Comments by "" (@soulcapitalist6204) on "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming" video.
-
14
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@VolrinSeth 1) The fact Marx can be quoted using the same definition in mid 19th century moots any claim that there's any variations of common usage blurring the definition of socialism available to ourselves or the naxis.
2) The fact Marx, Toussenel, Saint-Simon, Compte, Blanqui, Bakunin, Fourier, Böckel, Stoeker, Bauer and more published national socialist theory for posterity debunks any claim that socialism is not founded in national socialism in the first place, so obviously it's inclusive in the overall clave.
3) Of course the alternative you proposed is gaslighting: Marx can be quoted calling for Germany to develop the nürnburg laws of 3rd Reich and other disenfranchisement of 1933-1945 and is the same dude you get the notion about workers' collective from. Your personal definition. Then here you come selecting parts of marxian theory and claiming other parts of Marx's and all other "socialist" collective theory in history is not socialism. That's gaslighting. That's ignorant.
"Socialism" is a bigoted set of political economic theories - 100% of it of all sorts - which were derived from specifically antisemitic nativist medieval labor organization. The Strasbourg Pogrom is a prime example of the impetus of socialism on continental Europe. Some of those men I listed are foundational to socialism as philosophy.
Marx broadened the appeal of his theory on socialism (communism) by publishing Manifesto versus zur Judenfrage where he indulged in typical bigoted German "socialism". Marxism turns ethnic bigotry into a broad repudiation of people with money, but employs the same bigoted, authoritarian ideation of other socialists. Same difference. It nearly all is national socialist in theory and all is national socialist in praxis. In all the state sorts the economy racially in documented policy. All. Documented.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ИгорьВорунов "Their policies were rooted in extreme nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the pursuit of racial purity, rather than the principles of socialism."
Your claim is a historical falsehood and revision as to what any socialist parties in Germany ever pursued. Marxist partisans are communist, despite their cooption of the economic control ideas of socialism. The principles of socialism in Germany and France were right wing and antisemitic at the core of their philosophy. This claim otherwise is not supported on your part whereas I have named the persons and referenced Marx's own claim that the basis of socialism is not Marx's revised basis of communism.
"It is true that the Nazi regime increased state control over the German economy, but it is important to note that this state control was driven by their ideological and political objectives, not by socialist principles."
Socialist principles entail the advantage of a collective ingroup over such clearly defined minority outgroup and this is what is called for by all socialist ideation, including Marx's communist ideation which simply casted capitalists in the place of jews as Marx's revision to well established racial tropism. Your claim that socialist motivation is not antisemitic and dictatorial is ahistoric gaslighting because of people like Adolf Stoeker preceding any marxist partisans in reichstag and these nazis dominating marxists in this way throughout German history, as far as socialist partisans go.
"Denying the connection between Nazism and socialism is a historical misconception"
No. People plainly claim that Hitler was not a socialist. They openly deny national socialism is socialism and do so specifically when Hitler carries it out and not when Vietnam did. This claim of yours is gaslighting, again.
"It is crucial to differentiate between the Nazis' appropriation of the term "socialist" for propaganda purposes and the actual principles and goals of socialism as articulated by socialist thinkers like Marx."
Actually, speciating between socialists based on their disagreements is not crucial. It is several fallacies. It is a compositional fallacy whereby you claim that a philosophical disagreement between two definitionally socialist philosophies might qualify one as socialist and another not. You present a no true scotsman fallacy with your contention that Marx's revision was "actual" when actual socialism was what Lenin unleashed on Russia and what 3rd Reich unleashed on Germany. These were actual since they were practiced. They were socialism because they were the same collectivist mechanics despite varying collectives. Lastly, this is semantic dispute. In my second post, I challenged the very attempt to qualify socialism or otherwise on qualities of the specific collective and this is not how socialism is defined. Socialism is the collectivisation in general terms of microeconomy or MOP. You will never be able to find a definition of socialism which attempts to mount the marxist definition on the entire clave of philosophies because Marx and his communism is an outlier to all of those names I presented and many others.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ИгорьВорунов "Marx's ideas and writings predate the rise of the Nazi regime by several decades. It is incorrect to assert that Marx knew the Nazi regime to be socialism in effect."
No Marx's own theory follows national socialist ideation like that of Bruno Bauer's of the Judenfrage debate at the beginning of Marx's career and does not predate any nazism in Germany. That is impossible if the first book of Marx is him responding to the book of a natzoc jew-hater. The feudal and christian socialists of Manifesto pt 3 are these national socialist, antisemitic characters and this debunks your gaslighting that marxian ideas had older or better established roots in Germany or that Marx himself wasn't aware of this. Antisemitic and right wing socialist ideas predate Marx's lifetime and career in Germany and France. They are the progenitors of socialism in these nations altogether. Marx comes from this tradition and not from outside of this. Marx is an atisemitic race determinist at the opening of his career, specifically calling for a final solution of state regulation of jews if jews did not regulate themselves out of the racial-economic stereotypes he saw them in.
"While it is true that Lenin and the Bolsheviks implemented their own version of socialism in Russia, often referred to as "state socialism" or "state capitalism," it is misleading to equate this with the Nazi regime's ideology or actions"
There is nothing misleading about this. State capitalism is what that is called (State and Revolution, Lenin). State capitalism is socialist political economy. Firstly, this is because Marx and later Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky all claimed it to be. These men all claimed in writing that NEP was socialist political economy (New Economic Plan, Lenin (w/ Stalin and Trotsky notes)). Secondly NEP was socialist political economy due to the use of structural socialism or structural marxism which became two substantial wings of socialist philosophy (Poulantzas) . This entailed the development of state institutions to control the means of production in a given economy and almost entirely based on the writings of Marx in Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee and Critique of the Gotha Program.
The adaptation of this methodology is socialist philosophy when mounted on any collectivist state, whatsoever. The case of race or labor collective is irrelevant. We can identify hypocrisy in the fact Marx calls for the collective of future implementations of his ideas to be assessed at the time of these movements (Grundrisse, Critique of the Gotha Program pt 3). Indeed Lenin employed peasants and soldiers in the soviet collective (of PEOPLEs, ffs - this proved to be a racist tropism throughout the soviet mess.) There is no disqualifying factor in Hitlers racist determinism. This is not any less ethical than economic determinism you people claim is legitimate critique. This is a situation of personal support for socialist methodology which was at the root of ideation and outcomes in 3rd Reich, no differently than in USSR. Because 3rd Reich got a bad rap for the same thing the nazbolism in the soviet experiment did, the Vietcong and the Maoists, you people make the irrational claim that the nazi version was not socialism.
