to exist and not only refuses to transfer the means of production into public hands, but outlaws things like collective bargaining, is by no definition socialist. As I said before - state control is not socialism.
5. This is such a blatant deflection, and it doesn't even make sense. For example, this is Hitler referencing "the right" again, in a different quote. "The J*ws have shown real genius in profiting by politics. This capitalistic people, which was brought into existence by the unscrupulous exploitation of men, has understood how to get the leadership of the Fourth Estate into its own hands; and by acting both on the Right and on the Left it has its apostles in both camps." In this quote, he clearly references "the right" as being a product of capitalism, as well as the contemporary left. That is not just to the right of lenin, that is to the right of center, which hitler was as well. Those quotes do show that, but you won't listen. Again, i'll ask you - if the nazis were leftists, why did they have such prominent and outspoken conservatives in their rank like Carl Schmitt, as well as being supported by conservatives like Franz Von Papen, who personally vouched for his admittance as chancellor, to take power in the first place? Why were they given voluntary trade deals and support from foreign capitalists like Ford and Koch, as well as whole companies like GM, GE, IBM, ect. Why did he purge the aryan socialists, but not the aryan upper class? Why did even the socialists know he did not represent the interests of socialists at the time? Why, in fascist history, can we find people like the creator of traditionalism (an ideology used by many righties, from Jordan Peterson to Richard Spencer) Juluis Evola, a conservative, who at the Nuremberg Trials was questioned for his involvement in the Italian Fascist Party, and in response declared himself a "super fascist?" Why did the italians and fascists get praised by Mises (who had helped run a fascist country) and Friedman, for helping to combat the spread of socialism? Why did those same italians nominate Alberto De Stefani to manage the state's role in their economy, a classical liberal economist? And on and on and on and on. Looking beyond the surface, you only find more and more connections between the right wing and fascism. Even survivors of fascist regimes, like Umberto Eco,(https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf) make note of the right-wing ideas of the nations. The deeper you look into it, the less socialist they are.
Oh, and Kropotkin was a prince, Jesus was jewish. So what? It's pretty clear that those who formulate new ideas often come from the background of old ones to be improved upon. Don't forget, the man you're referencing co-wrote "The Doctrine of Fascism," which describes fascism as right wing. However, most historians also point out the inspiration in the fascist system also lay in figures like Edmondo Rossoni, Napoleon iii, Bismarck, Charles Murras, Arthur de Gobineau, Gustav le Bon, George Sorel (who had claimed, in these words, that "socialism is dead" and should stay that way,) Enrico Corradani, Fillipo Marinett, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, ect, on and on. It makes no sense to attribute it to one man who moved on beyond an ideology, especially when the early fascist parties and socialist parties disagreed on nearly anything. (supporting vs leaving the great war, class collaboration vs class segregation, marxism vs anti marxism, ect.)
Then of course, the major actions of the fascists in the Red Years were terrorist attacks on socialist worker councils, community leaders, or even just communities, accepting free enterprise and the catholic church in, criminalizing abortion and banning reading material on contraceptives, ect. Seems really... socialist... to me, right?
"Fascism would like to be conservative, but it will [be] by being revolutionary"
- Angelo Oliviero Olivetti
1
-
@bakters 1. (used to be 3) Yeah no. Again, you missed the part where literally none of those policies were implemented as is, and none of them were actually socialist. Some were "socialistic," yes, just like how free healthcare is "socialistic," it doesn't mean that anyone who advocates for it is automatically a socialist. In fact, in the case of free healthcare, Hitler defunded the system that the Weimar republic has put in place. No, he is not center left, and you have provided no evidence for that, besides a propaganda pamphlet that is equal parts right wing (actually, about 75% right wing) as left wing, potentially. Again, basing your entire perception of a regime on an election pamphlet that was for an election before hitler even became a dictator does not work, at all.
2. Again, I believe i've said this but correct my if i'm wrong, the nazis were absolutely socially far right, and far right in nearly all policies that did not impact economics, which was the vast majority of all policy in the country. The few places where he didn't fall "far right" is in his economics, which fall center right. Far right economics would be monarchist, feudalist, theocratic, ect. He used many more parts of these ideologies than he ever even came close to using socialist ideologies. Therefore, when we take both philosophy and economics into account, the nazis were far right, although not the furthest right they can be. Again, state dirigisme. The thing is, I keep bringing up all of the ways fascists attack the left, all of the left, and work with the right, but to you all of the academics in the world must be lying. Wasn't it you who said that you had only heard this from far right sources? Either that was a pandering lie to get TIK's attention, or you've gotten very confident in your understanding of history very fast.
" state control is not socialism."
Ok, a two things. For one, me saying this was meant to tell you that state control of the economy does not make an economy socialist. Again, the first socialists were those that fought against the absolute monarchists, people who very much did have the entire economy under their grasp. Two, you can say those sorts of societies are impossible (hint: they aren't, "Mutual Aid" by kropotkin goes into this) but your opinion of a word should never impact how you define it.There are plenty of things that either don't exist, don't work, or always go a certain way, but we still keep the definition in a way that includes the supposedly les common or impossible situations. For example, we moved from terracentrism to heliocentrism in our understanding of how the galaxy works, correct? That doesn't mean we get to define terracentrism as "a bad idea" and ignore the theory the term was actually referencing. Same with socialism, it isn't "I know the definition says it can be done without the state, but i disagree, so ill leave that out," it should be "yes that is the definition, however let me offer an alternative term/suggest amending the definition to exclude a stateless or union socialism, which we will call a different thing."
"In this quote, he clearly references "the right"
Yes, I know he isn't talking about germany... but why does that matter? Seriously, this is an example of him describing capitalism "on the right," which makes his other quote most likely either related to the capitalist or nationalist movements.
