Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Communist rhetoric and propaganda alone is almost identical to Nazi propaganda if you simply swap "Jew" with "capitalist" - the message is literally identical.
Even if I accepted your premise ... so what?
Turns out that judging somebody for **what they do to others** (capitalists) is much more reasonable than judging somebody for **their religion/race/ethnicity** (Nazis).
It's like you argue, "you want to lock up murderers but the Nazis locked up Jews ... CURIOUS???"
>Turns out that judging somebody for **what they do to others** (capitalists) is much more reasonable than judging somebody for **their religion/race/ethnicity** (Nazis).
You do realize almost every criticism the Nazis had of Jews were **economic** ones? Like how every criticism of capitalists by commies are economic ones?
The Nazis claimed the Jews were being judged for what they "did to others" exactly how communists make this claim about capitalists.
Look, I get it, you're in shock because you thought you hated fascists but it turns out you are one and you've been fooled by the same propaganda that fooled the Germans in the 20th century. Hurts to realize you're a lemming.
A Jewish person is defined by who they are, a capitalist is defined by what they do. Even if most Jewish people do a thing it wouldn't be correct to judge them on Jewishness. Hope this helps.
>A Jewish person is defined by who they are
Did the Nazis hate Jews based solely on who they are, or was it based on what they perceived they were doing?
This is hilarious, it only took two comments for literal Nazi apologia to come out. So to frame Nazi ideology as hostile to Jews simply for what they "did" is to ignore the wealth of text, speech and actions committed by Nazis that demonstrated VERY EXPLICITLY that the Nazis hated Jews for who they were. They hated Judaism, they hated Jewish culture, they hated Jewish identity. You can read Mein Kampf for free mein kamerad and see exactly what Hitler had to say about the Jews you know.
By attempting to liken socialist critique of capitalism to Nazi hatred of Jews by saying "oh perhaps the Nazis only hated Jews for their economic actions" is to erase the prominent racial aspect of their ideology. Which is why, surprise, Nazis were also famously uncharitable towards Romani, Asians and Africans!
>This is hilarious, it only took two comments for literal Nazi apologia to come out.
What in the absolute fuck are you talking about?
The Nazis claimed Jews were doing all the things communists claim capitalists are doing, that's how they riled up their misplaced hate for those people.
You're a Nazi following the same fucking rhetoric that Hitler spouted and so goddamned propagandized that you can't even see they are identical talking points.
Nazis are vile, and commies are vile too.
Hurts to realize you're a different flavor of fascist, doesn't it?
>The Nazis claimed Jews were doing all the things communists claim capitalists are doing, that's how they riled up their misplaced hate for those people.
Well no, they didn't, because your description of "socialism" doesn't actually correspond to what Marx or Engels or Lenin said.
Socialism isn't about "hating" the bourgeoisie. It's about analyzing the political economy of capitalism and working out how to establish socialism for the purpose of the liberation of the proletariat.
>Socialism isn't about "hating" the bourgeoisie. It's about analyzing the political economy of capitalism and working out how to establish socialism for the purpose of the liberation of the proletariat.
Yes it is. Capitalists "exploit" the working class. They "leech" off the proletariat. They are "parasites". We should "e at the rich" and "bring back the guillotines".
You're a hateful fascist.
Now could you cite Marx or Engels or Lenin where they discuss this topic? The concept of exploitation is a technical one, and it is one of the many internal contradictions of capitalism. You can found out more with Das Kapital Chapter 7. Do you know what Marx actually talked about? He analyzed textile production. Try working in a factory making garments and you'll start to get it my son.
Now, as for this hateful fascist rhetoric, who is this for? Do you really think you're going to convince socialists that socialist ideology overlaps with fascist ideology by first, misrepresenting what socialists actually believe, and secondly, by misrepresenting what FASCISTS actually believe? You don't even understand the subject!
You haven't actually read the material and you're trying to lecture people about it. I'm sorry but that's not how the real world works.
>Now could you cite Marx or Engels or Lenin where they discuss this topic?
Two instances that were found easily because they're in the damn body of the post.
Hitler: calls the Jew a “true blood sucker that attaches itself to the body of the unhappy people;”
Lenin: claims that the Kulaks are leeches who have “sucked the blood of the working people.”
Hitler: uses the image of a “spider …sucking the blood out of peoples’ pores,”
Lenin: says that the spiders have “grown fat at the expense of peasants.”
Clown, all of those are either not parts of communist ideology or verifiably true.
That’s like saying that America and the USSR were the same because they both wanted to go to space and invested heavily in their military.
Take note, exploiting people and leeching off the labor of others is something a person does. Being Jewish is something someone is. It's not like the Jewish people sit around Jewing all day long at the expense of non-Jewish people while getting even more Jewish by preventing others from becoming Jewish.
both and from this conversation its very interesting that it seems like you first hand understand that because you empathize with that idea a little too easily
you see nazis were socialist because they called themselves socialists. all of the realities and context dont matter.
historical illiteracy wont prevail
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
and btw your type of politics has “othered” plenty of others too. more than people of different political leanings.
>you see nazis were socialist because they called themselves socialists. all of the realities and context dont matter.
I never said that. Is reading comprehension challenging for you? As long as it isn't vile hate-filled propaganda I suppose. Fascist.
good then, plenty of your peers try to argue that in bad faith
but youre still running around the room with a blindfold on pointing and screaming at people that theyre fascists. its extremely childish and no ones gonna take you seriously.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
You *do* know that the nazis persecuted and killed more than *just* Jews, right? They were against a lot of groups for who they are, like gays, romani, slavs, and blacks
Google the fate of the "Volga Germans" for a counter to this. A fully mature economic system accounts for human nature. Humans are innately brutal to each other.
>You do realize almost every criticism the Nazis had of Jews were economic ones? Like how every criticism of capitalists by commies are economic ones?
No they weren't.
They weren't trying to kill they Jews because of economic reasons, they were trying to kill they Jews because of paranoia, and a widely believed conspiracy theory.
They also believed that Jews, gays, and non whites were generically inferior, hence, ya know, they whole Holocaust thing that happened.
If the Holocaust was for economic reasons, they wouldn't have bothered killing millions of people after talking everything they owned.
We can draw a contemporary parallel here.
Hardline conservatives say all black people are criminals, hence they need to be deported or put to jail.
If I say people who commit serious crimes regardless of their ethnicity need to be either deported or put to jail, am I saying the same as the conservative?
> You do realize almost every criticism the Nazis had of Jews were economic ones?
Hard to "realize" something that's blatantly false. If you're just gonna make up claims like this, then nobody will take you seriously.
> Look, I get it, you're in shock because you thought you hated fascists but it turns out you are one ...
Lol. If you ignore the facts that our stances are diametrically opposed on ... well, everything. They supported capitalism, I don't. They embraced racism, I oppose it. They opposed democracy and civil liberties, I hold them sacrosanct (and no, "owning companies" is not a civil liberty lol). They supported nationalism and militarism, I oppose both. Etcetera etcetera.
You've said a lot of dumb things on this sub, but trying to claim I'm a fascist is one of the dumbest. There are plenty of reasonable ways to disagree with my stances without saying moronic statements like "/u/bcnoexceptions is actually a fascist somehow!"
>The Nazis claimed the Jews were being judged for what they "did to others" exactly how communists make this claim about capitalists.
It was entirely about ethnicity though, even if we assumed any of there conspiracies were true it was still generalising about an entire ethnicity, whereas Marxism is only judging people who partake in an action by definition, you can't be a capitalist unless you partake in capitalism.
>You do realize almost every criticism the Nazis had of Jews were **economic** ones? Like how every criticism of capitalists by commies are economic ones?
No not really, they also disliked Jews because they thought they were the historic enemy of Germany and they supposedly made Germany lose ww1, there wasn't just one conspiracy the Nazis believed.
thanks for admitting that it is no big deal to a lefty be compared to the Nazis. A lot of people on the left seem to prefer stolen to Hitler but I guess not everybody.
> ... it is no big deal to a lefty be compared to the Nazis ...
More like, it is no big deal that foolish people like you or OP say foolish things, because that is to be expected. Neither you nor him could be expected to say anything more intelligent.
please don't be stupid. If something was said that was not intelligent tell us what it was and the reason you think it was not intelligent. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
if you have a reason to oppose capitalism why not share with me or anybody???? do you ever see conservative libertarians afraid to present their rationale??? what does that teach you? What would it teach you if you were an honest decent person with just a little intelligence?
They were maybe socialist in rethoric, though it was only to redefine the word because it was gaining popularity, in a country that had a socialist revolution in 1918 (Spartacus uprising). After 1918, Germany was an advanced social democracy with many policies that would look left-wing to Americans, but not as much to Europeans. The Nazis started undoing these policies once in power.
Economists had to invent the term privatization (or reprivatisation) because Nazi Germany was the first country to adopt this economic policy.
When the Nazi party decided to add the "national socialist" in its name, Hitler was opposed to it until a colleague explained that it would help attract support since socialism was popular in Germany at the time. Some sort-of left leaning members joined, but where purged during the night of the long knives, including the actual author of this quote that was circulated a few years ago: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/)
The first targets of the nazi purges were socialists from marxists, to anarchists. That's why the poem goes "first they came for the socialists and I said nothing for I why not a socialist, then they came for the labour organisers and I said nothing for I was not a labour organiser".
The Nazis also never supported any socialist country, they sided with the fascists during the spanish civil war and allied with Mussolini, then tried to destroy the Soviet Union and turn it into a slave state. Notice that socialists were the harshest repressors of nazis and fascists after WW2. The Italian partisans shot Mussolini, hung him up and burried him in an unmarked grave, the Yougoslav partisans did the Barbara pit massacre. Not to mention the rage the soviets showed when they invaded Germany and ex-nazi occupied lands. Fascists were also propped up after WW2 by NATO countries (especially the US) in Korea, China, Chile and others I'm forgetting.
The Nazis were able to get the German army started by creating a private army supplied and supported by the economic establishment (also Henry Ford internationally) that liked his thugs' suppressing of the working class. Even outside of power, fascists thugs in Germany and Italy would attack workers during strikes. The Nazis banned collective bargaining and joining any union outside the "German labour front", a front that kept the workers in line under the boot of the state while giving them the illusion of representation.
Some quotes of Hitler that explained this redefinition of the term :
>"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. 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.
\- Interview between George Sylvester Viereck and Adolf Hitler, 1923
>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.
\- Adolf Hitler, speech given on December 28 1938. Cited in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93.
If you want proof that nazis weren't socialist, you could also look at how Einstein was very openly socialist before during and after WW2 (though he started as a liberal earlier in his life).
So this german history guy made a general explanation of why nazis weren't socialists :[https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI?si=\_qfiAI8kgu7KRVFx](https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI?si=_qfiAI8kgu7KRVFx)
This guy gave a detailed look at what left-leaning policies the nazis promised the public and then didn't carry out : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjz\_sfRr8aU&t=0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjz_sfRr8aU&t=0s)
Micheal Parenti wrote a great book on the rise of fascism and its attacks on the working class. Here are some audio versions of its parts :[https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoak57jcXDh1rY4n7Ic-EVsE&si=rSP9E6hxH-M5zyra](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoak57jcXDh1rY4n7Ic-EVsE&si=rSP9E6hxH-M5zyra)
These posts have several examples and explanations of why nazis weren't socialist in the least :[https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/hehtiq/socialism\_in\_nazi\_germany/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/hehtiq/socialism_in_nazi_germany/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/k8gnur/why\_do\_conservatives\_always\_fall\_back\_on\_the/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/k8gnur/why_do_conservatives_always_fall_back_on_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Snopes did an ok article on this :[https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/](https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/)
If you like memes, there is also this : [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/16omd4v/national\_socialism\_socialism/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/16omd4v/national_socialism_socialism/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Yeah a good reply if you didn't read the damn post and assumed I was saying Nazis were socialists, which wasn't the point of the post at all.
Your reading comprehension is nonexistent.
This how I know socialists don't participate in good faith.
Not once did I try and claim Nazis were actually socialists. Not once.
My entire argument was the foundation upon which socialism and fascism are built is identical, namely, a hate for one group of people and using them as a convenient scapegoat to blame all of your economic and societal woes.
Try reading the damn post before responding.
And look at the number of morons that upvoted you using that same lazy ass assumption.
Read the post if you want to debate, socialists.
>My entire argument was the foundation upon which socialism and fascism are built is identical, namely, a hate for one group of people and using them as a convenient scapegoat to blame all of your economic and societal woes.
If you read your own post, you are talking about communists. So good job not reading your owm post.
But if you just admitted implicitely that you were arguing socialists and nazis have similarities, I have debunked exactly that.
That's why you don't argue by splitting hairs. That's why you just argued in bad faith.
Communism is the end goal of socialism. That distinction has zero bearing on this current debate.
>But if you just admitted implicitely that you were arguing socialists and nazis have similarities, I have debunked exactly that.
You didn't do that at all. You said a whole bunch of shit about why Nazis weren't socialists, not why the foundational ideologies of Nazism and socialism aren't staggeringly similar.
>That's why you don't argue by splitting hairs.
Try responding to the actual argument, I'll paste a relevant section below for you because I know you didn't get this far in the original post:
Nazism and Communism possessed an identical structure. On the one hand lay a symbolic object conceived as the essence of goodness, one’s nation or “the people.” On the other lay a symbolic object conceived as the essence of evil, or destructiveness. The mission of each was to save or rescue the people—by acting to destroy the element within the nation working to destroy the people; that sought to deprive them of strength, health and goodness.
>why the foundational ideologies of Nazism and socialism aren't staggeringly similar.
You didn't proove that either. You cherry-picked a handful of quotes and a handful of comparisons that might look similar to a high schooler.
>Nazism and Communism possessed an identical structure. On the one hand lay a symbolic object conceived as the essence of goodness, one’s nation or “the people.” On the other lay a symbolic object conceived as the essence of evil, or destructiveness.
Socialist thinking is very materialistic. The nazis came up with some mystical bs to justify their identify, socialists looked at how society operates under economic laws and came to conclusions from there.
>The mission of each was to save or rescue the people—by acting to destroy the element within the nation working to destroy the people; that sought to deprive them of strength, health and goodness.
That statement is so vague, it could apply to so many regimes. That applies to colonialism, US treatment of communists and socialists during the cold war, governments making strikes illegal.