You make the claim that socialism is not racial upmanship when all of USSR (a nazbol mess of race pogroms), China, Congo, Vietnam, 3rd Reich, US organized labor, US socialists and US Progressives (George Fitzhugh, Victor Berger, Woodrow Wilson - the Left behind slavery and jim crow) and the founding fathers of socialism in France (Compte, Fourier, Saint-Simon) - all of this is racist shit and socialist and better established than any theories of Marx or marxists who think race isn't at the center of the matter.
"Repeating again, the argument you presented relies on a conflation of terms and historical events"
This claim of yours is bullshit. A) race indexed socialist political economy is socialist political economy and the first type of socialist political economy ever proposed on Europe (Tonnies, Barkai) B) Marx derrived his ideas from race-indexed socialist traditions preexisting his lifetime and career in Germany. We see Marx start his career as one of these bigots for avoidance of doubt. We see him team up with the bigot Engels whose racial lens analyzing England's industry was illuminating. That shit was national socialism, where national refers to nation, like race. C)The terminology is not is question: socialism is the philosophy of collectivized (that's government) ownership or control of the means of production in an economy. You just have to accept this fact. D) It is your failure to accept this fact of definition without further qualifications directly based on Marx which is at issue here. It raises semantic dispute fallacy, since my proposal can be backed up by 100% of dictionaries and econ texts and yours (qualifications like workers, unions, and specific principles) - they will never be featured in a dictionary. This means you have the terminology problem
"The Nazi regime's actions were fundamentally opposed to the principles of socialism, and it IS IMPORTANT to APPROACH historical analysis with accurate and nuanced understanding."
Your principles of socialism nonsense was debunked above, granted you don't know much about the racist principles of it which dominated Marx and all other socialists ever in Germany. I suggest you READ actual books about the topic that you are discussing. I have previously presented you with a number of the very top citations on this topic and this is from having read all of that work and all of the Marx that I have presented you. It's really clear that you are not familiar with the history of socialist philosophy and haven't read works of Marx's to understand the substantial role of race in his own ideas.
You're just out there gaslighting me about how flowery socialist philosphy is from inside a bubble of confirmation bias. No. It is nazi shit and close to nazi shit. The reason it has been just like the nazis is because of the socialism part. What better example than someone who parrots the propaganda that Marx made any critique of capitalism. That shit is not critique as I pointed out. Making up a half-assed capital accumulation model and criticizing it (Kapital 3) is called strawman fallacy and not critique of capitalism.
"appropriation of the term "socialist"" - socialist is a right wing and antisemitic term in all of German history. Marxists called themselves communists and sat on the left of reichstag ostensibly to differentiate themselves from socialists in Germany. Nobody in Germany thought about marxists when hearing the term socialist. They thought about volkisch movement national socialists who were is greater numbers in any of March or November revolutions. Marxists were marginally significant at any time in Germany and were most popularized by their opposition to socialists in the first reichstag no differently than their popularity for opposing nazis in the late 20s. They were always losing out to the nazis, for example, right wing socialists had parties in first reichstag, but not the marxists. For example, the only place in Germany which showed any sign of a marxian stronghold from 1848-1945 was in Berlin, alone, probably due to foreigners and jews (Barkai, jew, doctor of economics #1 scholar there will ever be on this topic (by citations or any other measure))
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dannysullivan3951 America featured socialists (George Fitzhugh, Victor Berger), Progressive Leftists (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, New Freedom and New Deal political slates (fascist corporative state with apartheid), unionists (whites-only AFL and state labor segregation through NIRA and NLRB), Liberals (Tammany Hall - appointed all our slaving (Dredd Scott) and jim crow (Plessy v Ferguson) supreme court justices and slaver lawmakers (MO Compromise, KS-NE Act, supporting the Dredd Scott decision) and jim crow law makers (James Eastland, Jim Eagleman, Joe Biden, Bob Byrd, Jesse Helms...) and these were always combated by American conservatives.
Slaving people and making elaborate apartheid schemes is radicalism, fella. That's not what conservatism is. Conservatism is the opposite role of government than is needed for the government to slave people by law or abrogate rights prejudicially. This is why conservative appointments to the SCOTUS have been on record since and including Dredd Scott, arguing against national socialist ideation of Tammany Hall liberal lawyers in all of the civil rights cases in the US until conservative Warren court settled de jure jim crow.
Hitler's on record as having recognized and admired American state bigotry, but the nationalist, national socialist and nazbol (Strassers et al) philosophical traditions in Germany were just as well established if not moreso.
2
-
2
-
@malcolmfreeman7802 1) You don't have to capitalize or shout nazi. 2) The first thing you should do is count the interest in this topic appropriately. The people concerned with nazis being socialist are socialists and not people who follow the United States system which ended the possibility of socialism on western Europe in 1945. Get the facts straight.
3) The next thing you need to do is stfu and learn what socialism means. Read this definition from 5 sources. Be certain these are dictionaries or economics or political science texts which are offering a definition and not an explanation. These 5 definitions must be what the word means and you cannot argue with that. You will find that you are mistaken. A collective of a nation must be government, no matter what. For example, any democracy is government, for certain. A socialist government must be collectivist, no matter what. And a collectivist government which owns or controls labor and means of production in an economy must be socialist, no matter what. Any caveat or exception you try to attach to these definitions is you trying to cover for socialist ideas which the nazis used. For example, your panties are in a bunch about the government role in socialism because you also want to use the government to force the economy to work how you want it to, just like the nazis.
4) Now that you know what we are discussing, cut the bullshit. There is no such thing as a republic with a means of production which is neither capitalist nor socialist. Socialists have a poorer quality of philosophy than mainstream academia, so I need to remind you ignorant people that dialectic is a deliberate juxtaposition of two ideas in such an inescapable way. This is intentionally set up by using the mutually exclusive definition you learned in step 3. Capitalism and socialism are two different options for handling the same thing in the same place. Socialism is literally when government does [this means of production] stuff, and capitalism is when markets do it instead of the government. This was done in the 1820s following the advent Hegelian dialectics and the resolution (for economics) of capitalism over socialism in the political economic dialectic. Socialism lost before Marx's career started.
5) Read a book. You have not read a single book about this topic and I have read several about this topic and the technicalities of the political economy in 3rd Reich specifically. Nobody could escape the clear imposition of socialism by the nazis, immediately upon taking power, in 1933. By 1934, Germany was socialist. Private property rights were suspended and no institutions controlling labor nor commodities in Germany were privately controlled since the nazis made laws banning this and created a state Labor Front and a state cartel system just like the soviets for the same purpose of affecting socialist political economy.
6) Specifically read Teil 1 Reichsgesetzblatt 1933 - Ermachtigungsgesetz article 48, Teil 2 Reichsgesetzblatt 1933 - Commodity Exchange Act, Compulsory Cartel Act, ...of Labor Front Act. Read the law books and say it ain't so in year one.