(part 2 because it's too long, sorry)
1
-
@bakters
"Carl Schmitt"
Well, first off you would be right that plenty of common workers and people joined up with the nazis, similar things have probably happened in most single-party states. And you would be right, he agreed with hitler on the anti-bracket bit. However, Carl Schmitt, Crown Jurist of the Third Reich, was not just a common worker. I mean, even having a wikipedia page proves that much. He was a professor, and even a decade before the nazis took over he was writing papers, books, and delivering lectures on the problems in the weimar republic's concept of democracy, as well as the times where "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." He argued for dictatorships, for racial theory, for the supremacy of europeans. He came up with concepts that would define the Nazi regime, like separating the state, the people, and "the political." He was also a traditionalist. He wasn't even a small figure in the party, in part his legal advice led to the rise of hitler by preventing a political coup against the enabling act. He was literally in favor of the nazis for his entire life, and continued peaking in praise of them for literally decades, to the point that he apparently lost quite a few jobs from, you know, saying we need a nazi state after we just beat them in a war. If a conservative in say, soviet russia joined the CPSU just to get by and survive, then fine. But in a case where Schmitt was promoting very similar ideas to the nazis a decade before their rise to prominence, and was partially helpful in letting them rise to power, was a key member of the party that was invited and welcomed just to speak on their ideas, and even decades after the nazi collapse still supported it... I would start questioning a few things, no? As for the other guy, I assume you mean Franz Von Papen. And yes, considering he was an ex-chancellor of germany, and hitler's vice chancellor... you should probably look into him. To summarize, he was part of a conservative movement to undermine the party trying to keep the Weimar republic together, and instate hitler in control. And he did just that, working together with other conservative parties to put hitler in control. In fact, most of hitler's cabinet was made up of conservatives associated with Papen. So yeah, kind of an important figure.
"support from foreign capitalists like Ford"
You might want to look up the major dates where ford helped, and the reasons for doing so. For example, ford first created deals with the USSR in 1929, as the NEP was starting to wear down. The NEP was very much not socialist at the time, and in fact, "Under the NEP, not only were "private property, private enterprise, and private profit largely restored in Lenin's Russia," but Lenin's regime turned to international capitalism for assistance, willing to provide "generous concessions to foreign capitalism." (that's from A. James Gregor's book "Marxism, Fascism & Totalitarianism: Chapters in the Intellectual History of Radicalism," of which he is kind of well known at being an expert in each ideology.) So yeah, not even the soviet union at the time dared to call itself socialist, that's the "tactical retreat from socialism" I was talking about. Additionally, Ford did it because he wanted to destroy "communism" from within, by providing capitalism. That's from Douglas Brinkley's “Wheels for the World." Ford and the nazis, however, had a very different relationship. Ford wrote books and articles for the nazis, like "The International ()," which was admired by hitler himself, as he ordered massive quantities of the book and ordered his party to distribute it, as well as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Anti-semetic texts that spoke fondly of the nazis. Ford also literally helped the nazis in the war effort, as well as using prisoners of war (read: slaves) in his german companies... even when the authorities did not require it. Ford was also awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle by nazi germany, which is a medal literally reserved for foreigners who championed the nazi cause. SO we have two different scenarios, in one Ford tried to take advantage of a private-ish economy to lessen the control of socialist thought, and in another he championed what you would like to call "socialist thought" all the way across the sea.
"Why did he purge the aryan socialists"
Mate, no offense but infighting doesn't cut it here. I know that's the go-to answer, but infighting usually implies there is an "in" that both groups belong to. Hitler did not just purge the socialists that disagreed with him or left the party with strasser, he purged thousands of members of his own party, many of whom were reported to have just been hopeful for actual socialist reform. HE also killed anarchists, liberals, activists, ect. In other words - he didn't kill people because they were the wrong type of socialist, he killed them because they were socialist. Not even the soviet union did that.
"but not the aryan upper class?"
No, i'm not arguing that, but look at their economics. As I said previously, state dirigisme is the term most often used to describe the nazi economy, but numerous states have gone through similar things, like even the soviet union, and america at certain points. Now, for the USSR this was the NEP which I previously described, but the interesting thing was that the state maintained the most influence over big business, not small business. In fact, at this time they were so anti-corpoation and anti-collective farming that they mandated every farmer own private land, and the state could not interfere. Of course, that would change in time. And that's another big connection to make, Lenin's NEP was meant to be a retreat from socialism into a capitalistic compromise, state dirigisme, in order to quickly build up industry so that industry could then (supposedly) be given to the people. Hitler, in that way, was the exact opposite. He disbanded all companies with less that $40,000 in capital, and barred the creation of any new ones with less than $200,000 in starting capital. As was said earlier, the economy works for the state. He also stated that this economy was his goal, not a retreat from his goal or a step towards it. Hitler used this economic boom to make war, Lenin used to to make infrastructure. So yeah, supporting the rich over the members of your own party isn't really socialist.
"Because communism is actually worse. Fascists weren't nazis, they didn't murder the (). They actually hardly murdered anyone."
Ok, two things. One, the people I mentioned literally inspired places like Chile, that had an average calorie intake worse than a nazi concentration camp at one point. Doesn't seem that great. And also... uh what countries do you call fascist? You realize many were complicit or participated in the genocide, right?
"Jesus was j(censored). So what? [...] those who formulate new ideas"
I'm not religious, nor do I know much about theology or have much more than a passing knowledge in religious history, so i'm prepared to be wrong there. So perhaps my kropotkin analogy worked better there.
"Seems like I'm done finally? Good. I'm tired, hungry and tipsy. Good night to you, mate."
Yeah, honestly i'd hate to deal with my comments as well. I try to condense them. but there's a lot I want to get out there, and a lot is related, so I just try to give a cursory overview of as much as possible. So in that vein, thanks for keeping it concise, and sorry for keeping you up. Have a good one mate, take care.