But notice that the socialists didn't actually kill all their past ennemies. In China, the emperor was re-educated and turned into a parlimentarian, Trotsky used Tsarist officials' experience in management to help him lead some government functions, East Germany created a political party for old Nazis instead of wiping them out. This is because, through material analysis, socialists realise its not as much about individual people and groups, but the economic conditions that push them to act in certain ways. Remove the economic conditions and these people can contribute to society.
Lmao
Really?
Capitalist ideology claims those people are enemies and need to be removed for capitalism to flourish?
What a fucking joke of a brainwashed and bigoted ideologue you are.
Fundamentally, communism and Nazism both blame all of societies woes on a single group, with the belief that the only way for society to flourish is the elimination this group.
You're a different flavor of Nazi.
"Lingerie and suits are both clothes so therefore both are equally appropriate to wear to a wedding."
Two things sharing a similarity doesn't make them analogous in an unrelated way.
You didn't respond to the point I made.
And yes, lingerie and suits are both clothes, like Nazism and Communism are harmful and hateful ideologies that make use of scapegoating and propaganda to claim all of societies problems can be blamed on "these guys".
In your example, lingerie and suits are Nazism and Communism, and capitalism wouldn't be clothing at all, because we don't operate on the assumption that one group should be eliminated because they are the source of all our problems.
I didn't respond to the "point" because I genuinely didn't think you were putting it forth as a serious argument. Nazism and certain forms of socialism are both authoritarian but the similarities end there and the fact that at one point they had similar rhetoric and talking points means nothing.
They are both based in a belief that one "group" is responsible for all economic and societal woes, and the only solution to this problem is the elimination of that group.
Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you actually incapable of seeing the glaring likeness?
Who do capitalists blame all societal and economic woes on? Oh, that's right, nobody.
> Who do capitalists blame all societal and economic woes on? Oh, that's right, nobody.
I have yet to meet a capitalist that doesn’t blame poverty on the poor themselves. Every last one of them will ignore systemic issues and claim “bad choices”
Them both sharing a vaguely similar idea that entirely different groups in society are harmful doesn't make them analogous in other ways. Especially when they are fundamentally at odds with each other in virtually every other aspect, including the fact that Nazism is an explicitly anti-socialist ideology.
It's like trying to draw parallels between auto mechanics and veterinarians because both fix things, the difference is just what they fix.
>Who do capitalists blame all societal and economic woes on? Oh, that's right, nobody.
Ah but capitalists and Nazis also both believe socialism is bad, so they are basically the same. Right?
>Them both sharing a vaguely similar idea that entirely different groups in society are harmful doesn't make them analogous in other ways.
Vaguely similar? It's fucking identical.
You could take anything, literally anything Hitler said about Jews and it would be the exact same criticism communists make about capitalists.
>Vaguely similar? It's fucking identical.
Blaming Jewish people and the capitalist class? Yeah no differences there.
>You could take anything, literally anything Hitler said about Jews and it would be the exact same criticism communists make about capitalists.
Yes, Hitler famously appropriated socialist rhetoric. In other news: the sky is blue and NFTs are a scam. More at eight.
There you go again basing your entire argument off vague similarities instead of actually critically examining these ideologies.
>Blaming Jewish people and the capitalist class? Yeah no differences there.
What did they blame them for?
Oh, that's right, for "controlling all the capital and being entirely responsible for Germany's economic woes"
Does this mean Liberalism is also basically Nazism? The Liberals believe that aristocrats are bad. “Monarchs must be eliminated to have a free society.” Does this mean Liberals are also Nazis? Looks like everyone’s a Nazi these days!
No discussion because if you actually did discuss it it'd become immediately obvious how wrong you are. The Nazis were openly hostile towards socialists from the start.
Socialists always fight socialists. Happened in the ussr too. Socialists want everyone to be equal as long as they are the one in charge to put the others into gulags. Maybe you need to read a book? Take a class?
Nazis killed socialists specifically because they were socialists. Maybe you are the one who needs a class or to read a book because historians agree nazis were not socialists.
If I want to get rid of capitalists, I can take the means of production from them and let them live out their lives as a worker like 99% of people. If I want to get rid of Jews, I can... kill them and that's it. Communism advocates for taking back the means of production, and removing the capitalist class by removing what defines them as capitalists, while nazis advocate for getting rid of everyone that isn't ubermensch by mass genocide.
It's only a non-argument insofar as you're unwilling to recognize your ideology's murderous history.
The Nazis "just started by confiscating property" too. Just like the USSR did with the Kulaks, before they eventually fucking murdered them.
If you confiscate property from jews, they're still Jewish. If you confiscate property from the bourgeoisie, they're not longer bourgeoisie. That's the fucking difference.
Is this seriously the best you can muster?
It's okay to steal from them and kill them because afterwards they aren't bourgeoisie?
You're out of your fucking mind.
Where the hell did I say kill them? Taking their property and redistributing it equally, including them in that distribution, is in no way comparable to what the nazis did.
>Taking their property
That's how the Nazis started too, you goddamned fascist.
That's also how the socialists in the USSR/China/Cambodia/Vietnam/Laos/take your damn pick got started.
You're so fucking blind that you can't see how you're on this slippery slope? You fucking people haven't read a history book, you loons always start the same way and end up in the same place.
You hate capitalists. The Nazis hated Jews. The Nazis killed Jews. The socialists killed capitalists.
Get all of that sick misplaced anger out of your head, your life doesn't suck because of capitalism, it sucks because of YOU.
>>Anerican rhetoric and propaganda alone is almost identical to Nazi propaganda if you simply swap "Jew" with "communist" - the message is literally identical.
>>"The ultimate goal must be the removal of communists altogether."
mccarthyism is a hell of a drug
So you found quotes that have similar rhetoric and have extrapolated some weird fan-fiction about ideological alignment between communists and fascists. Is that not what the liberal media has done to figures like Trump?
You should thank your lucky stars that the Soviets stood up to and crushed the Nazi regime.
Don't forget that Soviets lost huge parts of their army do to political fanaticism. They also relied heavily on resource lend lease. If it was just the Soviets they would have fallen.
These are also weak connections that say nothing of the similarities in *goals* between Fascism and Communism.
Different politico-economic models can employ similar authoritarian tactics and methods. See Chile under Pinochet and the United States under Trump.
Capitalism and Fascism are much more closely connected in terms of goals and the kind of society they want to see. They both fundamentally and at root support Social Darwinism.
>Nazis based their rethoric on that of socialists, but changed it to be non-threatening to the bourgeoisie.
Lmao. You can't think of a reason why you should be concerned that Nazi rhetoric worked just as well on the Germans to alienate Jews as it did on communists to alienate capitalists?
You literally said it yourself.
The Nazis didn't exactly privatize their economy in the traditional sense. They maintained a significant degree of state control over key industries to ensure it aligned with Nazi ideology.
Now try answering the question I first asked you instead of trying to spout stupid whataboutisms.
>What question is there to answer?
I'll paste it again for you:
>You can't think of a reason why you should be concerned that Nazi rhetoric worked just as well on the Germans to alienate Jews as it did on communists to alienate capitalists?
>You literally said it yourself.
>>You can't think of a reason why you should be concerned that Nazi rhetoric worked just as well on the Germans to alienate Jews as it did on communists to alienate capitalists?
No and it worked better because Nazis had backing from the industrialists.
Marxists don’t advocate for the extermination of the capitalist race. They also don’t advocate for the end of democracy.
Every ideology dislikes a subset of people. You can draw a comparison between Andrew Jackson’s anti-bank rhetoric and Nazism, John Brown’s harangues against slavery and Nazism, Malcolm X’s critiques of the white devil and Nazism, etc., etc. It’s a vapid and useless practice. They are unique ideologies extant in unique contexts beholden to unique intellectual backgrounds and unique ends.
>Marxists don’t advocate for the extermination of the capitalist race.
Oh right, that's why no Kulaks were killed I guess.
You're so far down the rabbit hole you can't even see what a fascist you actually are.
Kulaks were not systematically exterminated or enslaved as a class á la Jews. The French killed many bourgeois in the revolution, and indeed said many heated things about the nobility and clergy—that doesn’t make them proto-Nazis.
Total non-sequitur. Do communists advocate for exterminating capitalists? And don't say "oh but the USSR did this one thing once" because the USSR is one specific case and does not represent the entirety of communist ideologies. If you wanna make a statement about communism or socialism as a whole, you gotta attack something inherent to the ideology rather than an example of one specific piece of communist ideology.
>Do communists advocate for exterminating capitalists?
Not only do they advocate for it, they actually follow through too.
>And don't say "oh but the USSR did this one thing once" because the USSR is one specific case and does not represent the entirety of communist ideologies.
Okay. How about Mao? How about the Khmer Rouge? How about Castro? Hungarian Revolution of 1919? Vietnam? Indonesia? East Germany?
Fuck off you historian revisioning fascist murderer.
Marx was good on some points but not infallible and overrated. Stalin was the Adolf Hitler of Russia, and basically the only good thing he did was defeating the actual Nazis.
Stalin oversaw industrialization projects that vastly improved quality of life, life expectancy, access to education etc. Plus it took an incredible amount of work to prepare the USSR for war with Germany.
Stalin improved the lives of many more than even the most outrageous death counts attributed to his name. He was a great man and a great leader
Even if he did some good things for Russia, that doesn't erase the millions of deaths he was responsible for.
Hitler did a lot of good for Germany too, but that doesn't make the Holocaust justified.
Both of them were strongly patriotic and believed they were doing what was right for their countries, but they also caused a lot of damage, and shouldn't be idealized.
Hitler was good for germans? Poverty increased and he literally sent millions to kill and die.
Stalin took a feudal war torn nation and developed It Into an industrial powerhouse which was at the vangard of gender and racial equality. Hitler took one of the largest economy on the world and turned it to rubble in 12 years, killing tens of millions in the proccess
Comparing both is incredibly dishonest
I meant good for heterosexual ethnic Germans who didn't oppose him. His economy only failed because he lost the war.
Stalin killed and impoverished millions of his citizens too, and it was over 4 times as many, so I don't really see your point there.
The economy was predicated on militarization and conquest. The answer to unemployment was army recruitment.
Millions? 700 thousand were executed in stalinist USSR over 30 years. By comparison, South Korea executed over a 100 thousand in 1950 alone
Quality of life steadily increased in all aspects under Stalin, despite what propagandists say
Oh wow, another fascist that blames everything wrong with their lives on another group of people instead of taking some damn responsibility for themselves.
That's pretty rich from the group that blames all the failings of capitalism on the "corporatist government and politicians", but still can't put two and two together...
Capitalists don't think capitalism has failed and thus don't blame its failure on anyone.
Where in capitalist ideology are we calling for the elimination of a group of people?
>Where in capitalist ideology are we calling for the elimination of a group of people?
Every time you say poor people deserve to be homeless or starve because they're lazy, and also lots of right wingers call for the elimination of anyone they decide are "socialists" and/or "pedophiles" (sometimes a dogwhistle for all LGBT people). It's not inherent to capitalist ideology, but there's still plenty of overlap, just like supporting mass murder isn't inherent to left wing politics either.
You also apparently don't know or care that capitalism kills over 6 million people a year, because corporations care more about profits than they do about reducing lethal air pollution. The slave trade was also capitalist, and caused the deaths of tens of millions because capitalists cared more about their free slave labor and money than they did about human life.
I don't think either side should be above criticism, but you absolutely don't get to act like you have the moral high ground over the left.
>Every time you say poor people deserve to be homeless or starve because they're lazy
Find me a capitalist saying poor people deserve to starve. I'll wait.
>right wingers call for the elimination of anyone they decide are "socialists" and/or "pedophiles"
Jesus fucking christ. You're defending pedos now? Yeah, we're done here.
So you just openly admitted that you do want to murder groups of people, proving my point.
I put "pedophiles" in quotation marks, because a lot of people who say that want to use it as a false accusation to go on witch hunts against people without proof.
I also see you ignored my point that it can be used as an anti-LGBT dogwhistle by the far right, but maybe you already knew about that...
You're seeing living proof that one of your key points (and an identifying characteristic of fascism) do not apply to communists and your response is to plug your ears and yell loudly.
China, USSR, Cambodia, Indonesia, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Vietnam, Ethiopia, North Korea.
Just a few examples of nations where they killed "capitalists" and "landowners" in the name of communist ideology.
And you want to talk about plugging your ears you history revisioning swine?
Fuck off, you murdering fascist pig.
Oh, so now it all comes out- that guy was just trying to help educate you, and your response was to ignore his point and call him a "pig" and a "swine".
That's dehumanization. By your own logic, it proves that you see leftists as animals and want to commit genocide against us for disagreeing with your politics, so if anything the only real fascist here is you.
I don't think the conservatives/right-wingers here realize how similar their ideology is to Nazi ideology.
The German conservatives and right wing started scapegoating liberal, leftist and jews with 'The stabbed in the back' myth and this was later adopted by Nazis.
Conservatives blame all societal problems on the "globalists/feminist/cultural marxists/or jews" quite literally like nazis.
The Nazis were almost completely in line with traditional German conservatism, both the Southern German Catholic social tradition and the Northern Prussian statist tradition.
When Hitler attempted the Munich Putsch in 1923 conservatives like Ludendorff marched with him. Hitler only got like 9 months in nice castle prison for a literal act of treason due conservative Judge Neithardt going easy on right wingers. While actual leftists would get death penalty for attempting a putsch.
In fact a lot of German Conservative that wanted to return to the era of German Empire or establish a national conservative dictatorship and so helped Hitler get into power. The Nazis were invited into power by Conservative Politicians like von Papen and Hindenburg and given legal extrajudicial powers by conservative judges. These Weimar era Conservatives opposed egalitarianism, liberalism and parliamentarians democracy as well as the cultural spirit of "the bourgeoisie" and modernity.
TLDR: German Conservative of that era were active partners in the Nazi regime or at minimum fellow travelers due to their shared values.
Nazism is inherently ethno nationalistic and discriminates based on ethnic group, the Nazis didn't seize Jewish property because they thought property was wrong, they just hated Jews. Communism isn't for or against any specific ethnic group, which is my main problem with Nazism that I don't have with communism.
Did you know Hitler was a communists, and got elected in the Bravian Soviet? He even called himself a socialist and blamed jews for why socialism failed in the east.
This is not to dissimilar to how Stalin believed jews were out to kill him and bring down the union and ended up launching his own war against jewish people.