6) Read a history book. The #1 scholarly work on this topic is Nazi Econ of Avraham Barkai. Other works are not even half of the citations since most economic history about the nazis is from this book. Shirer's Rise and Fall is casual reading on this topic. He also describes the imposition of socialist political economy during the "national socialist revolution" period of 1933-1937. Read economist historians Otto Nathan, Charles E Noyes and Charles Lucacz. All studied 3rd Reich economics and wrote in depth about the policies and both Austrian and German governments have left all of 3rd Reich's policy for our review and confirmation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@VolrinSeth Socialism is not about collective of workers. It is collective, generally. The majority of socialism was race based collective, whether by population (China, DPRK, Vietnam) or by the earliest philosophers (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Compte, Blanqui, Bauer, Marx...)
You simply have not looked into socialism before caping for it. All the major pre WW2 philosophers of socialism, whatsoever, were bigots who believed racial collectivism was suitable for economies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@doctorinternet8695 2. Microeconomics refers to the market component of the economy as opposed to the monetary. For example, the theory of demand and price equation which describe the nature of market allocation and value for goods and labor are at the center of microeconomics.
Socialism certainly does describe democratic play in the otherwise autonomous microeconomic domain. The autonomous microeconomic domain is exclusively what fosters markets and democracy is mutually exclusive to autonomy and constitutes a source of necessarily government authority in lieu of a freedom.
For example, Karl Marx proposed the dissolution of market basis of labor (aka wage labor). In Critique of the Gotha Program part 1, he describes work vouchers to perform this. In Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee he describes the runnings of worker owned enterprise which eliminates the operation of equity markets in the microeconomy. Also in Critique, Marx discusses how commodity exchange is operated on a basis of need by virtue of work, eliminating the market basis of commodity exchange. This is from the archetypal socialist, however, since before Marx, national socialists, christian socialists and German and French labor movements demanded application of mercantile feudal command economics representative of majority rather than minority interest and rather than capitalism.
Capitalism or regulated microeconomic autonomy possesses the externality that wealthy have an economic advantage, just like real life, and that without government stepping in, nobody gives a shit. Socialism is based on the demagogy of this fact and the application of old school authoritarianism to see to no natural economic outcomes.
The dialectic which Marx engages unequivocally in Critique is between liberal democracy or free nations and totalitarian dictatorship. Read the shit and argue otherwise.
You are an ignoramus for your continued claims that words like socialism and totalitarianism don't have precise meaning like all other words. Look up the damn word from 4 or 5 DICTIONARIES to stfu about meaningless words. Seriously. Stfu and cope with words how they are defined across several dictionaries without embeleshment or redaction. Be honest with yourself so you aren't stupid.
This is a type of argumentative lie called semantic dispute and you are using it because you have stupid ideas about well-established facts.
Socialism always refers to eliminating markets. You twats say, well commodities, no, but labor markets, yes. That case by case basis you offer was rolled out by 3rd Reich starting with commodity exchange act of 1933 and this was the kind of nonsense "totalitarian" describes and was coined to describe. Because you people don't have theory and the best you do is Marx, you are not aware of the orthodox political science conventions your ideas stumble over. Marx ignored them, too. Hitler ignored human rights. Collective rights supercede human rights in socialist conepts. This is why DPRK is like ass. You all will say it is just mean leadership when it's socialist institutional design described by Karl Marx works which all of the Kims have read and you probably still have not.
1
-
@doctorinternet8695 DPRK's normalcy is subjective and socialists operate outside of centuries of study concerning those objective drivers of social satisfaction (sociology) and how that's incorporated into government in an ethical way (political science). This ignorance informs your ideas about the totalitarianism in DPRK being normal.
Your ideas of challenging words has made you an idiot. Your last post is a request for clarification on words presented in plain language, mainly because you don't attribute the meanings to words which they have been assigned objectively and rigidly. Words don't vary as you think.
They are also not subjective as you claim. You don't know what tautology is. "Socialism as socialists define it is an open-ended concept..." this is tautology. Socialism was defined in the 1820s before your great great grandfather was born. This has not budged and socialists cannot budge it.
Semantic dispute is lying to get your point across. Words have the meaning dictionaries say they do and the way any 2 or 3 dictionaries define words encompass all nuance and detail of those concepts, normally in a sentence. For example, socialism is the collective government allocation of labor and the means of production in an economy and those words limit what anyone socialist or not may claim is socialism.
The reason why I have to use autonomous microeconomic space in lieu of markets is because you are illiterate and don't know what is meant by claiming two things are mutually exclusive. Granted that, you don't understand that the socialist proposal is a proposal for eliminating markets due to the substitution of autonomy in the defining "autonomous microeconomics" with democratic, collective or demand. If I did not present it this way, you could continue to claim that socialism is market-friendly at the same time as you claim that you aim to eliminate the market basis of labor.
That is gaslighting. Socialism is anti-market and proposes this with how evil you arbitrarily call labor markets and how you propose their ending. Face the facts and cut the bullshit. Capitalism is markets and socialists don't even know that markets relate to math or anything about it as we see from your foremost commentary on wtf microeconomics is.
You proposed that micro was businesses, etc. Micro is the domain of economic study juxtaposed to macroeconomics. It encompasses the working of markets directly contradictory to your understanding of the topic, just hours ago. Nobody who has ever engaged in study of microeconomics could possibly mistake the topic as you have because the relationship with the field and the math whereby we measure value in markets are inextricable. Market math and conventions for regulation of markets is all it entails.
To clarify your mistaken identification of a tautology, you don't give regard to autonomy and hence you don't understand that autonomous microeconomics fosters markets, not any micro. For example, 3rd Reich's microeconomics were collectivist state run command allocation and this is not market basis. Same with 80 years of soviet Russia.
United States had established rules for guaranteeing capitalism by 1790 - autonomy in this microeconomy facilitating an allocation based on markets. Marx complains about this and pre-napoleonic France in Critique. He demands totalitarian dictatorship over workers in these nations rather than their freedom to control government with votes and economics with money.
You ask why I mention Marx alongside the socialist traditions in Germany and France is because your claims of what socialists want are debunked by myself who is more familiar with what socialists want than you are. Specifically, you are gaslighting by claiming socialists support markets when the archetypal socialist has called for elimination of all markets in the 3 ways I point out. You are just full of shit.
Taken together with the facts above, government authority as you people propose inherently with the proposal of a collective or democratic allocation approach, cannot possibly foster markets. This democracy or collectivism is mutually exclusive to autonomy, so your confusion is mitigated by focusing on that part of the marxist dialectic which I had been referring to this whole time.