1
-
@bakters "Nazi program was not realized in practice - I'll never agree with that."
And why not? It explicitly was not in the vast majority of those cases, as proved with simple examples. I see no evidence otherwise.
"75% of Nazi program is right wing - I'll never agree with that."
I'd recommend you actually look into the context of the words and not just the first thing that comes to mind. The few things that could be thought of as socialistic that he brings up, like the nationalizing of property, are not always socialistic, or even left wing. It depends on why they are being nationalized, and in this case that was happening to support a white supremacist nationalist cult - hence right wing. Most can be applied with this logic, same with the public utility. Again, they really didn't do either of those things, but in the few events that they did provide public utility, it was to their ideal aryan citizens only, trying to reinforce the ethnostate. Ergo - right wing. I'd point out the flaws in the source even if it said "I voted for Donald Trump" on the 25 point plan, because political grandstanding isn't a good source.
"the nazis were absolutely socially far right" - Definitely not
We're not just talking about gender roles, we're talking about the supposed preservation of culture from foreign degenerates, we're talking about the idea that tradition inherently holds truths that can be applied to the modern day, we're talking about a single-race society, we're talking about social darwinism and the concept of the political, ect. This was not just on one issue, the nazis were literally defined by trying to preserve their culture as is, not progress it. Ever.
""far right in nearly all policies that did not impact economics" - Total nonsense. I'll never agree with that. They implemented censorship, state owned press, total control over education"
Are you saying that the far right cannot hold those ideas? Beacuse i'll give you a hint - they came from them. The original far right were monarchists, and they utterly employed all of those things to their fullest. TO deny that these can be right wing policies, even when ore contemporary right-wing dictators like Pinochet did them, is utterly preposterous. And yes, they supported eugenics, much like people like Winston Churchill, Sir Francis Galton, Charles Davenport, hell even plato had a form. In case you were not aware, back then eugenics was not an issue of left vs right, unfortunately. Many held the opinion that it should be put into effect in some cases, such as with the mentally disabled, or sometimes as a form of punishment for serious crimes. Most people, however, did not consider that eugenics could lead to any sort of hitler figure, until it did. We can look back on them with the benefit of hindsight and the disgust of modernity, because realistically what these people called for was terrible, even in the less extreme cases. But to dare to say alone were supporting eugenics, or that eugenics was a right wing idea, especially when we have evidence of them using phrenology and social darwinism, right wing ideas? Yeah, no.
"Stateless society idea - I'll never agree with that. It's a pure utopia, which leads to dystopia. "
Yeah, not really. And as I said before, if you let opinions factor into your use of definitions you'll have a problem.
"NEP wasn't socialism - C'mon man. I don't even."
Yes, it objectively was not.
"Under the NEP, not only were "private property, private enterprise, and private profit largely restored in Lenin's Russia," but Lenin's regime turned to international capitalism for assistance, willing to provide "generous concessions to foreign capitalism."
:Which countries do I consider fascist - Spain, Italy, Hungary, just to narrow it down. J()ews had it fine there, until Germans took over."
Not really, each was either complicit with the germans or had their own genocide plan going.
Where do we agree?
1. Nazi program had some aspects which were socialistic.
(which they didn't implement)
2. While you can argue that Nazis were right wing, far-right claim is badly supported.
(not really, they were no monarchists but certainly no moderates either)
3. Nazi economy was a Centrally Administered Economy, which is what you typically find among socialist states.
(not only is this not entirely true, "typically" and "by definition" are very different things.)
4. In NSDAP there were socialists, at least initially.
(and then they were purged.)
But yes, I suppose I agree with all but the second on a superficial level.
1
-
@bakters You're accusing me of saying words with no meaning? Mate, you literally said that overinflation is the same as abolishing rent. Holy shit. Well, since you just don't get it, and can't escape your own re-education centers, so let's go through every. single. one.
1. Unification of Germans - Realized in practice.
( done with intent of national identity to uphold, right wing, nationalist.)
2. Denouncing of treaty of Versailles - Done in practice.
(Done with distrust of foreign countries controlling their people, right wing, nationalist)
3. Colonies for lebensraum - Poland, big parts of USSR taken. Realized in practice.
(expansion of the worshiped nation and ingroup, right wing, nationalist)
4. Restricting the civic rights to ethnic Germans. - Done.
(not only right wing and nationalist, but not actually completed, in that it restricted the voting rights of even aryans)
5. Restricting the rights of foreigners. - Done.
(again, national pride, right wing, nationalist)
6. Purging foreigners off any public offices. - Done.
(same as above)
7. Purging foreigners off the Reich. - Some left, some were murdered. Mostly done.
(^^^^)
8. No immigration. - Realized.
(*^^^^^^*)
9. Equal rights for citizens. - Aristocracy (hated by Hitler) was not privileged, so it was true.
(lol holy shit you cannot be kidding me. 1. Hitler did not hate aistocracy, he at numerous times vowed to protect their wealth and that he respects any individual who can rise to the top of the markets, through "legitimate" (aryan) means, of course in line with his social darwinist philosophy. On top of that, i'd say that literally throwing people in camps because they disagreed with him is not equal in the slightest)
10. Do as you are told, or else. - Of course realized.
(respect the leader who represents both your "perfect nation" and "perfect race," which ties back into the right wing nationalist concepts.
11. Abolition of unearned incomes (rent-slavery). - Sure. By printing money, so they become meaningless, but they did it.
(ha, no. That's like saying they abolished poverty by killing everyone who was poor. So no, they did not do it, and you insisting they did was a stretch.)
12. "War profits" a crime. - They did it. Selling pigs at market value was a crime, people were convicted for it.
(not only is that an entirely seperate action, they absolutely did not outlaw war profiteering. They gave medals to war profiteers like ford that were setting up industry on both dies of the issues. Then you have Koch (met in person to discuss deals with hitler) GM, GE, IBM... as I said, they encouraged war profiteering, not abolished it.)