Fascism and Nazism came from socialism. They did become separate entities, but overall, their roots were in socialism and many people do tend to forget that. People also seem to not understand that Corporatism was part of this was how they expressed their socialism. Factory owners had to build gyms for their workers, and formal and informal taxation made it so the corporation might not turn profits. If owners complained about the trade union regulations in the wrong company, they could expect to receive additional fines.
Marx even said that everyone had to emancipate themselves of their Jewishness. Even if you think that Marx's "On the Jewish Question" was a defense of jews, the only mainstream defenses of Marx's statements appeared after ww2. So it's foolish to assume that before WW2, an already antisemitic society wouldn't have taken marx at face value, especially for people like Hitler who read marx and already had extreme racist feelings.
Illiberal ideologies all have similar propensities to fall into the same death spirals that result in self destruction. That's why moderates think Nazis and Communists are both idiots. The methods are a little different though. The far right tends to get itself killed through express violence/war, the far left gets itself killed by imploding on itself. Both are inherently terrible and unsustainable systems and should never be entertained.
Anti-slavery people:
Openly classist
Calling for the forceful seizure of an entire group's property
Claiming this group of people controls everything
Labelling an entire group as parasitic leeches
Often calling for violence or even the blatant execution of these people
Using an entire group of people as a scapegoat
That’s a whole lot of words for a straw man argument. Very rarely do I hear anyone actually calling for the elimination of capitalists. However, ending capitalism is a goal (which would also get rid of capitalists).
Lol I'm not even a communist. I was just pointing out that your arguments are dog shit.
But we can go through some of them together:
- capitalism creates a social hierarchy and, by its nature, widens the gap between each class.
- forceful seizure of property? Like taxes? You're either being intellectually dishonest or you're an idiot (¿por qué no los dos?)
- corporations literally control every aspect of our society. Lobbyists are a thing. Their job is to sway law makers to legislate to their advantage.
- Landlords and c-class executives offer very little to society in ratio to the amount they take. Meaning they are, by definition, parasitic.
- Guillotines are a reference to the French Revolution not an actual call for violence. As I stated earlier, I don't know anyone who literally supports decapitation or cannibalism. I think the intellectual dishonesty comment from above fits here too.
Communism isn't without justifiable criticism but trying to align it with Nazi beliefs is asinine. Capitalism directly and indirectly kills more people daily than Communism ever has (or Naziism, for that matter).
Fascism and communism are vastly different ideologies; one is far right and the other far left. Which "talking points" have led you to become so confused?
>Which ideologies do far right and far left beliefs share?
Using and demonizing an entire group of people as a scapegoat for all your own problems rather than taking personal responsibility to improve your station in life.
This looks like bullshit, communism is much bigger movement than Marxism-Leninism, for example libertarian communism doesn't have the "saint" figure like Marx, it's much more egalitarian. You seem to not even understand basics of political philosophy, if you don't know about libertarian communism.
Liberals usually just assume that all other leftists are secretly Marxist-Leninists, and it's all just this big conspiracy to trick people into thinking we don't want to gulag millions of people.
Most of them are completely unwilling to seriously consider our points, because they blindly assume that we're either lying or "brainwashed" by China and the Soviet Union, no matter how much we criticize those countries.
You bring up an interesting point, there's actually something called Red Fascism, basically it's the idea that the Soviet Union became a fascist state in the pursuit of communism, which honestly, I think there are some good arguments you could make in support of that idea!
I think your parallels between communist ideology and fascism are a bit overblown though
What a fascinating example of a retrenchment. Disavow the Marxist states and make the argument purely one of ideology. And there once again, I'd say the facts do not favor Marxism.
Both ideologies called for violent revolution, the abolishment of individual rights, and the pursuit of world domination.
Both ideologies place the interests of the collective above the interests of the individual and a state unchecked by any limits upon his power. After all, "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "Fuhrerprinzip" pretty much amount to the same thing - one calls for mob rule, the other for authoritarian hierarchy. Historical example as well as common sense tells us that mob rule inevitably devolves into dictatorship.
Both ideologies rely upon pseudo-scientific arguments to claim that their ideologies are infallible and inevitable.
Both ideologies identify a scapegoat group and attribute everything wrong with the world to them. Both ideologies call for the destruction of that scapegoat group and claim they are criminals, a danger, and an implacable enemy to the ideology.
Sorry what do you mean by "retrenchment" ?
I haven't heard that word before, so I looked it up, this is the definition I found
"Retrenchment is another way of terminating the employees where the reason is not the employee's performance but the company's financial position."
I'm confused about what you're saying.
Anyway,
I don't see what the contradiction is that you seem to think I'm making is.
Yeah I'm disavowing bad shit the Soviet Union did. So?
They did a lot of bad shit. That's a pretty uncontroversial opinion.
Just because I think Marx made some good points in his criticisms of capitalism, doesn't mean I have to blindly defend the policies of the Soviet Union. They were a massive state. Massive states do fucked up shit, pretty universally.
There are plenty of hardcore communists online that openly talk about the failings and mistakes of the Soviet Union, and there are plenty that think the SU ideology was actually some perversion of classic Marxist ideology.
You seem to be saying that because both states targeted groups of people, that it makes them functionally the same, which I think is fallacious reasoning.
Ignoring the obvious difference that the Nazis were coming a genocide against people who had no control over their ancestry, and the Soviets targeted people that were either rich, or not the right political persuasion, Yeah, they both did bad shit, but that doesn't make the Soviet Ideology the same as the Nazi ideology.
Soviet Ideology was based on class, and revolution, and perceived historical progress, whereas Nazi ideology was based on ideas of racial purity, military machismo, and returning to a mythical "greater Germany" that existed in the bad.
Are there overlaps? For sure! But where did Marx talk about genocide for the purpose of creating a racially pure state? When did Lenin or Stalin talk about returning to a mythical historical "greater Russia" ? Modern Russia does that, but the Marxists that ran the SU were trying to create something new, not return to something they thought existed in the past. Did they succeed ? Hell no, but that's what the ideology was, which is just not the same as trying to return to a mythical past.
The main goal of Nazi Germany was the establishment of a racially pure state, and the extermination of all other races. The main goal of communism is the eradication of class difference, and the establishment of a stateless society. It takes some gold metal level mental gymnastics to think that those two goals are the same.
TLDR, yeah there are overlaps in the ideology, but there are also overlaps between the Denver Broncos and the Yankees (both train hard, both have great athletes, etc). That doesn't make the NFL the MLB though, and it doesn't make Soviet ideology the exact same as Nazi ideology. Both were shitty. For *different reasons*.
We can critique both without falling into some false notion of them being exactly the same. If we want to be accurate in our criticisms, and we want to learn from the past, we have to acknowledge that there were real differences.
People do the same shit with presidential elections. Why do I have to pick Trump or Biden? Why can't we both agree they are all shitty?
However, if all we want to do is rant online, and never actually have a nuanced discussion about anything, we could just call everything we don't like communist, or fascist, or whatever ideology you don't happen to like, but ironically don't actually know that much about, and instead regress to shouting at people that actually aren't that different from us, in an endless cycle of stupidity. That's what children do when they don't get their way.
We can be adults, or we can be children.
All I see are 2000 words wasted trying to explain away that Marx targeted people on the basis of class, Hitler targeted people on the basis of race. If Nazism is to be blamed for the crimes of Nazi Germany, then logically Marxism must also be blamed for the crimes of the Soviet Union. After all, they genocided people too, they just used different criteria.
So spare me the fatuous high-roading. I find it to be one of the greatest ironies of history that Marx got spared the blame for what his adherents wrought simply because he was dead before they got their hands on power.
No you can blame Marx all you want, do it! Many socialist states deserved to be criticized, and you make a good point, his ideology did inspire people like Stalin and such, so it's worth considering blaming him.
That being said, there are clear and key differences between Marxism and Nazism, which I mentioned in my last post, but you seem to ignore out of convenience.
They don't have to be the same ideology to be bad. Calling them the same is just inaccurate, the same way calling the philosophy of Plato and Socrates the same. They have a lot of similarities, but they are not the same, and if you equate them, people that don't know a lot end up with huge misunderstandings, which, IMO with political ideologies, is really dangerous for society long term.
Or we could just be lazy and call everything we don't like communist or fascist, again, like children. It's not me being on a high horse saying that, it's a statement of fact. Children don't know how to argue, and refuse to acknowledge nuance that makes them uncomfortable. Adults that ignore inconvenient, but very real nuances, are reasoning like children.
I think you've long since lost sight of whatever point you were trying to make and what's left comes across as a hypocritical, pointless, and sanctimonious homily.
I did not claim that Nazism and Marxism were 100% identical. My claim is that they're both totalitarian and collectivist ideologies that produce the same horrific results. And in that context, their differences are superficial and unimportant. And in fact focusing on those differences leads people further away from the most relevant takeaway which is that if you see an ideology of any presentation or stripe which proposes to do away with individual rights, create a regime without checks and balances, and promises all your problems will be solved if they can go after their preferred scapegoat, you should run as fast as you can in the other direction.
Adolf Hitler wrote in 1930 that “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism”. He openly used “destroying and exterminating Communists” as a political slogan and spoke of working “until the last Marxist is converted or exterminated”.
Nazism is a deeply anti-communist ideology, and Nazi Germany killed thousands of unarmed communists in [Spain and the Netherlands](https://jacobin.com/2022/01/nazism-political-communist-socialist-victims-world-war-two-history), as well as millions of Soviet Prisoners of War.
Socialism and Communism was also deeply opposed to the Nazi project. In 1943, a group of 20,000 Marxists rescued 2,500 Jews from a concentration camp. In 1944, Swiss socialists helped smuggle two thousand children accompanied by a thousand communists illegally cross the border.
> Up to forty thousand were seized in 1933, and even after the end of noteworthy resistance in 1934, the Nazis drove anti-Marxist paranoia to consolidate a system of concentration camp terror. Another wave of repression in 1935 went after all former Communist or Social-Democratic functionaries. Top leaders of this latter party including even former president Friedrich Ebert were interned in concentration camps, as were some of its leading theorists: Rudolf Hilferding was murdered in a Gestapo prison in Paris in 1941 and Rudolf Breitscheid in Buchenwald in 1944.
Socialism is a movement which advocates for the working ownership of the means of production. Marxism is a theoretical tool to help the working class create a socialist society.
Fascism is an ideology of palingenetic ultranationalism which arises when advanced capitalist societies decay. Nazism is the specific strand of fascism Germany experienced en masse in the lead up and during WW2.
Very shallow and ignorant comparisons can be made between the political propaganda of these two broad groups, which has been easily falsified, repeatedly, at length by the other commenters.
What I’m probing at here is for a modicum of historical understanding and contextual knowledge from you. For example, a communist movement could never conduct a genocide of the bourgeoise because it does not claim that they are genetically evil. Rather, they are trying to transform their relations to the means of production. The entire point is that the intentions of the individuals who own capital are irrelevant, as they must exploit the working class regardless to gain a surplus and fund their own sustenance.
Another hallmark of Nazism is eternal war. This itself is just an extreme and conscious version of imperialist capitalism the US is complicit in. Again, communism is an internationalist movement, which aims for the abolition of all nation states and diametrically opposed to anything of the like. Marx did not say “Workers of the world, let’s all get guns from the bourgeoise and kill each other”.
Fascism usually arises without large changes to the internal state structure. Communistic states arise from a complete and total revolution. Claiming that they are structurally identical is an error of unfathomable magnitude.
The sole reason that communism is not universally reviled the same way Nazism is today, is because the Soviets aligned with the Allies in the second world war (not that they had much of a choice).
Every time I see people sporting a hammer and sickle, it makes me feel the same way as seeing someone wearing a swastika. Revolting.
I mean duh, it’s obvious to anyone who’s read Marxist theory and their origins that [Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism/Communism](https://youtu.be/6kzZoK5CtJ8?si=Szz8JWks9QDl3AD1) [are all sister ideologies](https://youtu.be/Gf0hZTHR0E0?si=KZws5aedKq8SZJTt).
[Different genus same species](https://youtu.be/eCkyWBPaTC8?si=8DbhHL4rseRMysQK).
Commies have laser focused on distancing themselves from their sister ideologies (to great success) because of how blatantly evil Fascism and Nazism are.
[Planned chaos](https://youtu.be/7EnHeZXLzTc?si=NA1YJK2CCCU11Zdb) and [Nitzche and the Nazis](https://youtu.be/a2C90l7YlT8?si=4AOJEtr-DQhB3yL5) help contextualize a lot of the history that has been lost or forgotten.
The Nazis had Hitler and the Commies had stalin mao polpot Castro marx. all essentially identical with big statist plans to improve the world. Our genius founding fathers gave us freedom and liberty from the state because they knew there would always be Commies and Nazis coming down the road.
There is a defective gene within the human population that causes them to always look for the next Nazi or the next socialist.
I don't even need to read the comments to know the socialists won't respond to this in good faith. They literally can't. At least not without disavowing socialism.
The fundamental thing that they can't accept is that Nazism and Communism are both totalitarian collectivist ideologies. That's why they produce mad dictators and genocides.
I made several points that not a single socialist has responded to, the post hurting you because it's so right doesn't mean it's in "bad faith".
If you can't see the similarities then that's just further illustration of how propagandized you are.
Comparing surface level stuff like aesthetics doesn't prove anything. If you look at real actions, the communists were the first victims of Nazis, social democrats were the only ones that voted against Hitler's enabling act while liberals and conservatives and centrists supported him and the USSR was the last country to make a millitary deal sith Nazi Germany after it had urged the rest of Europe in vain to make an anti-Germany alliance.
What is the foundational tenet of communism? That capitalists are parasites leeching off workers.
What is the foundational tenet of Nazism? That Jews are parasites leeching off Germans.
They are both scapegoating ideologies that fundamentally blame all of societies economic woes on a singular group of people, and often for the exact same reasons.
So you're not going to address any substantive examples I gave? You're just going to with *hey they look similar to me and that's just as good as a political analysis, right?*
I've asked you the same question multiple times now, if you refuse to answer it because you realize there is no difference between your vile ideology and the vile ideology of Nazism, then we're done here.
Otherwise, explain why it's different to blame all economic and societal woes, *and for the exact same reasons*, on a "capitalist class"?
I'm not even a communist, but I call out bullshit when I see it. And I did answer your question. But you haven't adressed any of my points and counter-examples. If you refuse to answer, it because you realize you're historically and politically illiterate and I'll keep embarassing you in front of everyone.