Since you are too unpracticed at reading, recognizing words have clear and precise meaning, etc, I will explain mutually exclusive relationships since you were not aware and must have thought I made up this important concept to institutional design. If the exact same thing at the exact same time is handled not only differently, but in an opposite way, a mutually exclusive relationship was established.
Once you recognize that words have meaning and that you cannot change them and need to accept them, you will realize that socialism and capitalism are juxtoposed to one another with mutually exclusive treatments of the same microeconomy at the same time. This is dialectics which was established on this topic 200 years ago so that the dialectic approach might be taken to the topic in the first place.
Always with you people, the quality of philosophy you use is bargain basement. A real mess.
1
-
1
-
@adamlowe7618 That's irrelevant because fascism isn't a disposition of capitalist or socialist political economy due to your tauological "consensus" definition of fascism. You define fascism incompetently when it exclusively describes Italy's approach and those which copied it (John Lucacz). Fascism cannot enter the dialectic of capitalism and socialism (Hegel) and is a form of capitalist production like I said (Keynes, Barkai).
3rd Reich was national socialist (Shirer, Kershaw, Barkai, Nathan, Overy, Noyes, Lucacz) and not fascist (Lucacz, Barkai, Nathan) and national socialism is socialist political economy (Dr Avraham Barkai, Dr Charles E Noyes, Dr Otto Nathan, doc of science economists).
By the end of the first year of nazism, 1933, private labor organization (guilds/unions -> Soviet-style Labor Front) and private commodity allocation (voluntary tripartism -> soviet-style mandatory cartel of state primacy) were replaced with government versions of these (Shirer, Nathan, Barkai, Kershaw, Noyes, Nathan) while nazis were socialist-named and part of Germany's longest-standing socialist traditions (Marx, Barkai) with a well-established racial collectivist tradition (Tonnies, Barkai). This is what socialism refers to (Webster, Oxford, Investopedia, Karl Marx, Vlad Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Hitler, Drexler)
1
-
@adamlowe7618 Since 3rd Reich immediately affected socialist political economy in 1933, Kershaw's claims are debunked. Hitler was certainly a national socialist and national socialism is a socialist political economy due to philosophy and policy. Socialism is a real definition and not a fallacy like fascism (when you use it).
A definition like you propose is a historical revision. Consensus is a moving target and fascism was a political economy of Italy's during the 20s, 30s, and 40s, and not anything from outside that tradition, not a set of emotions like you silly propoosals, and not a socialist political economy. You present a fallacy of semantic dispute as you are attempting to change an established definition by consensus, then use this consensus to encompass history.
All of this about blood and soil is not fascist and this false association of an obviously national socialist concept demonstrates the incompetence of your concensus ideation (and of those authors who you claim believe in it). If it was not true of Italy which just got their soil unified, unlike Germany, and which had disparate ethnicities, unlike Germany, there would be a leg for you all to stand on. Such a reference is the ignorant and casual usage of fascist/fascism and is irrelevant to this matter of national socialist socialism.
Socialism and capitalism are defined for dialectic disposition of questions like this and your attempt to insert a 3rd historically incompetent emotional characterization of Europe in general is an obvious red herring.
The relevancy issue is that fascism does not definitively land on one side or the other of what is a dialectic of socialism and capitalism IF fascism is defined in your ignorant and incompetent historically revised consensus of nobodies. If it was defined by more competent economic historians like John Lucacz and Avraham Barkai, it would refer to Italy and be a capitalist political economy following a competent analysis of policy and philosophy.
Granted that, we can't use your fascism to determine whether national socialism was fascism since this describes emotions about soil that have jack shit to do with economics or political institution design or role of state.
National socialists were socialists because they were collectivist and took remand of labor and the means of production in Germany by plan and using the same methodology as the soviets. They accomplished this within their first year in office and was the purpose of their philosophy- national socialist political economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobbwc7011 No, guy. You didn't learn this material in high school if you think there's no way 3rd Reich was socialist.
It is no language barrier, you simply have not done any serious history or economics study since you think high school is adequate.
Here is German speaking doctor of economics and Fulbright Scholar in economics, Arthur Schweitzer, who is part of the primary source tradition - personal witness - of 3rd Reich economic history:
"First, the Nazis destroyed the four basic freedoms of private capitalism; eliminated were the freedoms of trade, contract, association, and markets. Second, the Nazi government determined the general economic policies, instituted a peculiar system of economic planning, and regulated all the markets in the economy. Third, government went into business; it performed many administrative and quasi-managerial functions in the economy."
He is referring to Deutsche Reichsgesetzblatt of 1933 which records personal decrees of Hitler's which converted Germany from a capitalist (fascist tripartite) economy to socialist command economy in year 1.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ИгорьВорунов I appreciate your organized approach. We differ on the historical claims you make.
1. The origins of socialist philosophy in Germany and France were both right wing and anti-semitic. This is to say before any partisans of Marx's on the left, only partisans of Fourier, Compte, Saint-Simon, Bauer, Stoeker were socialist and these were on the right. I raise right wing because many base their denial of socialism in 3rd Reich as based on some change by 3rd Reich to a right-wing framing of socialism and this is historically inaccurate. Marx was this reframer and not the nazis.
The roots were indeed antisemitic. Christian socialism presents an inherent christian ingroup and this always presented a direct threat to Jews in France and Germany. This tradition with its earliest movement exposed at Strasbourg pogrom is the belief of organized workers that the government should be used to disenfranchise specifically jews in specifically economic ways so that they may benefit as native workers. The cleric advocates of workers in both France and Germany evolve into the christian socialist traditions of these countries and the characters I name above proclaim philosophy supporting the pre-nazi antisemitic basis of "socialism".
Germany is a level beyond France in this regard, perhaps because Martin Luther was a flaming antisemite and integrated this into German christianity. German worker's movements also took up index with race and rejected the proposals of marxist communists. This mittelstand socialism (government forcing a purge of jews and foreign businesses so that enterprise is purely German is also several hundreds of years old. The volkisch movement was well established on the right, etc. There's no room to claim that any antisimitic tradition associated with socialism just sprung up with Hitler's advent.
2. The claim that Marx made any critique of capitalism is common, but false. This is only common because basic knowledge about economics and its history is not common. This is also the case because these claimants have not read Marx's works and don't identify the loaded normative frame his philosophy was presented through.
Nothing indicates that Marx was making any economic inquest, but rather was engaged in demagogy to support the normative of his communist revolution ideas. We can know this because Marx presents no new economic theory. Each proposal of Marx's was already debunked at the time he debuted them. Whereas economists were passing their works around from before Marx's carreer, Marx was certain to relegate his audience to illiterate and innumerate German working class and was not trying to influence economic thought of his time. His claims would not last socratic scrutiny (truth), much less participate in any economics (critique of capitalism).