13. Nationalization of war industries. - Of course. They never specify the means and there was no need for "literal" nationalization, as Hitler clearly outlined over and over. He must have thought people to be really stupid for insisting on minutia and I agree with him on that.
(when you say "nationalize" you mean "nationalize ," not heavily influence or control. So no, they did not do it, the USA nationalized more things in the same span. Even so, this is a right wing policy, by keeping said few nationalizations to the benefit of the "nation and the race", not actually the people within it.
14. Division of profits of heavy industry. - Of course happened. Fixed prices and profit margins made sure of that.
(not only did this not actually happen for the most part, regulations are not profit sharing. not in the slightest, they exist under all sorts of systems.
15. Welfare expansion. - I'm not sure about the scale of that. They surely state-funded cruise ship vacation for at least some workers, so I think we can count that one.
(no, you cannot. That's like saying that feudalistic england was the perfect welfare state because the state officials were all rich kings or nobles. They defunded welfare of all sorts, and often portrayed those who needed it, like the elderly, disabled, or just poor, as mentally inferior, and killed many.)
16. Support for small retailers. - From what I've heard, it happened.
(mate, they outlawed the formation and existence of all non-major corporations. Remember, under $40,000 is gone, under $200,000 cannot be made?)
17. Expropriation of land as needed. - Of course.
(right wing nationalistic policy as above, taking things into the control of the "perfect state and the head of the perfect people.")
18. War against "degenerates", regardless of race. - Sure.
( pretty obviously social darwinism, kind of hoppean, certainly right wing)
19. Abolition of Roman law tradition. - Of course.
(hated supposedly foreign influences, right wing nationalist)
20. State controlled education. - Obviously.
21. National health improvement program, exercises and such. - Hitlerjugend alone should count.
(not really, they actually took great effort to destroy most previously existing public schools and purged the teachers, to which they replaced them with people teaching about the necessity of the fatherland, race science, on and on, all in support of hitler. Right wing, nationalist.)
22. National army. - Did they ever...
( there we can agree. Right wing, nationalist)
23. State controlled media. - As above.
(yep, teaching the same nationalistic views)
24. Free religion, the opposition to J()ewish-materialistic world view. - Very successful at that. Fanatics were not uncommon at all.
(well, no. They actually were against most forms of religion out there, though at times they pandered to a catholic and christian base of conservatives, so they often celebrated holidays like christmas while trying to replace the figure of jesus (as he was viewed as just another J()w) with either an aryan version or a roughly equivalent character.)
25. Strong central government with unlimited authority. - Well, I don't believe in unlimited anything, but they came close... ;-) (yep, in service of the right wing nation state)
I mean dude, you try to say this all profoundly, not realizing that apparently to you abolishing religion non-state sanctioned religion, allowing war profiteering, and murdering your own citizens is somehow the same thing as religious freedom, abolishing war profiteering, and equal rights. Seriously. In this, you've just shown exactly how far you need to twist the truth to say that most of these things happened, and even more, that they were left wing. It's bonkers, really.
And mate, not sure if you could tell, but I am an organizer for my local antifa chapter. Pretty sure the first thing i'd do if i took power was abolish the state, but hey, that's just me. The fact that you think antifa is a proactive group, rather than a reactive movement says a lot. What you just said would be like me saying "just you wait until pro-life takes control, then you'll see!" and to be honest, I would be more scared of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States
I sincerely hope, somewhere deep down, you realize the irony of the concepts of sheltering ideas against that pesky reality while you tried to make that counter point of yours. Seriously, jesus. That's a level of irony not even I expected.
Well then, thanks for the good luck wishes, and good luck to you as well.
1
-
@bakters "No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that you play with words, like if they have no real meaning. Which is dangerous, because words do have a meaning."
I've actually been the one telling you to stick to strict definitions this whole time, but ok. Even so, it does not diminish how much you tried to obfuscate that meaning in your 25-point breakdown.
" Is it "the same", especially "literally the same"? Of course not. Close enough, though."
For one, what you described them doing was a purposeful action with intent of abolishing rent, when in reality what they did was fuck up their economy so much that they reached hyperinflation, which helped to eliminated debt. Debt, which is a different thing entirely from rent.
"Because it's true. I vote nationalist right, I don't like the association, but I agree with you, because it's simply true."
Ok, yet there is no substantial difference between the first and the last here. So why distinguish?
"Now, I could argue that nationalists back then were not far-right and not always even right of center. There were monarchists, theocrats, capitalists and libertarians to the right of all of them, and some nationalists were obvious lefties. To distinguish themselves from nationalistic right, they called themselves appropriately, yes, National Socialists."
Yes, there were nationalists to the left, like the later black panthers. But do you know the funny part? They weren't just "nationalists who were also right wing." They were actually left wing nationalists. Which meant that they were often anti-colonialism, actually cared about the nation above race, religion, or political views. LEft wing nationalism tends to be isolationist, right wing tends to be expansionist. Hitler was none of those things. Your thinking here is unsubstantiated "Left wing nationalists exist, therefore the nazis were left wing" when in reality they followed exclusively the right wing form of nationalism, not left wing. So again, this logic is unfounded. You literally have no connections to make. They didn't call themselves "national socialists" to distinguish themselves from right leaning nationalists, because they literally went and allied/propped up right wing nationalists in government or in foreign nations. They called themselves national socialists, against hitlers wishes even, to gain voter appeal. Their actions, their allies, and their philophy show they are anything but left wing.
"Which is a concept you simply can't accept. Too painful, isn't it? Wait for comrade Jazzira to know what a real pain is."
Yes, you saying "so they must be socialists" without further evidence truly is the most pain i've ever gotten. And honestly, after this conversation i'd love for my old buddy Jazzira here to fucking shatter my nuts, because that would be more entertaining than this.