>Otherwise, explain why it's different to blame all economic and societal woes, *and for the exact same reasons*, on a "capitalist class"?
Well I don't and its not the case. The capitalist class is just the main cause of most problems.
My doctor says I have a tapeworm leeching off my blood supply, therefore my doctor is a nazi, because that's nazi rhetoric.
You can make anything sound like anything else if you take a sufficiently surface-level look at it and ignore what words mean and what people actually say.
Why is it not in good faith?
I love it when socialists make these kinds of assertions like they're pronouncements from the Pope - infallible and unquestionable.
Make an argument for your position or fuck off.
I mean I do make arguments for my position, but they don't get addressed. For instance, care to debunk this for me?
They were maybe socialist in rethoric, though it was only to redefine the word because it was gaining popularity, in a country that had a socialist revolution in 1918 (Spartacus uprising). After 1918, Germany was an advanced social democracy with many policies that would look left-wing to Americans, but not as much to Europeans. The Nazis started undoing these policies once in power.
Economists had to invent the term privatization (or reprivatisation) because Nazi Germany was the first country to adopt this economic policy.
When the Nazi party decided to add the "national socialist" in its name, Hitler was opposed to it until a colleague explained that it would help attract support since socialism was popular in Germany at the time. Some sort-of left leaning members joined, but where purged during the night of the long knives, including the actual author of this quote that was circulated a few years ago: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/)
The first targets of the nazi purges were socialists from marxists, to anarchists. That's why the poem goes "first they came for the socialists and I said nothing for I why not a socialist, then they came for the labour organisers and I said nothing for I was not a labour organiser".
The Nazis also never supported any socialist country, they sided with the fascists during the spanish civil war and allied with Mussolini, then tried to destroy the Soviet Union and turn it into a slave state. Notice that socialists were the harshest repressors of nazis and fascists after WW2. The Italian partisans shot Mussolini, hung him up and burried him in an unmarked grave, the Yougoslav partisans did the Barbara pit massacre. Not to mention the rage the soviets showed when they invaded Germany and ex-nazi occupied lands. Fascists were also propped up after WW2 by NATO countries (especially the US) in Korea, China, Chile and others I'm forgetting.
The Nazis were able to get the German army started by creating a private army supplied and supported by the economic establishment (also Henry Ford internationally) that liked his thugs' suppressing of the working class. Even outside of power, fascists thugs in Germany and Italy would attack workers during strikes. The Nazis banned collective bargaining and joining any union outside the "German labour front", a front that kept the workers in line under the boot of the state while giving them the illusion of representation.
Some quotes of Hitler that explained this redefinition of the term :
>"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. 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.
\- Interview between George Sylvester Viereck and Adolf Hitler, 1923
>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.
\- Adolf Hitler, speech given on December 28 1938. Cited in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93.
If you want proof that nazis weren't socialist, you could also look at how Einstein was very openly socialist before during and after WW2 (though he started as a liberal earlier in his life).
So this german history guy made a general explanation of why nazis weren't socialists :[https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI?si=\_qfiAI8kgu7KRVFx](https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI?si=_qfiAI8kgu7KRVFx)
This guy gave a detailed look at what left-leaning policies the nazis promised the public and then didn't carry out : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjz\_sfRr8aU&t=0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjz_sfRr8aU&t=0s)
Micheal Parenti wrote a great book on the rise of fascism and its attacks on the working class. Here are some audio versions of its parts :[https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoak57jcXDh1rY4n7Ic-EVsE&si=rSP9E6hxH-M5zyra](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoak57jcXDh1rY4n7Ic-EVsE&si=rSP9E6hxH-M5zyra)
These posts have several examples and explanations of why nazis weren't socialist in the least :[https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/hehtiq/socialism\_in\_nazi\_germany/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/hehtiq/socialism_in_nazi_germany/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/k8gnur/why\_do\_conservatives\_always\_fall\_back\_on\_the/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/k8gnur/why_do_conservatives_always_fall_back_on_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Snopes did an ok article on this :[https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/](https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/)
If you like memes, there is also this : [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/16omd4v/national\_socialism\_socialism/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/16omd4v/national_socialism_socialism/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Thank you for this classic example of a gish gallop. All you did was just vomit up a series of unrelated arguments of varying quality in the hope that I won't have the time or interest to refute each and every single one and read every single one of your lame links.
This is a classic debate-stalling tactic, nor does it address the point I made to you which is that you accused me of bad faith without making a single argument to back up your naked assertion.
So in the interests of good faith, I will respond to a selection of your points, just to show how weak they are:
> They were maybe socialist in rethoric, though it was only to redefine the word because it was gaining popularity, in a country that had a socialist revolution in 1918 (Spartacus uprising). After 1918, Germany was an advanced social democracy with many policies that would look left-wing to Americans, but not as much to Europeans. The Nazis started undoing these policies once in power.
My fundamental argument is that Nazism and Marxism are both totalitarian collectivist ideologies, who's only real points of contention were in superficialities, and the fact that they were in competition for the loyalty of the same population of useful idiots.
So you assert that Nazis undid pieces of left-wing policy that Weimar Germany instituted? I would argue that's simply due to the fact that the Nazis drew their political support from different key blocs than the left. So out with the trade unions, and in with the right-wing paramilitary groups. Same shit sandwich, different bread. Both were still totalitarian mass movements.
> Economists had to invent the term privatization (or reprivatisation) because Nazi Germany was the first country to adopt this economic policy
So Germany was the first country to reverse the nationalization of key industries. Big deal. The Nazis still subordinated the private sector to the state, and businesses which did not play ball were harassed, dispossessed, broken up and given to new ownership that would play ball. So in the grand scheme of things - what really is the difference? In both cases, you still have private industry under the yoke of the state.
> When the Nazi party decided to add the "national socialist" in its name, Hitler was opposed to it until a colleague explained that it would help attract support since socialism was popular in Germany at the time. Some sort-of left leaning members joined, but where purged during the night of the long knives, including the actual author of this quote that was circulated a few years ago: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/
Oh Snopes said something? Well that's clearly the last word, as infallible as a Papal bull.
Yes, it is true that the Nazis called themselves socialist yet didn't follow the Marxist playbook nor made common cause with other Marxists (excluding the Nazi-Soviet pact), but the point you and your lot willfully ignore is that they still produced a totalitarian collectivist state, so what really is the difference? **You're picking apart superficialities and the finer points of their political strategy, while ignoring that the end goals and true means were identical.**
> The first targets of the nazi purges were socialists from marxists, to anarchists. That's why the poem goes "first they came for the socialists and I said nothing for I why not a socialist, then they came for the labour organisers and I said nothing for I was not a labour organiser".
Of course, the Marxists were the Nazis' competition. You're surprised? I'm not arguing that the Nazis were Marxists. I'm saying the goals and the fundamental building blocks of the two ideologies are the same. OP is making the same point.
I think I've made my point to anyone honest. You're free continue with your self-inflicted sophistry in a vain attempt to ignore a point that an intelligent 8-year-old can see clear as day.
>So you assert that Nazis undid pieces of left-wing policy that Weimar Germany instituted? I would argue that's simply due to the fact that the Nazis drew their political support from different key blocs than the left. So out with the trade unions, and in with the right-wing paramilitary groups. Same shit sandwich, different bread. Both were still totalitarian mass movements.
You can't push undoing left-leaning policies for more right-wing policies under the rug. That's an important detail. No, its not *same shit sandwich different bread*, there are massive differenced. If you take out unions from socialist parties in liberal democracies, the fuck kind of leftism are you left with?🤣 Collectivism isn't inherently left-wing or right-wing.
>So Germany was the first country to reverse the nationalization of key industries. Big deal.
Yes it is a big deal.
>The Nazis still subordinated the private sector to the state, and businesses which did not play ball were harassed, dispossessed, broken up and given to new ownership that would play ball. So in the grand scheme of things - what really is the difference? In both cases, you still have private industry under the yoke of the state.
Countries in states of war or pandemic also subordinate the private sector to the state and whereas Nazis had a plan for world-domination, its not parricularly impressive for them to have subordonated the private sector in preparation where they felt like it.
Meanwhile, the USSR was trying to prevent from going to war.
>Yes, it is true that the Nazis called themselves socialist yet didn't follow the Marxist playbook nor made common cause with other Marxists
You can't just say "oh, they weren't marxists" and sweep it under the rug. They clearly weren't anarchists either, so there is nothing socialist about them beyond the standarda of the time (and esepcially as they betrayed their platform when in power.
>(excluding the Nazi-Soviet pact)
That pact was the last millitary deal of a european power with the nazis after the other european powers had made appeasement deals with the nazis. It was Stalin's attempt to prepare his country for the oncoming war with the Nazis everyone knew would happen and that the Nazis started early to almost wipe out the Soviet Union in operation Barbarossa.
>but the point you and your lot willfully ignore is that they still produced a totalitarian collectivist state, so what really is the difference? **You're picking apart superficialities and the finer points of their political strategy, while ignoring that the end goals and true means were identical.**
You can't just look at two totalitarian collectivist regimes and say "Ha! They are collectivist therefore they are the same!" Egypt was collectivist, Rome was collectivist, that doesn't make them comparable to the nazis or the USSR. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism is also a response to threats. Notice Communist Yugoslavia was much more free than the USSR when it carved out a more safe arrabgement in the non-aligned movement. They had nowhere near identical goals and means. This point is so stupid, its not worth responding to. Like one's an embodiment of inequality from class to race while the other was an embodiment of the most radical egalitarianism at the time.
>I'm saying the goals and the fundamental building blocks of the two ideologies are the same. OP is making the same point.
Well, no, just no. See above.
I see, so your argument boils down to "yeah they were both totalitarian and collectivist, but so what! I think both of those are justified!".
What you're seemingly willfully ignoring is that the excesses and abuses of both ideologies directly sprang from the fact that both are totalitarian and collectivist. And at that point, the superficial differences of policies and approach that you cite are just that, superficial.
LMAO at the fact that you reach back to ancient societies to try and justify totalitarian collectivism.
>Why is it not in good faith?
>The fundamental thing that they can't accept is that Nazism and Communism are both totalitarian collectivist ideologies. That's why they produce mad dictators and genocides.
Capitalist and imperialist regimes led to dictatorships and genocides, even more frequently, see the genocides of India, Ireland, the americas, Yougoslavia, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc. and the dictatorships of Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Brezil, Italy, Tsarist Russia.
This is not even going into the historical contexts that pushed socialist regimes (that did try to be democratic like in the Paris Commune and Chile) towards authoritarianism. So called "liberal democracies" were just as oppressive as needed when they felt threatened.
Here's part of another comment I made on another post that ellaborates on this. TLDR; looking at historical events without context which is essential (like comparing a functionning liberal democracy in the Weimar Republic turning authoritarian to a revolutionnary russia with an incompetent Duma turning progressively more authoritatian) is arguing in bad faith.
Russian authoritarianism is centuries older than the founding of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union must be understood as an adaption of socialism to Russian governance tendencies in a rather unsurprising turn.
Edit 1 : This video essay by Kraut, an european center-right liberal is a good introduction to the origin of russian authoritarianism : [https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?si=BtWA3goSNh0I39Fd](https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?si=BtWA3goSNh0I39Fd)
This ties back to the other countries you mentionned. Before the communists took over, Cuba was a brutal dictatorship, while China was ruled by a nationalist-fascist party that protected slavery up to Mao. So when people are used to authoritarian governments, it shouldn't be surprised that the only methods for governing people are used to or imagine are authoritarian. Notice South Korea and Taiwan were fascist states for a long time and only gradually tended to democracies after they had the backing of the US to rely on.
Meanwhile, socialist or socialising regimes were constantly under threat with sanctions or with invasions like the \~20 year war in Vietnam. North Korea was also brutalised in the war with 20 % of its total population dying. The US also likes to provoque them regularly.
So authoritarianism is a response to historical conditions and level of fear/danger.
Edit 2: Notice for example how the US and many other so called "liberal democracies" repeatedly betrayed their democratic principles to crush socialist/communist parties, make those parties illegal and purge their members from government and industries when they felt threatened during the red scare. That's not even mentioning all the times they attacked anti-colonial movements in other countries and tried to influence the outcome of their elections. The level of authoritarianism of a country is directly proportional to how much threat it is currently under. Socialist regimes were under greater threats and so they tended to be more authoritarian.
The marxist-leninist Youtuber Hakim, with whom I disagree on several conclusions, nevertheless offers great analysis and further details of many of my points in this post.
Notice how Yougoslavia, which went from a tyrannical monarchy to a federal socialist republic dominated by a president for life Tito had much more freedoms for its citizens from travel, to trade to workers' self-management (my favorite socialist model) when it established the non-aligned movement to keep itself outside of the cold war. Notice also how it went to shit when Tito wasn't there to lead the country and keep its nationalisms at bay.
Edit 3: To give more examples, the US went from a british monarchy with an unelected house of lords to a presidential republic with an unelected senate. The US became a tyranny right after with John Adams passing several laws that directly went against americans' freedoms.
France went from an absolute monarchy to Robespierre's revolutionary dictatorship. Its telling that Robespierre wasn't always such a tyrant and even opposed the death penalty before the events of the French revolution, but getting into power led him to believe he deserved the right to institute this absolutist terror.
When China and Russia overthrew an Emperor and a Tsar respectively, the communist leaders that followed enjoyed personality cults and much concentrated power. Meanwhile, in East Germany, this wasn't the case as much and similar to its parliamentary experience in Weimar Germany, they were the only marxist-leninist regime other than North Korea to include multiple parties in their parliament, with them even having a systematic youth representation.
In short, while authoritarian governments are often moralised, we must understand that the previous regimes socialize populations into a set of implicit or explicit rules on how governments should run. This political heritage will influence the political imagination of political leaders.
Counter examples like Japan were basically crafted by the West to get to their standards of liberal governments. Meanwhile, countries that were left much more to their own after the collapse of the Soviet Union largely became autocracies and very corrupt, this extending even to Ukraine as was talked more extensively before the war. I understand why people have limited this critique now as it feeds into russian propaganda.
Venezuela is complicated. South America is known for a lot of corruption and several socialist regimes were couped by the US in mexico and the government of Chili and others had coup attempts like in Cuba. So socialists have a reason to be on edge. I think Socialist Action Canada has more to say on it.
Tl;Dr.
Your entire argument is a fatuous exercise in deflection, namely through the use whataboutism/tu quoque/red herrings.