For example, marxian theory of exploitation is pure demagogy based on semantic equivocation. Under no application or context does the economics term employment not completely satisfy every character Marx attributed to the marxian pejorative exploitation. This is not theory, but demonstrates that no philosophical basis was taken in any critique.
Marx's historical materialism is full of shit as well. By proposing that dialectic is a natural phenomenon, Marx hopes to support his claim of an inevitable capitulation of capitalism to his communist bollocks as well as the effectiveness of his communist dictatorship to shape human nature. We can know that this is normative bullsht Marx came up with to support his ideation about society and not any sincere observation of material conditions shaping political economy. We can know this by Marx's rejection of worker's material desires in the Gotha program saga. He wasn't recording the materialism inherent in democratic government and autonomous/free society, he was fighting against these things in favor of his own contrived solution - the same one from 20 years prior.
2A. Of course Marx coopts socialist concepts. Marx did not invent the use of TRPF as socialist demagogy, he coopted that. Marx did not innovate theory of exploitation or alienation. These were Marx reviving the easily quotable arguments which failed to prevail in the 1820s' disposition of the capitalist-socialist dialectic. A reading of Marx's zur Judenfrage before a reading of Manifesto makes it plain as day that Marx coopted Bauer's association of jews with bourgeoisie and their memeology as boogeymen, taking these as his own concepts. By Manifesto, this same clarity now pegs the factory owner of any race as this bourgeoisie. I mention this to underscore the racist origins of socialism, especially in Germany and to timestamp for you people that Marx changed well-established German sensibilities about socialism in the 1840s, rather than being a progenitor, whatsoever, of philosophy on the matter.
3. Well any idea that socialism is what Marx claimed or that he was some progenitor of the ideas of socialism or was better established as a socialist is debunked by Marx's acknowledgement of nazis in Germany in 1848. This debunks any claim of Marxists that nazism is not well established socialist tradition in Germany. It was a better established socialist tradition in Germany than Marx's communism.
4. Racial superiority is the basis of the German chirstian and national socialist traditions. Specifically, this is racial superiority by way of government rules to ensure this through economic control. Specifically, this was control of jews for the benefit of Christians with no possible ambiguity about that. Additionally, Germans have been ideating about their racial superiority since their barbarians sacked Rome. We have the receipts
The idea that Germans just came to see the world through the racial lens of Hitler in the 1930s is absurd. For example, this idea does not pay any regard to Adolf Stoeker, timestamping this advocacy for the national socialist revolution at the dawn of first reichstag and at the unmistakable expense of jews. The result is gaslighting. Socialists have not read Tonnies on collective and cannot account for what it is (ingroup vs outgroup) and are not aware of Germany's extensive tradition of racial collective and socialism which Tonnies reviews. It's actually in any history book. It's actually Nazi Economics (Barkai), the most cited scholarly work on the topic of nazi political economy because of how important philosophical tradition is to consider.
1
-
@ИгорьВорунов The challenge is whether anything about the traditions and origins of socialism can bear on the disposition of socialist or capitalist political economy.
in 1933, 3rd Reich started the national socialist revolution (Barkai, Shirer, Overy, Lucacz, Nathan) and eliminated property rights (ermachtigungsgesetz article 48), eliminated private labor controls (Labor Front - Riemann, Nathan, Noyes, Barkai),
and eliminated private commodity controls (Also Shirer, Lucacz, New York Journal of Economics, Commodity Exchange Act (reichsgesetzblatt teil 1)). They went on until 1945, increasing state control by their racially collectivized state of what economists call the means of production in the German economy.
True or False?
If the above is true, is there anything which existing denialists present that matters? For example, what does Marx have to do with this history, especially when Marx knew this to be socialism in effect - the same politburo state capitalism he calls socialism (Critique of the Gotha Program) and which the entire world called socialism when Lenin executed the same plan of the nazis in the prior decade (Barkai, Riemann)
1
-
@ИгорьВорунов Your assertions feature the fallacy argumentum ad lapidem. You are attempting rebuttal of supported claims without support.
"It is incorrect to claim that socialist philosophy in Germany and France was exclusively right-wing and antisemitic before Marx. Socialism has diverse origins and influences, including thinkers who held different political and ideological positions."
Show the receipts. Name your pre-marxist marxists. Show your economic historian source who claims this diversity as opposed to Avraham Barkai's case about nazi philosophical origins. Failure with these points of support fails this attempt at a rebuttal.
"While there were some early socialist thinkers who held right-wing or antisemitic beliefs, it is important to recognize that socialist thought evolved over time and encompassed a wide range of perspectives."
You say it is important, but it is a red herring to consider any development of socialist thought which is outside the influences on 3rd Reich. This means that the only relevant part of these facts is that these antisemitic concepts did not change and nazism is proof that they did not change. Rather than any ignorant made-up bullshit historical analysis where socialist twats are all packed in the same tradition as you class them, the christian socialists and national socialists had distinct traditions on the right of either French, German (+Austrian) commons and didn't change their tone until 1940 elsewhere in Europe and 1945 in Germany. This was a tone from racist basis of collective to subdued racist basis of collective like christian socialists of present day Europe.
"Categorizing socialist thinkers like Fourier, Compte, Saint-Simon, Bauer, and Stoeker as right-wing socialists ignores the complexity and diversity of their ideas and political affiliations"
Nope. I have read enough of these people to know better. You clearly have not and are making a false representation of these volatile philosophies which is to support all the diversity of early nazi thought due to the progenesis of these particular philosophers on German national socialism, if they were not directly German anti-semitic national socialists like Bauer.
" Your argument claims that Marx did not make any critique of capitalism and that his works were based on demagogy. This is a misrepresentation of Marx's contributions to economic and social theory."
Argumentum ad lapidem. I gave 2 examples, that marxian theory of exploitation is a semantic equivocation fallacy and pure demagogy (ditto alienation). Your rebuttal does not have any support and is impossible because of this demagogy at the heart of marxist critique claim you people make. You may also defend historical materialism's claim that dialectic is a natural phenomenon when it is the contrived idealism Hegel established. I presented how Marx held his ideals over those of the workers in Critique of the Gotha Program part 3 and in Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee. If the historical materialism of workers was any real priciple, I argue that Marx would not have found himself arguing against these materialist dispositions (the worker's preference for Lassalle's ideas over Marx's) if his principle was sincere and not a device of sophistry aimed at supporting Marx's debunked immanent collapse of capitalism.
"Marx's critique of capitalism is a central aspect of his work. In works such as "Capital" and "The Communist Manifesto," Marx analyzed the exploitative nature of capitalism, its contradictions, and the class struggle inherent within it."