"You think it makes you somehow immune to what is going to happen?"
Uh no, I just thought it would be worth bringing up because it shows I actually have some personal knowledge in this field. But uh... sure.. Thanks for your fun little fantasy, which I assume is about leftist infighting? I'll be completely honest, I can't really tell. It seems like that kind of vaguely pretentious (though I hesitate to use that word) kind of thing you'd end a point off on to feel like at the very least you have some point of superiority over the person in question. In any question, I love the notion that right wing infighting isn't as much of a thing, because conservative Christians and Muslims have been going at it for centuries, to name one example.
Oh, and I will. Strong for old comrade Jazzira.
1
-
@bakters "It was probably badly translated. Hitler meant interests on debts."
Do you have... any evidence for that at all?
:But I don't even need to defend this position. Rents in a regulated market can't catch up to even moderate inflation. I lived under hyperinflation and I paid rent, so I kinda know what I'm talking about here. We were all poor, but paying rent was peanuts.:
Pretty sure you had a paying job though, which was somewhat uncommon in 1940s germany when not working for the military.
"Current left keeps on dividing the nation into so many subgroups, that I genuinely lost count. I'd call them racist, but the PC term is racialism. Moot argument anyway."
Then they aren't nationalists.
"So guys I vote for (and we are Winning!), are actually lefties? Damn, they fooled me so well... ;-) "
Moreso than old imperialist nationalists.
"You think: "What can she do to me, she's just a frail lady?", but she was 250 before fat shaming became a thing, and you also forgot that gender is just a social construct, so she's sporting a significantly bigger package then you do and knows from personal experience how much it hurts to be kicked there... ;-)"
Fair.
"Fantasy? So whom you guys managed to get elected so far? "
Mate, you think we like obama? Or Hillary? Come on now.
"So, who are the people you vote for? Nice guys, aren't they? Let's wait until they don't have to pretend to be so nice, then you'll see how my "fantasy" plays out."
I don't vote.
"No, it really isn't. Nowadays it's like "Nationalists of the World, unite!" , which is really funny, but I like it. Re: Christians vs. Muslims? You were mislead there, I believe. It's Muslims vs. Infidels. You are an Infidel."
Nah, it's conservative monotheistic religion vs the other conservative monotheistic religion.
1
-
@bakters "That's whom you gonna get, though."
What, for president? Mate, i didn't vote for either, and I have no reason to. If you're blaming me for all of the elections that I don't actually give two shits about, I have to warn you that you might as well blame me for the election of donald trump. As for the rest of that nonsense, i'm not going anywhere close to addressing that.
"No. Crusades weren't a thing, until Islam tried to take over France."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejdlkfXwPQc
No, not really. History helps.
"They would be treated even worse , because that's what is written in their holy book."
The holy book which is basically just a re-written bible? Come on now.
"BTW - What cultures Islam has created? Well... Let me think... They inherited some astronomers at some point, but after that? Zero.
"
They were living in marble mansions and the biggest cities in the world while europeans were still trying to carve huts out of solid shit to live in. They had some of the most powerful armies, biggest libraries, longest lists of inventions and accomplishments out there. Pretty sure we wouldn't be nearly as advanced as we are today without them.
1
-
@bakters "But I agree, I should've figured out you don't care about democracy. That's even worse, actually. "
Right, because not caring about the US elections, which are not democratic and have never claimed to be, is not caring about democracy. You couldn't get more wrong if you tried.
"What's your point?"
The crusades were not retaliatory by any measure.
"You never read either"
What a brazen assumption, one that you cannot verify in any means.
"Well, there was this thing called Rome and Greece before that."
Yes, empires that stretched into muslim territories and partially collapsed because of the attacks of those reigons, and left europe in shambles for literal centuries.
"biggest [Greek] libraries" - I fixed that one. "
Not really, but ok.
"hey were good at it, so it didn't last too long..."
I'd like to see some, really any, citation on this.
1
-
@bakters "Do something about it!"
I'd love to, and i've been trying in fact, but the problem is with an inherently undemocratic system is that it's damn near impossible to vote the issues out, because it doesn't actually reflect the will of the people. That's where direct action comes in, protest, boycotts, all that. Again, would love to have voting reform, but that doesn't seem like it's very likely at the minute.
"People were genuinely fed up."
Ok, no offense, but people back then were fed up for a bunch more reasons than that. There were wars, famines, political distress, everything really. Yes some of the muslim countries did provide some sort of threat to the christian countries, but in nearly every situation what one side was doing was matched by the other side in equal measure. That is, until the first crusade was declared.
"With that said, I don't really disagree with you. It was a complex issue."
And I would agree with that. Pointing to one issue and positing that it led to the fall of rome, or the rise of greece, or the beginning of the dark ages and whatnot is an inherently flawed historical methodology to employ. Even now, these empires would be massive parts of the world, and to underplay the vast ideological and physical confrontations that were happening really everywhere at the time does history a disservice.
"You've absolutely no idea about history... That's just rubbish what you wrote."
Not really, the romans and greeks had many troubles that would lead to their eventual defeat, but one of them certainly was muslims, just as one was germanic tribes and one was inner political unrest.
"When Muhammad's armies swept out from the Arabian peninsula in the seventh and eighth centuries, annexing territory from Spain to Persia, they also annexed the works of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates and other Greek thinkers.
"
In all fairness, that is how europe also got itself out of the artistic and technological funk it had fallen into with the renaissance, and later the age of enlightenment, a large amount of time was spent reexamining and recovering literature and science from the greeks and romans, which would go on to create of of the biggest booms in technology, art, and culture the world had seen at the time. It seemed they had the same inclination as well. And don't forget, some of the inspiration of the inventions of those empires did come from the islamic world.