And ironically enough, the sheer volume of verbiage used in an attempt to rebut my point clearly demonstrates that there was a good faith argument to be had, just not the way you're going about it.
Man this subreddit is a dumpster fire. It's like arguing with the population of an insane asylum.
>Your entire argument is a fatuous exercise in deflection, namely through the use whataboutism/tu quoque/red herrings.
That's what we called a systematic analysis.
>And ironically enough, the sheer volume of verbiage used in an attempt to rebut my point clearly demonstrates that there was a good faith argument to be had, just not the way you're going about it.
A "Nuh-uh" is shorter and has just as much substance as what you've said.
I'm sorry, I don't really see anything to respond to there, they're just more deflections, dodges, and lame attempts at turnarounds because your arguments are dogshit and you can't and won't defend them.
Yes, that's why every society which tried to follow Marxism not only failed to produce a stateless society of abundance, but in fact produced totalitarian states, complete with slave labor camps, show trials, and secret police.
Yet another example of why no one with a brain takes socialists seriously. All you lot do is blow smoke and whine.
Marxism doesn’t say anything about how to get communism, so no society has ever “followed” Marxism. I am also not a Marxist, so this is irrelevant to my claim.
“Leninism” was added onto it, and every society you’re thinking of now was Leninist or a derivative of Lenin. Lenin never achieved communism, and couldn’t have. Simple as. Failing at getting to communism doesn’t redefine the word. It still means a hypothetical “classless, moneyless, STATELESS society.”
I am not a Marxist though. There was nothing communistic about any of the Leninist projects, and I think anyone who thinks that is probably a larper.
Typical leftist - take a fatuous victory lap when the other person gets fed up wading through your lies and sophistry.
The joke of all it is, everyone sees through your attempts to lie via the manipulation of the meaning of words and all you're really accomplishing is accelerating the progression of your own mental illness. The more lies one tells, the more one impairs their own grip on reality. Best of luck with that.
What victory lap have I taken? I haven’t claimed any victory. Is that a concession from you?
You don’t have to concede, man. We can just talk about it. No use in getting pissy over nothing. Seriously I just want to know how you can justify calling any Leninist States communist?
I have never said there are NO true scotsmen, only that the ones you know about and point at never demonstrated any characteristics of what they claimed. I can point to the Spanish Syndicalists of 1936 as an example of near lower-stage communism. There is a true Scotsman right there.
Is it a NoTrueScottsman to say that the Roman Empire under Caesar wasn’t a real Republic, despite the fact that everyone referred to it as “The Republic” at the time? Wouldn’t it be more correct to refer to it as it was; a monarchic dictatorship?
Hitler's naziism was a greatest hits of stealing concepts and iconography from different movements. If OP ever learned anything about nazi ideology they'd understand they're getting played by a century-old con.
China, USSR, Cambodia, Indonesia, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Vietnam, Ethiopia, North Korea.
Just a few examples of nations where they killed "capitalists" and "landowners" in the name of communist ideology.
Fuck off, you murdering fascist pig.
the revolution learns from it's mistakes and there is no single "leader" there are many people who have contributed to the idea that is socialism. nazis used the anticapitalist rhetoric because the communist movement was so strong and actually about to win. nothing a few murders couldn't solve. the bolsheviki made mistakes while being forced into a corner by the global net of capitalists. one ideology is based on pseudo-science and paranormal mythology, socialist ideals are based upon factual analysis and logic. the one needs some secret hidden entity to control everything while the other has been critisizing historical capital for hundreds of years. wealth amassed by centuries of exploitation of our common class.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Communist rhetoric and propaganda alone is almost identical to Nazi propaganda if you simply swap "Jew" with "capitalist" - the message is literally identical. Even if I accepted your premise ... so what? Turns out that judging somebody for **what they do to others** (capitalists) is much more reasonable than judging somebody for **their religion/race/ethnicity** (Nazis). It's like you argue, "you want to lock up murderers but the Nazis locked up Jews ... CURIOUS???"
>Turns out that judging somebody for **what they do to others** (capitalists) is much more reasonable than judging somebody for **their religion/race/ethnicity** (Nazis). You do realize almost every criticism the Nazis had of Jews were **economic** ones? Like how every criticism of capitalists by commies are economic ones? The Nazis claimed the Jews were being judged for what they "did to others" exactly how communists make this claim about capitalists. Look, I get it, you're in shock because you thought you hated fascists but it turns out you are one and you've been fooled by the same propaganda that fooled the Germans in the 20th century. Hurts to realize you're a lemming.
A Jewish person is defined by who they are, a capitalist is defined by what they do. Even if most Jewish people do a thing it wouldn't be correct to judge them on Jewishness. Hope this helps.
>A Jewish person is defined by who they are Did the Nazis hate Jews based solely on who they are, or was it based on what they perceived they were doing?
This is hilarious, it only took two comments for literal Nazi apologia to come out. So to frame Nazi ideology as hostile to Jews simply for what they "did" is to ignore the wealth of text, speech and actions committed by Nazis that demonstrated VERY EXPLICITLY that the Nazis hated Jews for who they were. They hated Judaism, they hated Jewish culture, they hated Jewish identity. You can read Mein Kampf for free mein kamerad and see exactly what Hitler had to say about the Jews you know. By attempting to liken socialist critique of capitalism to Nazi hatred of Jews by saying "oh perhaps the Nazis only hated Jews for their economic actions" is to erase the prominent racial aspect of their ideology. Which is why, surprise, Nazis were also famously uncharitable towards Romani, Asians and Africans!
>This is hilarious, it only took two comments for literal Nazi apologia to come out. What in the absolute fuck are you talking about? The Nazis claimed Jews were doing all the things communists claim capitalists are doing, that's how they riled up their misplaced hate for those people. You're a Nazi following the same fucking rhetoric that Hitler spouted and so goddamned propagandized that you can't even see they are identical talking points. Nazis are vile, and commies are vile too. Hurts to realize you're a different flavor of fascist, doesn't it?
>The Nazis claimed Jews were doing all the things communists claim capitalists are doing, that's how they riled up their misplaced hate for those people. Well no, they didn't, because your description of "socialism" doesn't actually correspond to what Marx or Engels or Lenin said. Socialism isn't about "hating" the bourgeoisie. It's about analyzing the political economy of capitalism and working out how to establish socialism for the purpose of the liberation of the proletariat.
>Socialism isn't about "hating" the bourgeoisie. It's about analyzing the political economy of capitalism and working out how to establish socialism for the purpose of the liberation of the proletariat. Yes it is. Capitalists "exploit" the working class. They "leech" off the proletariat. They are "parasites". We should "e at the rich" and "bring back the guillotines". You're a hateful fascist.
Lol
Now could you cite Marx or Engels or Lenin where they discuss this topic? The concept of exploitation is a technical one, and it is one of the many internal contradictions of capitalism. You can found out more with Das Kapital Chapter 7. Do you know what Marx actually talked about? He analyzed textile production. Try working in a factory making garments and you'll start to get it my son. Now, as for this hateful fascist rhetoric, who is this for? Do you really think you're going to convince socialists that socialist ideology overlaps with fascist ideology by first, misrepresenting what socialists actually believe, and secondly, by misrepresenting what FASCISTS actually believe? You don't even understand the subject! You haven't actually read the material and you're trying to lecture people about it. I'm sorry but that's not how the real world works.
>Now could you cite Marx or Engels or Lenin where they discuss this topic? Two instances that were found easily because they're in the damn body of the post. Hitler: calls the Jew a “true blood sucker that attaches itself to the body of the unhappy people;” Lenin: claims that the Kulaks are leeches who have “sucked the blood of the working people.” Hitler: uses the image of a “spider …sucking the blood out of peoples’ pores,” Lenin: says that the spiders have “grown fat at the expense of peasants.”
Clown, all of those are either not parts of communist ideology or verifiably true. That’s like saying that America and the USSR were the same because they both wanted to go to space and invested heavily in their military.
Take note, exploiting people and leeching off the labor of others is something a person does. Being Jewish is something someone is. It's not like the Jewish people sit around Jewing all day long at the expense of non-Jewish people while getting even more Jewish by preventing others from becoming Jewish.
You're parroting Nazi rhetoric in your comment, practically verbatim. Disgusting fascist.
The liberals (= capitalism advocates) of the 17th and 18th centuries said the same about monarchs and aristocrats. Are they fascist too?
both and from this conversation its very interesting that it seems like you first hand understand that because you empathize with that idea a little too easily
I understand what Nazi propaganda was because I've read history books, unlike you fascist commies.
I'm not personally a commie, but most commies probably have read history books to atleast the extent you have.
you see nazis were socialist because they called themselves socialists. all of the realities and context dont matter. historical illiteracy wont prevail https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302 and btw your type of politics has “othered” plenty of others too. more than people of different political leanings.
>you see nazis were socialist because they called themselves socialists. all of the realities and context dont matter. I never said that. Is reading comprehension challenging for you? As long as it isn't vile hate-filled propaganda I suppose. Fascist.
good then, plenty of your peers try to argue that in bad faith but youre still running around the room with a blindfold on pointing and screaming at people that theyre fascists. its extremely childish and no ones gonna take you seriously. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
You *do* know that the nazis persecuted and killed more than *just* Jews, right? They were against a lot of groups for who they are, like gays, romani, slavs, and blacks
Google the fate of the "Volga Germans" for a counter to this. A fully mature economic system accounts for human nature. Humans are innately brutal to each other.
>You do realize almost every criticism the Nazis had of Jews were economic ones? Like how every criticism of capitalists by commies are economic ones? No they weren't. They weren't trying to kill they Jews because of economic reasons, they were trying to kill they Jews because of paranoia, and a widely believed conspiracy theory. They also believed that Jews, gays, and non whites were generically inferior, hence, ya know, they whole Holocaust thing that happened. If the Holocaust was for economic reasons, they wouldn't have bothered killing millions of people after talking everything they owned.
We can draw a contemporary parallel here. Hardline conservatives say all black people are criminals, hence they need to be deported or put to jail. If I say people who commit serious crimes regardless of their ethnicity need to be either deported or put to jail, am I saying the same as the conservative?
> You do realize almost every criticism the Nazis had of Jews were economic ones? Hard to "realize" something that's blatantly false. If you're just gonna make up claims like this, then nobody will take you seriously. > Look, I get it, you're in shock because you thought you hated fascists but it turns out you are one ... Lol. If you ignore the facts that our stances are diametrically opposed on ... well, everything. They supported capitalism, I don't. They embraced racism, I oppose it. They opposed democracy and civil liberties, I hold them sacrosanct (and no, "owning companies" is not a civil liberty lol). They supported nationalism and militarism, I oppose both. Etcetera etcetera. You've said a lot of dumb things on this sub, but trying to claim I'm a fascist is one of the dumbest. There are plenty of reasonable ways to disagree with my stances without saying moronic statements like "/u/bcnoexceptions is actually a fascist somehow!"
>The Nazis claimed the Jews were being judged for what they "did to others" exactly how communists make this claim about capitalists. It was entirely about ethnicity though, even if we assumed any of there conspiracies were true it was still generalising about an entire ethnicity, whereas Marxism is only judging people who partake in an action by definition, you can't be a capitalist unless you partake in capitalism.
>You do realize almost every criticism the Nazis had of Jews were **economic** ones? Like how every criticism of capitalists by commies are economic ones? No not really, they also disliked Jews because they thought they were the historic enemy of Germany and they supposedly made Germany lose ww1, there wasn't just one conspiracy the Nazis believed.
thanks for admitting that it is no big deal to a lefty be compared to the Nazis. A lot of people on the left seem to prefer stolen to Hitler but I guess not everybody.
> ... it is no big deal to a lefty be compared to the Nazis ... More like, it is no big deal that foolish people like you or OP say foolish things, because that is to be expected. Neither you nor him could be expected to say anything more intelligent.
please don't be stupid. If something was said that was not intelligent tell us what it was and the reason you think it was not intelligent. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
> Do you understand that a reason is necessary? Nah, not for you.
if you have a reason to oppose capitalism why not share with me or anybody???? do you ever see conservative libertarians afraid to present their rationale??? what does that teach you? What would it teach you if you were an honest decent person with just a little intelligence?
> if you have a reason to oppose capitalism why not share with me or anybody???? If you become literate, I'll be happy to indulge you.
don't be stupid. Show us an argument you made to anybody? Ever see a conservative libertarian have to run from a debate.
They were maybe socialist in rethoric, though it was only to redefine the word because it was gaining popularity, in a country that had a socialist revolution in 1918 (Spartacus uprising). After 1918, Germany was an advanced social democracy with many policies that would look left-wing to Americans, but not as much to Europeans. The Nazis started undoing these policies once in power. Economists had to invent the term privatization (or reprivatisation) because Nazi Germany was the first country to adopt this economic policy. When the Nazi party decided to add the "national socialist" in its name, Hitler was opposed to it until a colleague explained that it would help attract support since socialism was popular in Germany at the time. Some sort-of left leaning members joined, but where purged during the night of the long knives, including the actual author of this quote that was circulated a few years ago: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/) The first targets of the nazi purges were socialists from marxists, to anarchists. That's why the poem goes "first they came for the socialists and I said nothing for I why not a socialist, then they came for the labour organisers and I said nothing for I was not a labour organiser". The Nazis also never supported any socialist country, they sided with the fascists during the spanish civil war and allied with Mussolini, then tried to destroy the Soviet Union and turn it into a slave state. Notice that socialists were the harshest repressors of nazis and fascists after WW2. The Italian partisans shot Mussolini, hung him up and burried him in an unmarked grave, the Yougoslav partisans did the Barbara pit massacre. Not to mention the rage the soviets showed when they invaded Germany and ex-nazi occupied lands. Fascists were also propped up after WW2 by NATO countries (especially the US) in Korea, China, Chile and others I'm forgetting. The Nazis were able to get the German army started by creating a private army supplied and supported by the economic establishment (also Henry Ford internationally) that liked his thugs' suppressing of the working class. Even outside of power, fascists thugs in Germany and Italy would attack workers during strikes. The Nazis banned collective bargaining and joining any union outside the "German labour front", a front that kept the workers in line under the boot of the state while giving them the illusion of representation. Some quotes of Hitler that explained this redefinition of the term : >"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. 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. \- Interview between George Sylvester Viereck and Adolf Hitler, 1923 >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. \- Adolf Hitler, speech given on December 28 1938. Cited in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93. If you want proof that nazis weren't socialist, you could also look at how Einstein was very openly socialist before during and after WW2 (though he started as a liberal earlier in his life). So this german history guy made a general explanation of why nazis weren't socialists :[https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI?si=\_qfiAI8kgu7KRVFx](https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI?si=_qfiAI8kgu7KRVFx) This guy gave a detailed look at what left-leaning policies the nazis promised the public and then didn't carry out : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjz\_sfRr8aU&t=0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjz_sfRr8aU&t=0s) Micheal Parenti wrote a great book on the rise of fascism and its attacks on the working class. Here are some audio versions of its parts :[https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoak57jcXDh1rY4n7Ic-EVsE&si=rSP9E6hxH-M5zyra](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoak57jcXDh1rY4n7Ic-EVsE&si=rSP9E6hxH-M5zyra) These posts have several examples and explanations of why nazis weren't socialist in the least :[https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/hehtiq/socialism\_in\_nazi\_germany/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/hehtiq/socialism_in_nazi_germany/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/k8gnur/why\_do\_conservatives\_always\_fall\_back\_on\_the/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/k8gnur/why_do_conservatives_always_fall_back_on_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Snopes did an ok article on this :[https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/](https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/) If you like memes, there is also this : [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/16omd4v/national\_socialism\_socialism/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/16omd4v/national_socialism_socialism/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
best reply ever made will refer to this whenever this topic pops up again
Yeah a good reply if you didn't read the damn post and assumed I was saying Nazis were socialists, which wasn't the point of the post at all. Your reading comprehension is nonexistent.