Correct. This exploitative nature and contradiction review in Kapital, VPP, WL&C Grundrisse, etc are the demagogic pseudoeconomics I am referring to. These are not economic theories with any application and are deliberately ignorant. For example, Marx's capital accumulation model is published in Kapital chapter 3 and is incompetent tautology designed to support his oversimplified claims of labor's central role in all economics. This is bullshit and not respectable analysis. Economist David Ricardo provided economics a more sincere and comprehensive model for the accumulation of capital 40 years prior to Marx's publication of his demagogic version of economics.
1
-
@ИгорьВорунов "Marx's economic theories, including concepts like surplus value, exploitation, and alienation, have had a significant impact on subsequent economic and sociopolitical thought, regardless of one's agreement or disagreement with his ideas."
I call bullshit. There isn't a single contribution of Karl Marx to orthodox economic thinking at all. Marxists are a separate group called marxist economists and these people don't study or practice economic science, but rather economic "arts" which are not practiced or influential academically or in praxis. This is also true of sociology. You have sociology (Max Weber, et al) and you have marxist bollocks. Marxist sociology is not considered ethical in orthodox sociology. Marx's crude class memeology is considered bigoted and determinism considered ignorant and racist philosophy. Economics sees marxism as unethical because it asserts claims ad lapidem as I have experienced from you. Marx asserts that dictatorship over workers will benefit them because he considered no economic remedies, he confronted no works of political scientists of the day (Montesquieu) or well before his day (Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Socrates), but instead desired being the advisor to dictatorship and ignored the academia surrounding him.
Put up or shut up. Name two vaunted marxist economic theories in economics or shut up about this critique shit. Failing this, you are another to demonstrate a belief in Marx's career and contribution far outside what historians and economists have ever claimed. Your beliefs are based on not having read Marx's works like Kapital, despite presenting them to me. Add this to the fact that you are not aware of economists contemporary to Marx who made contributions to economics which can be noted for their value in application other than stirring emotion in stupid 19th century manual laborers.
For example. David Ricardo contributed business cycle to economics before Marx had a career. This debunked marxian TRPF before Marx debuted it. Marx was probably aware of this, but did not deal with economic scholars who would know better. Marx dealt with socialist scholars who were shut out of economics by better philosophers with reliable methods and proposals which offered more than cheap demagogy... in France (by Ricardo), in England (by John Stuart Mill), in Germany by (Carl Menger).
What did Marx contribute to economics like the men mentioned just there and who are you saying listened to this material and valued it as you claim?
"While there were various socialist traditions in Germany at the time, it is incorrect to equate Nazism with Marx's communism. The Nazi regime's ideology and actions were explicitly opposed to the principles of socialism and democracy."
You attempt to equate nazism and marxism whereas I attempt to class them in the same sort of political economic mode. Your proposal is several fallacies designed to support that nazis and marx both proposed the same economic control methodology, but merely to affect different social justice crusades (crusades of death and abrogation of human rights in either ideation). For species, you propose a strawman argument concerning equating nazism and marxism. These philosophies just both owe their origin to the bigoted ideas of Bruno Bauer and other national socialists characters who were foundational to socialist thought, whatsoever, in Germany.
"German history includes a range of intellectual, cultural, and political traditions, and it would be incorrect to reduce it solely to racial superiority or to imply that all Germans have embraced such beliefs throughout history."
All Germans need not subscribe to national socialism for 3rd Reich to have transpired 500 years after Strasbourg pogrom. That is a strawman fallacy attempt. You present this fallacy because the existence of a racist socialist collective concept at the center of the existence of marxism and of socialism of any progenitor in Germany debunks your claim that socialist principles emit from Marx and are not traditionally racist in Germany and France. This destroys your claim that nazism was more extreme than the racist ideation of Germany's past. You don't read, so you don't know what Bruno Bauer suggested or what Adolf Stoeker suggested.
"While there were instances of German thinkers promoting racial superiority, it is crucial to note that the Nazis took these ideas to an extreme and distorted them to justify their policies of persecution, discrimination, and genocide."
What do you know about it? Name these distortions of German racial socialism proposed before Marx was published. Show me where Hitler was more extreme than Bauer.
Does this require any distortion bullshit or just the socialism bullshit which Marx and Bauer both shared? When marxism is cut loose on Russia, I see persecution, discrimination and genocide. When nazism is cut loose on Germany, I see persecution discrimination and genocide. It is the socialism. It is not the collective design you were concerned about earlier. The niceties you have associated with marxism for lack of reading his works and reading the history of economics did not spare Russia any persecution, discrimination or genocide. In both cases, the fact of socialist political economy was what justified these outcomes and that's why socialist implementation hits all the bases of nazism which you identify yourself.
"German history includes a range of intellectual, cultural, and political traditions, and it would be incorrect to reduce it solely to racial superiority or to imply that all Germans have embraced such beliefs throughout history."
This is a red herring fallacy and strawman. The national socialist tradition in Germany is not incorrectly characterized as some bigoted bullshit, but your bot-answer implies this. Germans were a bunch of bigots until they were brainwashed and occupied militarily by the allies. This is more accurate as to why nazism was chosen in Germany over marxism in 1928-1932, in 1917 and in 1848 - there needs to be an explanation for this. This is explained by the long tradition of racial ordering in Germany at the heart of role-of-state in the country. This tradition was carried out by the christian and national socialist philosophies started in medieval HRE and demonstrated in this rich, diverse history you are discussing. It is a rich history of diverse racial collectivism like Marx's in zur Judenfrage, mittelstandism, volkischer movement, the right Hegelians, deutches vaterland, Hanoverian League etc.
1
-
@ИгорьВорунов Forgive me for ignoring some of the ad lapidem spam you are producing. You are presenting claims which are not supported as a rebuttal to supported claims. Additionally, you are reframing my claims into strawman arguments tangential to them.
Then there's the falsehood...
"While they did adopt some collectivist policies, their actions were fundamentally opposed to the principles of socialism, such as the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless society."
On February 28, 1933, 3rd Reich abolished private property rights in Germany and they were restored by the allies.(Ermachtigungsgesetz - teil 1 Reichsgesetzblat 1933, Barkei, Riemann)
More falshood and historical revision from you:
"The Manifesto discusses different historical socialist movements and does not support national socialism or antisemitism,because again, nazism did not exist then. It is important to distinguish between different socialist traditions and their specific characteristics"
Bruno Bauer was a national socialist. He was an antisemitic. He was published before Marx and published before Manifesto and his movement of national socialism is referred to there by feudal and christian socialists.