"That's a lie, BTW. At some point their Theologians figured out, that if Allah decided that 2+2=3*11, that's what it really is, so logic was useless"
I mean mate, no offense, but Christians weren't exactly stellar in that regard either. Witch hunts, refusal of physics and science, a ban on heliocentrism which was only admitted to be wrong really a few decades ago... they ain't the best at putting science above religion. In fact, there was a dedicated push around the Reformation period to deny science harder, tie people to the church more. That's just religion in general.
"Which reminds me, that the intellectual fathers of your movement not so long ago decided, that establishing truth is impossible"
And what "movement" would that be? Please, enlighten me.
1
-
@bakters "Democracy is hard and very imperfect! - I feel you, man. I really do... ;-)"
Yeah, that's fair. Democracy, or the remnants of it we have in america, is so screwed up and unresponsive it's practically dead in the water, and to get anything done we need to poke the corpse with a stick for a few hours, hoping it'll move. Especially in the cases of any sort of voting reform or push to get us out of the two party system, not much seems to be working. All we have are two wings of the same bird.
"Muslim countries did relatively well. "
Yeah, I don't mean to imply that they were a perfect civilization, like any at the time. They were just as shit as the lot, and worse in some cases. My main point was just that they weren't utterly useless while being utter pieces of shit.
"Lol. I'm not sure, but it's possible I wrote this acronym for the first time in my life"
Yeah that fine, i'll drop it in this case, just thought it was something worth mentioning.
"True. It went off for reals, once we captured Cordova, with all the Arabic translations."
And I could be mistaken, but didn't similar discoveries like that help to kick start europe back into an enlightenment?
"Sure. And nothing good came out of there ever since. ;-)"
To be fair, a crap ton of oil has come out of there, and also a pretty good resistance to the soviets. Though that last one ended up backfiring more than a bit.
"Truly great people, those."
Again, they were conquerers and imperialists, not an uncommon position in those times. But they at least put that knowledge to use.
"Postmodersnism."
Mate, no offense, but postodernism isn't really like... compatible with my "movement?" Or marxism, a term it frequently gets stuck in with.
"Discover the savior of mankind, the lord Jesus. "
In all honesty I was raised roman catholic, so i've had some good exposure to the big J over my lifetime. He sounded like a good person and taught some good things, but the whole "unquestioning obedience and faith for a purpose you will never understand" kinda turns me off.
1
-
@bakters "No comments on Pinker being cancelled?" I don't really know the circumstances, and getting "cancelled" lasts all of five minutes, so I tend not to bring that stuff up or comment on it when I can avoid it.
"Absolutely true. But they got it first and got nowhere with it, so I wouldn't fall head over heels with praise."
Eh, they managed to keep a pretty stable empire going for a while. Then WW1 came along and spilt that thing up, and it's gonna take a long time to crawl out of that hole.
"Anyway, It's good we got the library in Cordova before some fanatic Muslim idiot decided to burn it down, like they did in Alexandria."
In all fairness, that story started circulating (and in fact was only first wrtten) a few hundred years after the actual burning. The much more likely stories are either that the fire from Caesar burning down his harbor after a particularly devastating ambush, causing him to go full scorched earth, or that the death of Hypatia led to civil unrest on an unprecedented scale and it was burned down sometime in the chaos.
"No, not really. They were the conquered."
Well now they are. Back then? There's a reason there wasn't only one crusade.
"Well, you may be a true old-schooler then. Kropotkin and all that. "
Yes, actually. Good fellow, the bread santa. I think the "post modernism" of the new movements is a bit... over exaderated, but I suppose there are some elements on the egoist and post-left side of things.
"On the other hand, Jesus was a true communist... ;-)"
I mean...
- Didn't like rich people
- Fucked up a market
- No price tag on heaven.
- Gave people free healthcare and food
- People still believe in his ideas to an unhealthy degree long after he's dead
idk man, seems kinda commie-ish to me...
1
-
@bakters "How about Supreme Court ruling, that half of Oklahoma belongs to the Indians now?"
They wouldn't do it if it wasn't legal, dude. It's the supreme court. If they wanted that land, they probably should have gone through the correct legal procedures to get it, and not just decided it was theirs.
"Nah. Even Spain was fragmented, not even talking about any sort of coherent empire among all of the Islam. "
Islamic empires absolutely existed, they wouldn't have been able to pose such a threat to the romans if they didn't. But hell, spain literally claimed half the globe, and countries like the ottoman empire did pretty well for themselves.
"I was only half joking. Religious communism is a thing, apparently."
No, i'm aware. Radical Christianity and all. It kind of works, and hell if republicans can make jesus out to be a venture capitalist free market pro-2a billionaire or something, I don't see why some people could try to fit a poor revolutionary who gave away free shit and promised utopia to fit their belief systems.
1
-
@bakters "Legal shmegal. Do you understand the consequences?"
I mean yeah, but the lawmakers and maannifest-destinyers plrobably should have done a bit of "understanding the consequences" of those actions. The most likely scenario is that a new deal is formed which gives back the government all of that administrative contol over that territory, with somewhat more of a tip into the native american's favor.
-
"What a bureaucratic way of thinking."
Well yeah, that's kind of how ownership works. You don't get to keep something just because you stole it 200 years ago, at least under no reasonable legal system you should, especially when it's as substantial as this. Not my prefered system, but hey, we have to deal with the one we've got over here.
-
"Sure. We've been battling one of those for several hundred years."
I never said an Islamic empire for all of islam, but that there were empires that were primarily islamic that certainly did exist, and at the very least manged to hold their shit together for long enough to reach the modern world, and since then we've been tearing up the middle east almost continuously, which probably has something to do with the constant warfare. Plus, america was literally founded on religious infighting, come on.
-
"I thought you'd google it up eventually, but Rome fell before Muhammad was born."