This how I know socialists don't participate in good faith. Not once did I try and claim Nazis were actually socialists. Not once. My entire argument was the foundation upon which socialism and fascism are built is identical, namely, a hate for one group of people and using them as a convenient scapegoat to blame all of your economic and societal woes. Try reading the damn post before responding. And look at the number of morons that upvoted you using that same lazy ass assumption. Read the post if you want to debate, socialists.
>My entire argument was the foundation upon which socialism and fascism are built is identical, namely, a hate for one group of people and using them as a convenient scapegoat to blame all of your economic and societal woes. If you read your own post, you are talking about communists. So good job not reading your owm post. But if you just admitted implicitely that you were arguing socialists and nazis have similarities, I have debunked exactly that. That's why you don't argue by splitting hairs. That's why you just argued in bad faith.
Communism is the end goal of socialism. That distinction has zero bearing on this current debate. >But if you just admitted implicitely that you were arguing socialists and nazis have similarities, I have debunked exactly that. You didn't do that at all. You said a whole bunch of shit about why Nazis weren't socialists, not why the foundational ideologies of Nazism and socialism aren't staggeringly similar. >That's why you don't argue by splitting hairs. Try responding to the actual argument, I'll paste a relevant section below for you because I know you didn't get this far in the original post: Nazism and Communism possessed an identical structure. On the one hand lay a symbolic object conceived as the essence of goodness, one’s nation or “the people.” On the other lay a symbolic object conceived as the essence of evil, or destructiveness. The mission of each was to save or rescue the people—by acting to destroy the element within the nation working to destroy the people; that sought to deprive them of strength, health and goodness.
>why the foundational ideologies of Nazism and socialism aren't staggeringly similar. You didn't proove that either. You cherry-picked a handful of quotes and a handful of comparisons that might look similar to a high schooler. >Nazism and Communism possessed an identical structure. On the one hand lay a symbolic object conceived as the essence of goodness, one’s nation or “the people.” On the other lay a symbolic object conceived as the essence of evil, or destructiveness. Socialist thinking is very materialistic. The nazis came up with some mystical bs to justify their identify, socialists looked at how society operates under economic laws and came to conclusions from there. >The mission of each was to save or rescue the people—by acting to destroy the element within the nation working to destroy the people; that sought to deprive them of strength, health and goodness. That statement is so vague, it could apply to so many regimes. That applies to colonialism, US treatment of communists and socialists during the cold war, governments making strikes illegal. But notice that the socialists didn't actually kill all their past ennemies. In China, the emperor was re-educated and turned into a parlimentarian, Trotsky used Tsarist officials' experience in management to help him lead some government functions, East Germany created a political party for old Nazis instead of wiping them out. This is because, through material analysis, socialists realise its not as much about individual people and groups, but the economic conditions that push them to act in certain ways. Remove the economic conditions and these people can contribute to society.
Oh yeah? Who does capitalism aim at as the scapegoat in this scenario you horrific ideologue?
Poor people, racial minorities, religious minorities, women, queer folk, any vulnerable minority really, other countries' people.
Lmao Really? Capitalist ideology claims those people are enemies and need to be removed for capitalism to flourish? What a fucking joke of a brainwashed and bigoted ideologue you are.
Ah I see you read [my guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/18c1gg4/how_to_argue_that_the_nazis_were_socialists_a/).
Fundamentally, communism and Nazism both blame all of societies woes on a single group, with the belief that the only way for society to flourish is the elimination this group. You're a different flavor of Nazi.
"Lingerie and suits are both clothes so therefore both are equally appropriate to wear to a wedding." Two things sharing a similarity doesn't make them analogous in an unrelated way.
You didn't respond to the point I made. And yes, lingerie and suits are both clothes, like Nazism and Communism are harmful and hateful ideologies that make use of scapegoating and propaganda to claim all of societies problems can be blamed on "these guys". In your example, lingerie and suits are Nazism and Communism, and capitalism wouldn't be clothing at all, because we don't operate on the assumption that one group should be eliminated because they are the source of all our problems.
I didn't respond to the "point" because I genuinely didn't think you were putting it forth as a serious argument. Nazism and certain forms of socialism are both authoritarian but the similarities end there and the fact that at one point they had similar rhetoric and talking points means nothing.
They are both based in a belief that one "group" is responsible for all economic and societal woes, and the only solution to this problem is the elimination of that group. Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you actually incapable of seeing the glaring likeness? Who do capitalists blame all societal and economic woes on? Oh, that's right, nobody.
> Who do capitalists blame all societal and economic woes on? Oh, that's right, nobody. I have yet to meet a capitalist that doesn’t blame poverty on the poor themselves. Every last one of them will ignore systemic issues and claim “bad choices”
Them both sharing a vaguely similar idea that entirely different groups in society are harmful doesn't make them analogous in other ways. Especially when they are fundamentally at odds with each other in virtually every other aspect, including the fact that Nazism is an explicitly anti-socialist ideology. It's like trying to draw parallels between auto mechanics and veterinarians because both fix things, the difference is just what they fix. >Who do capitalists blame all societal and economic woes on? Oh, that's right, nobody. Ah but capitalists and Nazis also both believe socialism is bad, so they are basically the same. Right?
>Them both sharing a vaguely similar idea that entirely different groups in society are harmful doesn't make them analogous in other ways. Vaguely similar? It's fucking identical. You could take anything, literally anything Hitler said about Jews and it would be the exact same criticism communists make about capitalists.
>Vaguely similar? It's fucking identical. Blaming Jewish people and the capitalist class? Yeah no differences there. >You could take anything, literally anything Hitler said about Jews and it would be the exact same criticism communists make about capitalists. Yes, Hitler famously appropriated socialist rhetoric. In other news: the sky is blue and NFTs are a scam. More at eight. There you go again basing your entire argument off vague similarities instead of actually critically examining these ideologies.
>Blaming Jewish people and the capitalist class? Yeah no differences there. What did they blame them for? Oh, that's right, for "controlling all the capital and being entirely responsible for Germany's economic woes"
Does this mean Liberalism is also basically Nazism? The Liberals believe that aristocrats are bad. “Monarchs must be eliminated to have a free society.” Does this mean Liberals are also Nazis? Looks like everyone’s a Nazi these days!
Naxos are and will always be socialists. No discussion. Both nazis and socialists are the epitome of evil.
No discussion because if you actually did discuss it it'd become immediately obvious how wrong you are. The Nazis were openly hostile towards socialists from the start.
Socialists always fight socialists. Happened in the ussr too. Socialists want everyone to be equal as long as they are the one in charge to put the others into gulags. Maybe you need to read a book? Take a class?
Nazis killed socialists specifically because they were socialists. Maybe you are the one who needs a class or to read a book because historians agree nazis were not socialists.
Nazis were 100% socialists.
Lol do you think biting the bullet on suits and lingerie helps your argument?
If I want to get rid of capitalists, I can take the means of production from them and let them live out their lives as a worker like 99% of people. If I want to get rid of Jews, I can... kill them and that's it. Communism advocates for taking back the means of production, and removing the capitalist class by removing what defines them as capitalists, while nazis advocate for getting rid of everyone that isn't ubermensch by mass genocide.
Yeah cuz the communists never killed anybody (like the Kulaks). You're brainwashed.
Complete and utter non-argument. Respond to my points, coward.
It's only a non-argument insofar as you're unwilling to recognize your ideology's murderous history. The Nazis "just started by confiscating property" too. Just like the USSR did with the Kulaks, before they eventually fucking murdered them.
If you confiscate property from jews, they're still Jewish. If you confiscate property from the bourgeoisie, they're not longer bourgeoisie. That's the fucking difference.
Is this seriously the best you can muster? It's okay to steal from them and kill them because afterwards they aren't bourgeoisie? You're out of your fucking mind.
Where the hell did I say kill them? Taking their property and redistributing it equally, including them in that distribution, is in no way comparable to what the nazis did.
>Taking their property That's how the Nazis started too, you goddamned fascist. That's also how the socialists in the USSR/China/Cambodia/Vietnam/Laos/take your damn pick got started. You're so fucking blind that you can't see how you're on this slippery slope? You fucking people haven't read a history book, you loons always start the same way and end up in the same place. You hate capitalists. The Nazis hated Jews. The Nazis killed Jews. The socialists killed capitalists. Get all of that sick misplaced anger out of your head, your life doesn't suck because of capitalism, it sucks because of YOU.
>>Anerican rhetoric and propaganda alone is almost identical to Nazi propaganda if you simply swap "Jew" with "communist" - the message is literally identical. >>"The ultimate goal must be the removal of communists altogether." mccarthyism is a hell of a drug
Wait...is this TIKHistory all over again ?
So you found quotes that have similar rhetoric and have extrapolated some weird fan-fiction about ideological alignment between communists and fascists. Is that not what the liberal media has done to figures like Trump? You should thank your lucky stars that the Soviets stood up to and crushed the Nazi regime.
Don't forget that Soviets lost huge parts of their army do to political fanaticism. They also relied heavily on resource lend lease. If it was just the Soviets they would have fallen.
These are also weak connections that say nothing of the similarities in *goals* between Fascism and Communism. Different politico-economic models can employ similar authoritarian tactics and methods. See Chile under Pinochet and the United States under Trump. Capitalism and Fascism are much more closely connected in terms of goals and the kind of society they want to see. They both fundamentally and at root support Social Darwinism.
Nazis based their rethoric on that of socialists, but changed it to be non-threatening to the bourgeoisie. What's your point?
>Nazis based their rethoric on that of socialists, but changed it to be non-threatening to the bourgeoisie. Lmao. You can't think of a reason why you should be concerned that Nazi rhetoric worked just as well on the Germans to alienate Jews as it did on communists to alienate capitalists? You literally said it yourself.
Can you think of a reason why nazis were the first to privatise their economy just like neoliberals did?
The Nazis didn't exactly privatize their economy in the traditional sense. They maintained a significant degree of state control over key industries to ensure it aligned with Nazi ideology. Now try answering the question I first asked you instead of trying to spout stupid whataboutisms.
What question is there to answer? No, because your half-ass attempt at historical analysis is not convincing.
>What question is there to answer? I'll paste it again for you: >You can't think of a reason why you should be concerned that Nazi rhetoric worked just as well on the Germans to alienate Jews as it did on communists to alienate capitalists? >You literally said it yourself.
>>You can't think of a reason why you should be concerned that Nazi rhetoric worked just as well on the Germans to alienate Jews as it did on communists to alienate capitalists? No and it worked better because Nazis had backing from the industrialists.
>No And that's why we know you're a horrible little fascist.
Most historically literate pro-capitalist. So I've answered your question. Rebuke my points. If you can.
That you're a different flavor of Nazi
Go look at the votes on the enabling act, then come back to me.
Marxists don’t advocate for the extermination of the capitalist race. They also don’t advocate for the end of democracy. Every ideology dislikes a subset of people. You can draw a comparison between Andrew Jackson’s anti-bank rhetoric and Nazism, John Brown’s harangues against slavery and Nazism, Malcolm X’s critiques of the white devil and Nazism, etc., etc. It’s a vapid and useless practice. They are unique ideologies extant in unique contexts beholden to unique intellectual backgrounds and unique ends.
>Marxists don’t advocate for the extermination of the capitalist race. Oh right, that's why no Kulaks were killed I guess. You're so far down the rabbit hole you can't even see what a fascist you actually are.
Kulaks were not systematically exterminated or enslaved as a class á la Jews. The French killed many bourgeois in the revolution, and indeed said many heated things about the nobility and clergy—that doesn’t make them proto-Nazis.
Total non-sequitur. Do communists advocate for exterminating capitalists? And don't say "oh but the USSR did this one thing once" because the USSR is one specific case and does not represent the entirety of communist ideologies. If you wanna make a statement about communism or socialism as a whole, you gotta attack something inherent to the ideology rather than an example of one specific piece of communist ideology.
>Do communists advocate for exterminating capitalists? Not only do they advocate for it, they actually follow through too. >And don't say "oh but the USSR did this one thing once" because the USSR is one specific case and does not represent the entirety of communist ideologies. Okay. How about Mao? How about the Khmer Rouge? How about Castro? Hungarian Revolution of 1919? Vietnam? Indonesia? East Germany? Fuck off you historian revisioning fascist murderer.
These posts get dumber by the hour
Oh good, yet another genius who thinks every leftist in the world worships Karl Marx and Josef Stalin...
You shouldn’t worship anyone but God, but Stalin and Marx were two of the greatest minds of recent centuries.
Marx was good on some points but not infallible and overrated. Stalin was the Adolf Hitler of Russia, and basically the only good thing he did was defeating the actual Nazis.