And more complete bollocks:
"While Lenin did introduce policies of state control over the means of production, it is a simplification to equate it with socialism in the broader sense. Traditional socialism, as envisioned by Marx, aims for the abolition of private ownership and the establishment of a classless society."
Cut the bullshit. You have not read what Marx called for and are presenting bot-spam about it. Marx describes state capitalism in Critique of the Gotha program and calls it socialism. He also calls it early-stage communist society. He also defines socialism just like I do: a society based on the collective ownership of the means of production. This is all in part 1.
"State socialism, on the other hand, involves the state taking control of the means of production but does not eliminate class distinctions." Never heard of it. I use the term state capitalism because this is a marxist-leninist term for what Marx describes in Critique of the Gotha Program. Who ever used this term state socialism and when?
"Reading works by Marx, as well as other historians and scholars, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of socialist philosophy and its historical development."
I have read all of the major works of Marx and Engels starting with Marx's dissertation, all the way to his articles and letters of significance. This informs a very clear transition of the same racial normatives on jews held by Bauer and Hess to the application of other class models which never became popular in Germany. Other historians, including the most cited scholars of political economy in Germany also contradict your historical revisions and intrasigence on this matter of nazi socialism.
foreseeable
1
-
1
-
@ИгорьВорунов With no exception, all parties ever labeled socialist to ever sit in Reichstag were known for their antisemitic national socialist ideation. Communists were the only exceptions and those would not label themselves socialist in Germany and never did. They were not named socialist anywhere following commintern one because it was clear as day that socialism in Germany, France and United States was "reactionary" by marxian standards.
"The claim that socialist principles involve favoring an ingroup over a minority outgroup:
Socialism primarily focuses on collective ownership and control of the means of production to address economic inequality and social justice."
Collective (Tonnies) is unescapably about favoring an ingroup over an outgroup. In Marx's proposal for an ingroup, it was workers and capitalists were proposed as the outgroup whose rights would be abrogated and wealth expropriated by the communists. In Bauer's, Stoeker's or Hitler's ideation, the ingroup is the generality of ethnic Germans and the outgroup was jews and other foreign economic-specific actors.
"While socialist movements may have had different views on social and ethnic groups, it is inaccurate to suggest that favoring an ingroup over an outgroup is a defining principle of socialism itself."
You are an ignoramus, since collective is a definitive principle of socialism itself and collective is specifically the advantage of an ingroup over an outgroup. Above I point out how this is mutual in both marxist and nazi socialist proposals.
"The policies implemented by the Nazi regime were driven by their specific ideological objectives of racial superiority and totalitarian control, rather than a commitment to socialist principles as understood by socialists themselves."
You are an ignoramus with ahistorical views of socialists' principles in Germany. You've not read Marx's views and you haven't read the views of any national socialist of any vintage. Socialism is a proposal for totalitarian control. Totalitarianism was coined to describe the abrogation of human rights (UNCHR) entailed in state control of labor contracting, state control of the proceeds of any labor and state control of private properties of commercial purpose without compensation. This was coined to describe Lenin's implementation of marxist communism, but describes nazism because both were totalitarian. The totalitarianism is the socialist political economy. These ideas cannot escape from putting government authority in the place of the publics autonomy on microeconomic issues and this is what totalitarian and socialist both refer to.
"Denying a direct connection between Nazism and socialism is not gaslighting, but rather a recognition of the complex historical and ideological factors involved."
This is inaccurate because nazis immediately orchestrated a socialist political economy in Germany by eliminating capitalist institutions and replacing them with soviet socialist controls on the means of production. Gaslighting is when some ignorant clown who didn't even know that the soviets were socialist and that the nazis immediately suspended private property rights in Germany claims that there are some principles which make socialist political economy enacted with laws of national socialists something other than socialist.
Going back to the definition of socialism, you gaslight about acknowledging this as you have claimed. You insist above that those definitions are not enough and have to include qualifications you use to claim socialism you don't like is not socialism. Those qualifications - those principles you claim are not inclusive of socialism and don't define it. For example, you mention class and this is not part of socialism. For example, you mention equality and this is not part of how socialism is defined. Dictionaries avoid stupidity like yours. For example, Marx describes socialism as entailing "unequal right" (Critique of the Gotha Program part 1) and anyone would be a complete imbecile for dreaming up some ahistoric nonsense and attributing it to socialism when Marx directly contradicts the proposal.
1
-
@ИгорьВорунов "I am completely confused. What are you trying to say? Can you briefly formulate your point of view?"
This is a literacy issue. I have presented the facts you have wrong in plain English. My position is that persons like yourself are ignorant and illiterate and that's why you maintain the beliefs you've espoused. Each of your beliefs I have debunked with real history per cited historians and economists I have named. You are obviously hoping a wiki and a bot can present a rebuttal to historical facts and this is another mark of an imbecile per my proposal. Read a book, proposes my point of view. I can tell you have read none, whatsoever, of any of Marx's Kapital books. You would know any economics there is bullshit. We know you read none of the tremendous economics-centered histories on this topic like those I have read and referenced.
"In Marx's theory, Socialism is not the final goal, Socialism is only the first stage - the dictatorship of the proletariat. The ultimate goal is the building of communism-Classless society, without a state, money."
This is utopian shit Marx claimed would happen after ostensibly generations of brutal state capitalism. The conditions for devolution of the state include the fundamental change in the nature of mankind to make working our top desire. Marx's material conditions bullshit applies here and only under magical conditions does any state melt away and only in one sentence does Marx ever admit to any anarchism. In other correspondence like to Bakunin, Marx is obviously anti anarchist and realistically (without changes to human nature) Marxist communism would never become stateless.
"Otto Strasser also had a brother - Gregor Strasser"
This is the issue with you half-assed two bit wiki-reading asswipe history flunkies. You clowns will take nazi antisemite twats like Strasser brothers and say that's socialism. The Strassers were also going to round up and expel jews from the country. You idiots would never read the views of an ass like Gregor Strasser to learn that. Gregor's proposal at his meeting with Hitler prior to his assassination on Hitler's orders was going to be more devastating to jews in Germany than Hitler's methodology of waiting until 1937 to ban mom and pop businesses and call out jewish and foreign entrpreneurs/shareholders.
That's my proposal since you are confused: you're a dummy; read an actual book. You people present the danger of supporting nazis because you support nazism like what the Strasser Brothers were all about and you're too stupid to tell that the difference with Hitler's philosophy is nominal. Get your lazy ass to googling dictionary definitions of socialism. Find and read 5 of them. Stfu. Socialism is exactly what these definitions say and there is no further allowable nuance or caveat which applies to that.
"That Nazism is the same as socialism?"
You are an idiot. Socialism is the political economic form which forms a dialectic with capitalism. Capitalism and socialism are economic forms based on whether collectivism (democracy/government totalitarian dictate) or freedom (autonomy/ok, there's some demagogy that private businesses are totalitarianism like nobody but marxists claim).