-
Uh. Mate. The eastern roman empire fell in the mid-1400s. That's quite a bit after Muhammad was born. To the tune of a couple centuries. More than a couple, really, a hell of a lot of time. Other empires rose and fell, cultural movements and philosophies were formed and broken in that time. If you're talking about the western roman empire, the one most associated with the roman name, then yes they did fall before Muhammad was born, but the Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine empire, lasted more than a thousand years long. I was talking about the latter, though I see the confusion. And you would be right, US education averages tend to be atrocious, but that's primarily because we have a shit ton of freeloader states that drive the averages down. Anyway, misunderstanding on both ends, no need to be so haughty.
-
"Oh, my. You are falling apart so fast... Turn it around, or something."
Uhh... sure. What do you want to talk about, music or something? Recommended reading? How we're keeping up in quarantine? I mean there are a few things we can "turn in around" to, take your pick.
1
-
@bakters "So Oklahoma is about to go bankrupt and the Indians can rightfully expect all the taxes from Tulsa"
Not really, nor would they want them most likely. Again, the most likely option has the US getting most of its land back with either added reparations, protections, or more land for native americans.
"I think it's a political plot. They'll force Trump's hand, then impeach him, or something?"
Mate the supreme court is 5/9 republican conservative. It took them months to decide on a verdict on his tax returns, and even then they just made someone else deal with it.
"Actually, you do get to keep it"
Well in practice yes but in the cases of countries you can't just take over unpopulated but claimed land. That would be like the US colonizing Antarctica, nobody else is doing it but they do actually own that land.
"There were more of those."
Sure, and i'd argue that while Byzantine literally used to be a part of rome, it did have a strong claim originally, but it culturally moved on in that span of a couple thousand years. And i'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about stealing muslim lands, I just said some neighboring muslim groupings/civilizations had posed them some considerable trouble over the years.
"Splendid, actually. "
Well that's nice! I live in a somewhat suburban area in new england, and we got hit the hardest by infections, have been indoors for ever, but we're getting along rather well. And, like you, I've taken to some home baking, and it's actually quite fun. Also gardening, which is somewhat prosperous in this atmosphere. And yeah, the economies going to flop somewhat soon, but I think i'm well euqipt.
1
-
@bakters "You mean, they are allergic to money"
More likely that they'd just like to live in a proper native american society, but i don't know, i'm not a part of that group.
"Oh, I get it!"
Kind of the opposite. Give them some money or some land so you can take back the vast amounts of maney and land that were never legally yours.
"No, not just in practice. It's the law."
Well I'd hope that you could cite some US law saying that then.
"What did you mean by that: "empires that stretched into muslim territories"?"
Something can be a "territory" and not a part of an empire, I was using it to mean the land around major or minor islamic civilizations.
"Want some tips?"
Sure, honestly. Anything to do with cutting down on or finding alternative ingredients would be really helpful, since our stores are all out of stuff.
"I totally hate it, but I do it too."
Exactly, and the thing is often the stuff you grow at home is so much better and more plentiful than the mass produced shit they throw at you.
1
-
@bakters "I won't cite it, but the property is legally yours after 20 years, if you didn't try to steal it (purchased in "bad faith" is the term they use). "
First off, I will look into it more personally as it's been a little while since I studied US government and law. It wouldn't surprise me if some states had it for certain types of property, but the issue is that this was not just an amount of money, or an item, or even a house - it was an official annexation of the country. That's where it gets a hell of a lot more complicated. Hell, the country almost split after the Louisiana purchase for that very reason, because the legality of annexing property is really, really tedious. At first it could only be done if ruled constitutional and bought/traded for in a treated approved by congress, but then we figured the president could do it in some cases. However, states have never been able to do it, so that's what makes this a bit of an issue. Annexation is a bit more than just theft.
"I didn't know you guys were such legal fundamentalists."
Not really, no. You can't follow kropotkin (Mr. "In place of the cowardly phrase, "Obey the law," our cry, is "Revolt against all laws!") and be some sort of Legal absolutist" over all. But since we're talking about a supreme court ruling, the laws surrounding it are kind of important. And i'd say there's a difference between forcefully and potentially unconstitutionally taking land from a treaty that specifically says it isn't yours, and you know, sticking up for human rights.
"For bread you need flour, water and salt. That's all. No yeast."
Thanks! I'll screenshot the whole process you laid out to try later, I haven't even tried tackling bread yet but this seems solid. I'll let you know how that goes, then!
1
-
@bakters "The spirit of the law is obvious. "
Perhaps, but when the "you" in question is a local government that might be infringing on the constitution for doing so, it's a bit of a big deal.
"They can have it back only by force!"
The difference there being that the germany that invaded and conquered poland no longer exists, they can't really settle a deal anymore because just like Weimar germany, Nazi germany is long dead and gone. However, those tribes and our treaties do still exist, so we can't just pretend that we can take land as we please, especially when that land is so substantial and goes directly into the nations.
"No war? Get lost, then"
I'm pretty sure they don't want poland anymore, and in the case of native americans they can't really put up a fight, but alright.
"
Though actually, I allegedly distilled some stuff today"
Thanks for the continued tips! I'll do the same with these, screenshot them and save them for later. It's always good to hear from someone that really has the process down.
1
-
@bakters " Nonsense. Of course they can, they just don't want to"
I can't speak for them, but again that kind of seems like a logistics issues where they can't really make decisions for a country that no longer exists, and as you said, they've already been trying to work out reparations in a similar way. I can't speak much on the issue, but I know how it works over here, and not like that.
"What do you mean by "pretending"?"
And there we'll have to just disagree. I'd prefer to leave that past behind, thanks.
"Especially then."