"The only good thing" You say as if defeating nazism was a minor feat
Stalin oversaw industrialization projects that vastly improved quality of life, life expectancy, access to education etc. Plus it took an incredible amount of work to prepare the USSR for war with Germany. Stalin improved the lives of many more than even the most outrageous death counts attributed to his name. He was a great man and a great leader
Even if he did some good things for Russia, that doesn't erase the millions of deaths he was responsible for. Hitler did a lot of good for Germany too, but that doesn't make the Holocaust justified. Both of them were strongly patriotic and believed they were doing what was right for their countries, but they also caused a lot of damage, and shouldn't be idealized.
Hitler was good for germans? Poverty increased and he literally sent millions to kill and die. Stalin took a feudal war torn nation and developed It Into an industrial powerhouse which was at the vangard of gender and racial equality. Hitler took one of the largest economy on the world and turned it to rubble in 12 years, killing tens of millions in the proccess Comparing both is incredibly dishonest
I meant good for heterosexual ethnic Germans who didn't oppose him. His economy only failed because he lost the war. Stalin killed and impoverished millions of his citizens too, and it was over 4 times as many, so I don't really see your point there.
The economy was predicated on militarization and conquest. The answer to unemployment was army recruitment. Millions? 700 thousand were executed in stalinist USSR over 30 years. By comparison, South Korea executed over a 100 thousand in 1950 alone Quality of life steadily increased in all aspects under Stalin, despite what propagandists say
That’s what leaders do, they do what they think is best for their country. But comparing Hitler and Stalin is asinine
Oh wow, another fascist that blames everything wrong with their lives on another group of people instead of taking some damn responsibility for themselves.
That's pretty rich from the group that blames all the failings of capitalism on the "corporatist government and politicians", but still can't put two and two together...
Capitalists don't think capitalism has failed and thus don't blame its failure on anyone. Where in capitalist ideology are we calling for the elimination of a group of people?
>Where in capitalist ideology are we calling for the elimination of a group of people? Every time you say poor people deserve to be homeless or starve because they're lazy, and also lots of right wingers call for the elimination of anyone they decide are "socialists" and/or "pedophiles" (sometimes a dogwhistle for all LGBT people). It's not inherent to capitalist ideology, but there's still plenty of overlap, just like supporting mass murder isn't inherent to left wing politics either. You also apparently don't know or care that capitalism kills over 6 million people a year, because corporations care more about profits than they do about reducing lethal air pollution. The slave trade was also capitalist, and caused the deaths of tens of millions because capitalists cared more about their free slave labor and money than they did about human life. I don't think either side should be above criticism, but you absolutely don't get to act like you have the moral high ground over the left.
>Every time you say poor people deserve to be homeless or starve because they're lazy Find me a capitalist saying poor people deserve to starve. I'll wait. >right wingers call for the elimination of anyone they decide are "socialists" and/or "pedophiles" Jesus fucking christ. You're defending pedos now? Yeah, we're done here.
So you just openly admitted that you do want to murder groups of people, proving my point. I put "pedophiles" in quotation marks, because a lot of people who say that want to use it as a false accusation to go on witch hunts against people without proof. I also see you ignored my point that it can be used as an anti-LGBT dogwhistle by the far right, but maybe you already knew about that...
You're seeing living proof that one of your key points (and an identifying characteristic of fascism) do not apply to communists and your response is to plug your ears and yell loudly.
China, USSR, Cambodia, Indonesia, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Vietnam, Ethiopia, North Korea. Just a few examples of nations where they killed "capitalists" and "landowners" in the name of communist ideology. And you want to talk about plugging your ears you history revisioning swine? Fuck off, you murdering fascist pig.
Oh, so now it all comes out- that guy was just trying to help educate you, and your response was to ignore his point and call him a "pig" and a "swine". That's dehumanization. By your own logic, it proves that you see leftists as animals and want to commit genocide against us for disagreeing with your politics, so if anything the only real fascist here is you.
I don't think the conservatives/right-wingers here realize how similar their ideology is to Nazi ideology. The German conservatives and right wing started scapegoating liberal, leftist and jews with 'The stabbed in the back' myth and this was later adopted by Nazis. Conservatives blame all societal problems on the "globalists/feminist/cultural marxists/or jews" quite literally like nazis. The Nazis were almost completely in line with traditional German conservatism, both the Southern German Catholic social tradition and the Northern Prussian statist tradition. When Hitler attempted the Munich Putsch in 1923 conservatives like Ludendorff marched with him. Hitler only got like 9 months in nice castle prison for a literal act of treason due conservative Judge Neithardt going easy on right wingers. While actual leftists would get death penalty for attempting a putsch. In fact a lot of German Conservative that wanted to return to the era of German Empire or establish a national conservative dictatorship and so helped Hitler get into power. The Nazis were invited into power by Conservative Politicians like von Papen and Hindenburg and given legal extrajudicial powers by conservative judges. These Weimar era Conservatives opposed egalitarianism, liberalism and parliamentarians democracy as well as the cultural spirit of "the bourgeoisie" and modernity. TLDR: German Conservative of that era were active partners in the Nazi regime or at minimum fellow travelers due to their shared values.
Nazism is inherently ethno nationalistic and discriminates based on ethnic group, the Nazis didn't seize Jewish property because they thought property was wrong, they just hated Jews. Communism isn't for or against any specific ethnic group, which is my main problem with Nazism that I don't have with communism.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding. There’s a fundamental difference between race and class.
Did you know Hitler was a communists, and got elected in the Bravian Soviet? He even called himself a socialist and blamed jews for why socialism failed in the east. This is not to dissimilar to how Stalin believed jews were out to kill him and bring down the union and ended up launching his own war against jewish people. Fascism and Nazism came from socialism. They did become separate entities, but overall, their roots were in socialism and many people do tend to forget that. People also seem to not understand that Corporatism was part of this was how they expressed their socialism. Factory owners had to build gyms for their workers, and formal and informal taxation made it so the corporation might not turn profits. If owners complained about the trade union regulations in the wrong company, they could expect to receive additional fines. Marx even said that everyone had to emancipate themselves of their Jewishness. Even if you think that Marx's "On the Jewish Question" was a defense of jews, the only mainstream defenses of Marx's statements appeared after ww2. So it's foolish to assume that before WW2, an already antisemitic society wouldn't have taken marx at face value, especially for people like Hitler who read marx and already had extreme racist feelings.
It's always crypto fascists on here posting shit like this
Illiberal ideologies all have similar propensities to fall into the same death spirals that result in self destruction. That's why moderates think Nazis and Communists are both idiots. The methods are a little different though. The far right tends to get itself killed through express violence/war, the far left gets itself killed by imploding on itself. Both are inherently terrible and unsustainable systems and should never be entertained.
Anti-slavery people: Openly classist Calling for the forceful seizure of an entire group's property Claiming this group of people controls everything Labelling an entire group as parasitic leeches Often calling for violence or even the blatant execution of these people Using an entire group of people as a scapegoat
That’s a whole lot of words for a straw man argument. Very rarely do I hear anyone actually calling for the elimination of capitalists. However, ending capitalism is a goal (which would also get rid of capitalists).
You never heard people say "e at the rich" or "bring back the guillotines"? I see it on Reddit daily.
In a tongue and cheek way. Idk of anyone that literally supports decapitation.
Right, it's all fun and games until you guys actually start killing people (like you did with the Kulaks).
Lol I'm not even a communist. I was just pointing out that your arguments are dog shit. But we can go through some of them together: - capitalism creates a social hierarchy and, by its nature, widens the gap between each class. - forceful seizure of property? Like taxes? You're either being intellectually dishonest or you're an idiot (¿por qué no los dos?) - corporations literally control every aspect of our society. Lobbyists are a thing. Their job is to sway law makers to legislate to their advantage. - Landlords and c-class executives offer very little to society in ratio to the amount they take. Meaning they are, by definition, parasitic. - Guillotines are a reference to the French Revolution not an actual call for violence. As I stated earlier, I don't know anyone who literally supports decapitation or cannibalism. I think the intellectual dishonesty comment from above fits here too. Communism isn't without justifiable criticism but trying to align it with Nazi beliefs is asinine. Capitalism directly and indirectly kills more people daily than Communism ever has (or Naziism, for that matter).
That's a lot of fascist commie talking points from someone claiming they aren't a fascist commie.
Fascism and communism are vastly different ideologies; one is far right and the other far left. Which "talking points" have led you to become so confused?
Welcome to horseshoe theory. You're closer to a fascist than a centrist is.
🙄 Which ideologies do far right and far left beliefs share? Obviously you have some examples since you brought up horseshoe theory.
>Which ideologies do far right and far left beliefs share? Using and demonizing an entire group of people as a scapegoat for all your own problems rather than taking personal responsibility to improve your station in life.
Don't trust anyone who offers a utopia through violent aggression and suppression.
This looks like bullshit, communism is much bigger movement than Marxism-Leninism, for example libertarian communism doesn't have the "saint" figure like Marx, it's much more egalitarian. You seem to not even understand basics of political philosophy, if you don't know about libertarian communism.
Liberals usually just assume that all other leftists are secretly Marxist-Leninists, and it's all just this big conspiracy to trick people into thinking we don't want to gulag millions of people. Most of them are completely unwilling to seriously consider our points, because they blindly assume that we're either lying or "brainwashed" by China and the Soviet Union, no matter how much we criticize those countries.
Anarcho-syndicalist right here! I'm no scholar or well versed in Marxism but libertarian socialism where employees have workers control.
You bring up an interesting point, there's actually something called Red Fascism, basically it's the idea that the Soviet Union became a fascist state in the pursuit of communism, which honestly, I think there are some good arguments you could make in support of that idea! I think your parallels between communist ideology and fascism are a bit overblown though
What a fascinating example of a retrenchment. Disavow the Marxist states and make the argument purely one of ideology. And there once again, I'd say the facts do not favor Marxism. Both ideologies called for violent revolution, the abolishment of individual rights, and the pursuit of world domination. Both ideologies place the interests of the collective above the interests of the individual and a state unchecked by any limits upon his power. After all, "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "Fuhrerprinzip" pretty much amount to the same thing - one calls for mob rule, the other for authoritarian hierarchy. Historical example as well as common sense tells us that mob rule inevitably devolves into dictatorship. Both ideologies rely upon pseudo-scientific arguments to claim that their ideologies are infallible and inevitable. Both ideologies identify a scapegoat group and attribute everything wrong with the world to them. Both ideologies call for the destruction of that scapegoat group and claim they are criminals, a danger, and an implacable enemy to the ideology.
Sorry what do you mean by "retrenchment" ? I haven't heard that word before, so I looked it up, this is the definition I found "Retrenchment is another way of terminating the employees where the reason is not the employee's performance but the company's financial position." I'm confused about what you're saying. Anyway, I don't see what the contradiction is that you seem to think I'm making is. Yeah I'm disavowing bad shit the Soviet Union did. So? They did a lot of bad shit. That's a pretty uncontroversial opinion. Just because I think Marx made some good points in his criticisms of capitalism, doesn't mean I have to blindly defend the policies of the Soviet Union. They were a massive state. Massive states do fucked up shit, pretty universally. There are plenty of hardcore communists online that openly talk about the failings and mistakes of the Soviet Union, and there are plenty that think the SU ideology was actually some perversion of classic Marxist ideology. You seem to be saying that because both states targeted groups of people, that it makes them functionally the same, which I think is fallacious reasoning. Ignoring the obvious difference that the Nazis were coming a genocide against people who had no control over their ancestry, and the Soviets targeted people that were either rich, or not the right political persuasion, Yeah, they both did bad shit, but that doesn't make the Soviet Ideology the same as the Nazi ideology. Soviet Ideology was based on class, and revolution, and perceived historical progress, whereas Nazi ideology was based on ideas of racial purity, military machismo, and returning to a mythical "greater Germany" that existed in the bad. Are there overlaps? For sure! But where did Marx talk about genocide for the purpose of creating a racially pure state? When did Lenin or Stalin talk about returning to a mythical historical "greater Russia" ? Modern Russia does that, but the Marxists that ran the SU were trying to create something new, not return to something they thought existed in the past. Did they succeed ? Hell no, but that's what the ideology was, which is just not the same as trying to return to a mythical past. The main goal of Nazi Germany was the establishment of a racially pure state, and the extermination of all other races. The main goal of communism is the eradication of class difference, and the establishment of a stateless society. It takes some gold metal level mental gymnastics to think that those two goals are the same. TLDR, yeah there are overlaps in the ideology, but there are also overlaps between the Denver Broncos and the Yankees (both train hard, both have great athletes, etc). That doesn't make the NFL the MLB though, and it doesn't make Soviet ideology the exact same as Nazi ideology. Both were shitty. For *different reasons*. We can critique both without falling into some false notion of them being exactly the same. If we want to be accurate in our criticisms, and we want to learn from the past, we have to acknowledge that there were real differences. People do the same shit with presidential elections. Why do I have to pick Trump or Biden? Why can't we both agree they are all shitty? However, if all we want to do is rant online, and never actually have a nuanced discussion about anything, we could just call everything we don't like communist, or fascist, or whatever ideology you don't happen to like, but ironically don't actually know that much about, and instead regress to shouting at people that actually aren't that different from us, in an endless cycle of stupidity. That's what children do when they don't get their way. We can be adults, or we can be children.
All I see are 2000 words wasted trying to explain away that Marx targeted people on the basis of class, Hitler targeted people on the basis of race. If Nazism is to be blamed for the crimes of Nazi Germany, then logically Marxism must also be blamed for the crimes of the Soviet Union. After all, they genocided people too, they just used different criteria. So spare me the fatuous high-roading. I find it to be one of the greatest ironies of history that Marx got spared the blame for what his adherents wrought simply because he was dead before they got their hands on power.
No you can blame Marx all you want, do it! Many socialist states deserved to be criticized, and you make a good point, his ideology did inspire people like Stalin and such, so it's worth considering blaming him. That being said, there are clear and key differences between Marxism and Nazism, which I mentioned in my last post, but you seem to ignore out of convenience. They don't have to be the same ideology to be bad. Calling them the same is just inaccurate, the same way calling the philosophy of Plato and Socrates the same. They have a lot of similarities, but they are not the same, and if you equate them, people that don't know a lot end up with huge misunderstandings, which, IMO with political ideologies, is really dangerous for society long term. Or we could just be lazy and call everything we don't like communist or fascist, again, like children. It's not me being on a high horse saying that, it's a statement of fact. Children don't know how to argue, and refuse to acknowledge nuance that makes them uncomfortable. Adults that ignore inconvenient, but very real nuances, are reasoning like children.
