Comments by "Joe Blow" (@joeblow1942) on "National Socialism WAS Socialism | Rethinking WW2 History" video.

11:33. Marx was a Jew. Jews did invent communism.
9
Yes, absolutely. Everyone gets stuck in the weeds arguing the subtle differences between Hitlers socialism/fascism and "left" socialism like one brand of authoritarianism at gunpoint is more favorable than another. The political spectrum is or should be linear with totalitarianism on one end and anarchy on the other. Fascism, as a variant of authoritarianism, is clumped right along with socialism/communism on the authoritarianism side of the spectrum.
3
National Socialism and International Socialism are two wings of the same bird of prey. Both are authoritarianism enforced at gunpoint.
2
Lios Prosum Compare the National Socialists 25 Point Plan with the Communist Manifesto and you’ll see most of the same hideous programs enforced at gunpoint by authoritarians.. IT’S THE SAME FUCKING SHIT!
2
@personaa422 What did I say that wasn't accurate? Do you believe that fascism is not authoritarianism and therefore does not require enforcement at gunpoint? Do you believe fascism is peaceful and voluntary?
1
Aidan B I didn’t “imply” that Hitler’s national socialism was socialist and that fascism, socialism and communism are authoritarian. I emphatically state that national socialism was socialist both in name and policy and that fascism, socialism and communism are authoritarian. Easy way to test any ideology is to ask.... Can I peacefully and voluntarily join and/or leave, or is compliance enforced at gunpoint? If enforced at gunpoint then clearly it is authoritarian.
1
Aidan B The only possible way for socialism (or communism) to not be authoritarian is if the state isn’t involved. Once the state is involved then it ceases to become peaceful and voluntary. Humans don’t just voluntarily give up the means of production of their businesses and property without a fight, dude. Would YOU give up the business that you had spent decades building? Regarding Hitler’s national socialism being socialist... Do a search for the national Socialists 25 point plan and then do a side by side comparison with the ten planks of the communist manifesto. If you can read and comprehend then you will quickly see that the policies of both are very similar and must be enforced at gunpoint and are therefore authoritarian. There’s a reason why Karl Marx stated that “socialism requires revolutionary terror.”
1
@personaa422 I am very familiar with Proudhons writings. I am for anything that is peaceful and voluntary and Proudhon would roll in his grave if he thought people would attribute the power of the state or see state power as a means to an end to anything he advocated. And yes, I am aware of the myth of the "withering away of the state" but the same psychopaths that brutalize the people into compliance will NEVER ever relinquish their control of the people. Any why? Again, because they are psychopaths and psychopaths have an inherent need to control others and create division and chaos. And why? Because they have no core and controlling others and creating division and chaos is what makes them feel alive. Comparing the 25 Points with the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto is valid since BOTH are authoritarian in nature. And again, both are clumped right together on a linear political scale towards the totalitarian end of the spectrum with beautiful peaceful anarchy on the other end.
1
@personaa422 Inaction by the people in allowing us to get where we are now is the problem. Action by the state is almost always a problem. Psychopaths are an intra-predatory species with no conscience. All of history's mass murdering tyrants were psychopaths. Their order takers were comprised of psychopaths and what some call "secondary psychopaths." I have no sympathy for psychopaths/sociopaths simply because they are so dangerous to humanity so the "mentally ill" get-out-of-jail-card doesn't work with me. These are truly evil motherfuckers. I was saying that a far far more accurate representation for a political spectrum would be to remove the "right" and "left" paradigm and have it run from no state/anarchy on one end to totalitarianism on the other. In other words, the spectrum would be based on the degree of state intervention. When you do that then "right" and "left" and political party's become irrelevant. If by "libertarian" (small l) you mean philosophical libertarianism, as in anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism (vs political Libertarianism (with capital L) then philosophical libertarianism would definitely be there with anarchy/no state because they are synonymous. If you were referring to political Libertarianism (with capital L) then it would be much closer to the anarchy end of the scale vs any other ism simply because the ideal state for political Libertarians is a minarchist / Night Watchman form of government where the state's only function is to protect the people from outside force.
1
Mark Gouthro I was stating facts. Sorry if historical FACTS hurt your little feelings.
1