Look at it from the opposite angle. There was no giving, the land didn't belong to us. We took it. Giving back peanuts doesn't make up for half a state worth of territory;
"On another note:"
This is another thing I cannot really speak towards, but i've seen people in america say similar things only to be shown that they just weren't looking for it, or are exaggerating for political gain. But I don't know, I don't how how events like that are treated or how the polish media functions, so i'm sorry about that.
"I find it truly offensive."
Yeah, I would too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Firebird What evidence? TIK's videos on the subject only prove that no actual evidence for such a claim of the nazis being socialists truly exists. After all, look at what TIK later has to do to justify his ideas. He says that socialism is defined as statism, control by the state. If that wasn't enough of a redefinition of terms, he then defines "the state" as any collection of people with a common goal. Socialism is, and always has been (even before marx) a system in which the means of production are put into the control of the workers as a whole. Hitler did not implement this system, and made it abundantly clear that he did not want to. So what TIK has to do is "take socialism away from the socialists" (to paraphrase hitler, funnily enough) and try to redefine the things it is based off of. If he can call a collection of workers the state, he can say that socialism calls for state control, and then point to a different type of "state" control,and call it socialist. It's utterly stupid. Under his definitions, you're most likely a socialist, living in a socialist country.
1
-
@Firebird TIK didn't prove much of anything along those lines, i'm afraid to say. The problem is of course that no country in history has ever really claimed to be communist. Many have said they were moving towards communism, but no one was silly enough to think they achieved it. Now, if we compare the nazis and the USSR, yes, both were totalitarian. But that on its own doesn't mean much, Monarchies were totalitarian as well, are those socialist? Are those the same thing? Your definition of socialism doesn't work as well, if they really were putting power in the hands of some elite, and not the people, it cannot be considered socialism. Centralizing power to some elites is kind of what they're fighting against. And finally, the idea that the only difference between socialism and far-right nazi ideology is that one focuses on race and the other on class is absurd. There are hundreds of differences, and while they might not be obvious when comparing totalitarian rules on face value, they absolutely exist and should be paid attention to. If one were to replace class with race, it would no longer be socialism. That would be like replacing class with "rich people" and saying "capitalism is socialism because the rich own the means of production, not the workers." It's just absurd.
1
-
@Firebird Wait...what? Did you even read your own post? You said that they apparently claimed to be a communist system, but then instantly disproved yourself by showing that they always claimed communism was a system to get to, not something they actually had. Jesus. Anyway, i'm guessing you're american, but the idea that people never give up power when taking a whole lot of power is quite ironic here. After all, we could have had a King George, right? But we didn't, he gave up power. Of course they didn't get to that stage, the whole process was meant to be done in a well developed country, not a feudal hellscape. Anyway, the problem with your assessment is that they weren't socialists, objectively. If insisting people live by a system is socialist, then the USA is socialist, and places like Pinochet's Chile were especially socialist. Both those figures you mentioned absolutely despised Marx, and Hitler especially used his name to scapegoat all of socialism by blaming it on "marxism," apparently not caring what the word actually meant. Also, only Mussolini started out as a socialist, Hitler had always run with the radical conservative crowd. And Mussolini starting as a socialist means very little, Washington started as a british citizen, Kropotkin started as a prince, and I started as right wing. That doesn't mean that any of those things were carried on, especially in Mussolini, for a few reasons. For one, he was kicked out of his socialist party for anti-socialist sentiments, the same party he later banned while employing libertarians to manage his economy. For two, he just outright said, in the Doctrine of Fascism, that he wanted to leave socialism behind and that fascism was a right wing ideology. Not really socialist. They didn't just reject soviet socialism, they rejected all socialism, in their countries and others. Hitler did so because he thought it would hurt the german industry, and yes, he thought socialism was a jewish conspiracy. Mussolini did not like it, as you said, because it was internationalist and could go against the nation, but also because the concepts of socialism themselves could easily go against the nation, which is why he rejected socialism. Both hitler and mussolini were fascists, not socialists, and while they did take some socialist ideas, they also openly took from capitalism, monarchism, and other systems. They took most heavily from the teachings of Schmitt, Evola, Spengler, ect, all members of the new radical conservatism that was rising in a fed-up europe. To call either of them socialists, when they so openly denied and despised the left, and took almost exclusively from the right in all but rhetoric, is silly. Of course not all right wingers are nazis, far from it, but to deny the reason that association is as well known as it is doesn't do anyone any favors.
1
-
@Firebird They never claimed to be communist, that's the point. They said they were moving towards communism yes, but never made the claim that they had gotten to it, or were even close. They can't exactly claim to have both, because having communism and not having communism are two things you can't have at once. And again, if people are so reluctant to give up power, then why does it happen so often? Your next point is literally just "well I don't like these people so i'll call them all egotistical." You don't think that's a bit silly? Or that theres no egotism that comes with founding and creating a nation, like the founding fathers did? They very much had the basis to become kings, but they didn't. Yes, Hitler and Mussolini despised marx, but how did they take anything from him? Marx himself spent most time theorizing on capitalism, and his biggest achievement was his marxist historical materialism, which the fascists just dismissed instantly. That's hardly a good inspiration from them. No, they took far more from the conservatives of the time, which I mentioned last time. And again, I've already made this point. Did you even read it? Mussolini was a socialist, but kropotkin was a prince, Sowell was a marxist, ect. The important bit is him renouncing socialism, embracing the right, and learning from conservatives. And while they weren't polar opposite to the regimes at the time, to call them socialists is historically absurd. I got my history from actually reading up on the subject, not watching ideologically possessed youtubers try to validate their biases against socialism. The nazi program absolutely wasn't socialist, and if you're mentioning the 25 point program specifically, there's a reason it was never actually put into progress. I wouldn't be here if I didn't do my homework on the subject, and the further you look into it, the more clear it becomes that the nazis weren't socialists, and that calling them socialists means that people will be on the lookout for the wrong group if a nazi-like movement ever came to rise again in the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1