Nazism is socialism just like communism is socialism. This is because they advocate for socialist (collectivist government) economic allocation in their philosophy. This is because they roll out policy and institutions to affect socialist political economy.
The history of that word encompasses what 3rd Reich put in place in 1933 and doubled and tripled down on until the capitalists liberated the place. That was just the only developed nation to have ever entertained a socialist imbecile. It has not been the only racist one. All of the states which have practiced a form of socialism have practiced state orchestrated race-indexed abrogation of human rights like deporting people based on race, jailing people like Uyghurs or Armenians because of their race. They have all used race to organize their projects geographically, including cuddly Tito the totalitarian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randomuser3481 Karl Marx is not the arbiter of socialism. The collectivist basis of state and policies of a collective state to control the means of production in the economy is this arbiter.
By the end of 1933, 3rd Reich had ended the capitalist mode in Germany by lifting private property rights (ermachtigungsgesetz article 48), abolishing private labor allocation rights (a ban on private unions and imposition of soviet labor front), the shuttering of commodity exchanges in the country (First Law for the Implementation of Commodity Exchange Act, 1933) and remodeling the Republic's fascist tripartite cartel scheme after Lenin's NEP schema (via Compulsory Cartel Act).
That is the first year in office and the institutions which control the allocation of labor and the means of production are all in remand of the German government through national socialist policy intended to remove autonomous (capitalist) allocation in the microeconomy.
These laws and decrees are all available intact for your review. Other than Ermachtigungsgesetz, all are in Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt, Teil 2, 1933. Historians noting this "National Socialist Revolution" period of 3rd Reich (1933-1937) include the most cited scholarly citation on the topic of 3rd Reich political economy, Dr Avraham Barkai. William Shirer is certain to present the facts in what is the most popular casual reading on the topic. The New York Journal of Economics chronicled the rollout of nazism, certainly better than the impression you have, for example, that the nazis cuddled with Ford. 3rd Reich confiscated all major foreign corporations during the gleichschaltung period of the NSR, 1934 and 35 - Ford, IBM, Fanta...
I digress: you and your cockeyed history need to focus on 1933. You will be crushed if you read a book like Nazi Economics to here how real economists and not socialist arts economists analyze political economy. You would be shocked if your sources were primary source like German law or economists like Barkai, Otto Nathan and Charles Noyes who were doing real economic science and covering the most radical economics in our history. You would be crushed by history in 1934-1937. You will be destroyed by the necessarily socialist implications of nürnberg laws and the socialist nature of nazi 4 year plan and war, (1937-1945). Stick to the basics like proving where the capitalism is in an economic regime where the state allocated all labor and commodities and joined soviet Russia in decertifying private property rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VolrinSeth Collective is foremostly racial in human history. More gaslighting or perhaps just sheer ignorance. In socialist history, it was first racist, then Marx proposed workers' collective in 1848 after having written about racial collective like all other socialists of the 19th century.
All: Marx, Bauer, Fourier, Böckel, Stoeker, Proudhon, Saint-Simon, Compte, Blanqui, Bakunin, Toussenel - all socialists and pretty exclusively socialists indulged in racist economic theories. That's specifically because collectivism has a race basis in almost all theory and praxis of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Madeguydo "National socialism" encompasses most socialist and anarchist philosophy there has ever been and comprises a race basis for collectivization - racist government allocation - of the means of production. For anarchists, race collectivism justified nihilist authoritarianism - that no heirarchy might support "jews and barons" (Proudhon). Philosophers proposing this approach encompass all "socialists" apart from the Owens: Marx, Blanqui, Bauer, Saint-Simon, Bakunin, Proudhon, Fourier, Stoeker, Hitler, etc. No notable exceptions.
Fascism refers to the tripartite autocratic regime of Italy under Mussolini, but also implementations of Mussolini's tripartism, like in the United States' New Deal and Germany's Weimar Republic regimes. I am with historian John Lucacz who saw the modern use of "fascism" emerging following WW2 and claimed it was an incompetent conflation of the german national socialist tradition and the italian syndicalist tradition. It was largely propaganda from Stalin who was a fascist under his own loose definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frankthetank5708 The issue with your ideas is that you have not read any history of what happened during 3rd Reich and you have not read the works of Marx in which he described his ideas. Shame on you for believing total bullshit that can be debunked with basic effort. What makes you think you can inform me of what Marx contended or what happened in 3rd Reich without having looked into it?
This ignorant claim about Marxism is a great example. Where am I to start with somebody who never read how Marx described his political economic ideas and is now gaslighting me that they know what they're talking about?
Marx describes how his communist government will be in 3 of his works. In order of significance, they are Critique of the Gotha Program, Address to the Communist League by the Central Committee and The Civil War in Paris. Read.
Address to the Communist League:
"...the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority."
Don't just go with this quote, read parts 1 and 4 of Critique, at least. As for the nazis, the ermachtigungsgesetz (1933) was their first socialist policy, eliminating private property rights (article 48) no differently than Lenin had in Russia. By the end of year one, 'First Law for the Implementation of Commodity Exchange Act' had eliminated the private allocation of commodities in Germany and established the same state allocation methods which the soviets had adapted in Lenin's New Economic Plan of the prior decade. Lastly, by the end of year one, the private and sectorial organization of labor - unions and guilds which Germany had since the middle ages - were all consolidated under a non-sectorial centralized labor front which operated workers councils in all industry in the country per the following year's gleichschaltung. Of course, this was also the same approach which Lenin took to collectivize labor in Russia.
These similarities are easily explained. Nazis were intentionally socialist. National socialism was a well established idea in Germany with older roots than Marx's philosophy and Germans were intimately familiar with these people from November revolution, the beer hall putsch, Hitler's speeches and their party program. Lastly, before their putsch attempt, Hitler and Anton Drexler had decided to adapt the second opus of socialist political economy to ever exist on earth in Lenin's NEP. This according to the most cited source on this topic, Avraham Barkai's Nazi Economics.
Of course, nazis kept pouring on policy which expropriated all capitalist institutions or controlled allocation within these in order to end market basis.
You guys don't know the history or you would understand it as economic historians (Barkai, Kershaw, Otto Nathan, Charles Noyes, David Shirer) and recognize 3rd Reich's first stage of implementing collectivist totalitarian control (socialism). You people jump forward to Four Year Plan of 1937, not realizing Germany had been a completely converted economic mode for several years prior. Any nation taken over by a single party politburo state which ended free/private labor and commodity exchange is socialist, no matter what else they did. This was achieved in year one, contrary to you completely unsupported and made up claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1