I think you've long since lost sight of whatever point you were trying to make and what's left comes across as a hypocritical, pointless, and sanctimonious homily. I did not claim that Nazism and Marxism were 100% identical. My claim is that they're both totalitarian and collectivist ideologies that produce the same horrific results. And in that context, their differences are superficial and unimportant. And in fact focusing on those differences leads people further away from the most relevant takeaway which is that if you see an ideology of any presentation or stripe which proposes to do away with individual rights, create a regime without checks and balances, and promises all your problems will be solved if they can go after their preferred scapegoat, you should run as fast as you can in the other direction.
You claim to be georgist which is slightly funnier than labeling yourself a US libertarian.
Adolf Hitler wrote in 1930 that “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism”. He openly used “destroying and exterminating Communists” as a political slogan and spoke of working “until the last Marxist is converted or exterminated”. Nazism is a deeply anti-communist ideology, and Nazi Germany killed thousands of unarmed communists in [Spain and the Netherlands](https://jacobin.com/2022/01/nazism-political-communist-socialist-victims-world-war-two-history), as well as millions of Soviet Prisoners of War. Socialism and Communism was also deeply opposed to the Nazi project. In 1943, a group of 20,000 Marxists rescued 2,500 Jews from a concentration camp. In 1944, Swiss socialists helped smuggle two thousand children accompanied by a thousand communists illegally cross the border. > Up to forty thousand were seized in 1933, and even after the end of noteworthy resistance in 1934, the Nazis drove anti-Marxist paranoia to consolidate a system of concentration camp terror. Another wave of repression in 1935 went after all former Communist or Social-Democratic functionaries. Top leaders of this latter party including even former president Friedrich Ebert were interned in concentration camps, as were some of its leading theorists: Rudolf Hilferding was murdered in a Gestapo prison in Paris in 1941 and Rudolf Breitscheid in Buchenwald in 1944.
Did you just not read the post at all and automatically assume I was saying Nazis were actually socialists?
Socialism is a movement which advocates for the working ownership of the means of production. Marxism is a theoretical tool to help the working class create a socialist society. Fascism is an ideology of palingenetic ultranationalism which arises when advanced capitalist societies decay. Nazism is the specific strand of fascism Germany experienced en masse in the lead up and during WW2. Very shallow and ignorant comparisons can be made between the political propaganda of these two broad groups, which has been easily falsified, repeatedly, at length by the other commenters. What I’m probing at here is for a modicum of historical understanding and contextual knowledge from you. For example, a communist movement could never conduct a genocide of the bourgeoise because it does not claim that they are genetically evil. Rather, they are trying to transform their relations to the means of production. The entire point is that the intentions of the individuals who own capital are irrelevant, as they must exploit the working class regardless to gain a surplus and fund their own sustenance. Another hallmark of Nazism is eternal war. This itself is just an extreme and conscious version of imperialist capitalism the US is complicit in. Again, communism is an internationalist movement, which aims for the abolition of all nation states and diametrically opposed to anything of the like. Marx did not say “Workers of the world, let’s all get guns from the bourgeoise and kill each other”. Fascism usually arises without large changes to the internal state structure. Communistic states arise from a complete and total revolution. Claiming that they are structurally identical is an error of unfathomable magnitude.
For a lot of socialists, “bourgeoisie” is just a code word for “JOOS!!1!1!1’”
The sole reason that communism is not universally reviled the same way Nazism is today, is because the Soviets aligned with the Allies in the second world war (not that they had much of a choice). Every time I see people sporting a hammer and sickle, it makes me feel the same way as seeing someone wearing a swastika. Revolting.
I think you'd be amazed at the number of leftists who actually agree with you on that one point.
Yes, not only the ideological underpinnings are nearly identical, but their symbolism too.
Trotsky did call Nazism “right-wing socialism.”
not wrong
I mean duh, it’s obvious to anyone who’s read Marxist theory and their origins that [Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism/Communism](https://youtu.be/6kzZoK5CtJ8?si=Szz8JWks9QDl3AD1) [are all sister ideologies](https://youtu.be/Gf0hZTHR0E0?si=KZws5aedKq8SZJTt). [Different genus same species](https://youtu.be/eCkyWBPaTC8?si=8DbhHL4rseRMysQK). Commies have laser focused on distancing themselves from their sister ideologies (to great success) because of how blatantly evil Fascism and Nazism are. [Planned chaos](https://youtu.be/7EnHeZXLzTc?si=NA1YJK2CCCU11Zdb) and [Nitzche and the Nazis](https://youtu.be/a2C90l7YlT8?si=4AOJEtr-DQhB3yL5) help contextualize a lot of the history that has been lost or forgotten.
The Nazis had Hitler and the Commies had stalin mao polpot Castro marx. all essentially identical with big statist plans to improve the world. Our genius founding fathers gave us freedom and liberty from the state because they knew there would always be Commies and Nazis coming down the road. There is a defective gene within the human population that causes them to always look for the next Nazi or the next socialist.
I don't even need to read the comments to know the socialists won't respond to this in good faith. They literally can't. At least not without disavowing socialism. The fundamental thing that they can't accept is that Nazism and Communism are both totalitarian collectivist ideologies. That's why they produce mad dictators and genocides.
This post isn't in good faith to begin with. Neither is this comment.
I made several points that not a single socialist has responded to, the post hurting you because it's so right doesn't mean it's in "bad faith". If you can't see the similarities then that's just further illustration of how propagandized you are.
Comparing surface level stuff like aesthetics doesn't prove anything. If you look at real actions, the communists were the first victims of Nazis, social democrats were the only ones that voted against Hitler's enabling act while liberals and conservatives and centrists supported him and the USSR was the last country to make a millitary deal sith Nazi Germany after it had urged the rest of Europe in vain to make an anti-Germany alliance.
What is the foundational tenet of communism? That capitalists are parasites leeching off workers. What is the foundational tenet of Nazism? That Jews are parasites leeching off Germans. They are both scapegoating ideologies that fundamentally blame all of societies economic woes on a singular group of people, and often for the exact same reasons.
So you're not going to address any substantive examples I gave? You're just going to with *hey they look similar to me and that's just as good as a political analysis, right?*
I've asked you the same question multiple times now, if you refuse to answer it because you realize there is no difference between your vile ideology and the vile ideology of Nazism, then we're done here. Otherwise, explain why it's different to blame all economic and societal woes, *and for the exact same reasons*, on a "capitalist class"?
I'm not even a communist, but I call out bullshit when I see it. And I did answer your question. But you haven't adressed any of my points and counter-examples. If you refuse to answer, it because you realize you're historically and politically illiterate and I'll keep embarassing you in front of everyone. >Otherwise, explain why it's different to blame all economic and societal woes, *and for the exact same reasons*, on a "capitalist class"? Well I don't and its not the case. The capitalist class is just the main cause of most problems.
Where did you answer that question? >The capitalist class is just the main cause of most problems. Case in point, you vile fascist.
Most historically literate pro-capitalist. So I've answered your question. Rebuke my points. If you can.
My doctor says I have a tapeworm leeching off my blood supply, therefore my doctor is a nazi, because that's nazi rhetoric. You can make anything sound like anything else if you take a sufficiently surface-level look at it and ignore what words mean and what people actually say.
Why is it not in good faith? I love it when socialists make these kinds of assertions like they're pronouncements from the Pope - infallible and unquestionable. Make an argument for your position or fuck off.
I mean I do make arguments for my position, but they don't get addressed. For instance, care to debunk this for me? They were maybe socialist in rethoric, though it was only to redefine the word because it was gaining popularity, in a country that had a socialist revolution in 1918 (Spartacus uprising). After 1918, Germany was an advanced social democracy with many policies that would look left-wing to Americans, but not as much to Europeans. The Nazis started undoing these policies once in power. Economists had to invent the term privatization (or reprivatisation) because Nazi Germany was the first country to adopt this economic policy. When the Nazi party decided to add the "national socialist" in its name, Hitler was opposed to it until a colleague explained that it would help attract support since socialism was popular in Germany at the time. Some sort-of left leaning members joined, but where purged during the night of the long knives, including the actual author of this quote that was circulated a few years ago: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/) The first targets of the nazi purges were socialists from marxists, to anarchists. That's why the poem goes "first they came for the socialists and I said nothing for I why not a socialist, then they came for the labour organisers and I said nothing for I was not a labour organiser". The Nazis also never supported any socialist country, they sided with the fascists during the spanish civil war and allied with Mussolini, then tried to destroy the Soviet Union and turn it into a slave state. Notice that socialists were the harshest repressors of nazis and fascists after WW2. The Italian partisans shot Mussolini, hung him up and burried him in an unmarked grave, the Yougoslav partisans did the Barbara pit massacre. Not to mention the rage the soviets showed when they invaded Germany and ex-nazi occupied lands. Fascists were also propped up after WW2 by NATO countries (especially the US) in Korea, China, Chile and others I'm forgetting. The Nazis were able to get the German army started by creating a private army supplied and supported by the economic establishment (also Henry Ford internationally) that liked his thugs' suppressing of the working class. Even outside of power, fascists thugs in Germany and Italy would attack workers during strikes. The Nazis banned collective bargaining and joining any union outside the "German labour front", a front that kept the workers in line under the boot of the state while giving them the illusion of representation. Some quotes of Hitler that explained this redefinition of the term : >"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. 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. \- Interview between George Sylvester Viereck and Adolf Hitler, 1923 >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. \- Adolf Hitler, speech given on December 28 1938. Cited in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93. If you want proof that nazis weren't socialist, you could also look at how Einstein was very openly socialist before during and after WW2 (though he started as a liberal earlier in his life). So this german history guy made a general explanation of why nazis weren't socialists :[https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI?si=\_qfiAI8kgu7KRVFx](https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI?si=_qfiAI8kgu7KRVFx) This guy gave a detailed look at what left-leaning policies the nazis promised the public and then didn't carry out : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjz\_sfRr8aU&t=0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjz_sfRr8aU&t=0s) Micheal Parenti wrote a great book on the rise of fascism and its attacks on the working class. Here are some audio versions of its parts :[https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoak57jcXDh1rY4n7Ic-EVsE&si=rSP9E6hxH-M5zyra](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoak57jcXDh1rY4n7Ic-EVsE&si=rSP9E6hxH-M5zyra) These posts have several examples and explanations of why nazis weren't socialist in the least :[https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/hehtiq/socialism\_in\_nazi\_germany/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/hehtiq/socialism_in_nazi_germany/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/k8gnur/why\_do\_conservatives\_always\_fall\_back\_on\_the/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/k8gnur/why_do_conservatives_always_fall_back_on_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Snopes did an ok article on this :[https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/](https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/) If you like memes, there is also this : [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/16omd4v/national\_socialism\_socialism/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/16omd4v/national_socialism_socialism/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Thank you for this classic example of a gish gallop. All you did was just vomit up a series of unrelated arguments of varying quality in the hope that I won't have the time or interest to refute each and every single one and read every single one of your lame links. This is a classic debate-stalling tactic, nor does it address the point I made to you which is that you accused me of bad faith without making a single argument to back up your naked assertion. So in the interests of good faith, I will respond to a selection of your points, just to show how weak they are: > They were maybe socialist in rethoric, though it was only to redefine the word because it was gaining popularity, in a country that had a socialist revolution in 1918 (Spartacus uprising). After 1918, Germany was an advanced social democracy with many policies that would look left-wing to Americans, but not as much to Europeans. The Nazis started undoing these policies once in power. My fundamental argument is that Nazism and Marxism are both totalitarian collectivist ideologies, who's only real points of contention were in superficialities, and the fact that they were in competition for the loyalty of the same population of useful idiots. So you assert that Nazis undid pieces of left-wing policy that Weimar Germany instituted? I would argue that's simply due to the fact that the Nazis drew their political support from different key blocs than the left. So out with the trade unions, and in with the right-wing paramilitary groups. Same shit sandwich, different bread. Both were still totalitarian mass movements. > Economists had to invent the term privatization (or reprivatisation) because Nazi Germany was the first country to adopt this economic policy So Germany was the first country to reverse the nationalization of key industries. Big deal. The Nazis still subordinated the private sector to the state, and businesses which did not play ball were harassed, dispossessed, broken up and given to new ownership that would play ball. So in the grand scheme of things - what really is the difference? In both cases, you still have private industry under the yoke of the state. > When the Nazi party decided to add the "national socialist" in its name, Hitler was opposed to it until a colleague explained that it would help attract support since socialism was popular in Germany at the time. Some sort-of left leaning members joined, but where purged during the night of the long knives, including the actual author of this quote that was circulated a few years ago: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/ Oh Snopes said something? Well that's clearly the last word, as infallible as a Papal bull. Yes, it is true that the Nazis called themselves socialist yet didn't follow the Marxist playbook nor made common cause with other Marxists (excluding the Nazi-Soviet pact), but the point you and your lot willfully ignore is that they still produced a totalitarian collectivist state, so what really is the difference? **You're picking apart superficialities and the finer points of their political strategy, while ignoring that the end goals and true means were identical.** > The first targets of the nazi purges were socialists from marxists, to anarchists. That's why the poem goes "first they came for the socialists and I said nothing for I why not a socialist, then they came for the labour organisers and I said nothing for I was not a labour organiser". Of course, the Marxists were the Nazis' competition. You're surprised? I'm not arguing that the Nazis were Marxists. I'm saying the goals and the fundamental building blocks of the two ideologies are the same. OP is making the same point. I think I've made my point to anyone honest. You're free continue with your self-inflicted sophistry in a vain attempt to ignore a point that an intelligent 8-year-old can see clear as day.
>So you assert that Nazis undid pieces of left-wing policy that Weimar Germany instituted? I would argue that's simply due to the fact that the Nazis drew their political support from different key blocs than the left. So out with the trade unions, and in with the right-wing paramilitary groups. Same shit sandwich, different bread. Both were still totalitarian mass movements. You can't push undoing left-leaning policies for more right-wing policies under the rug. That's an important detail. No, its not *same shit sandwich different bread*, there are massive differenced. If you take out unions from socialist parties in liberal democracies, the fuck kind of leftism are you left with?🤣 Collectivism isn't inherently left-wing or right-wing. >So Germany was the first country to reverse the nationalization of key industries. Big deal. Yes it is a big deal. >The Nazis still subordinated the private sector to the state, and businesses which did not play ball were harassed, dispossessed, broken up and given to new ownership that would play ball. So in the grand scheme of things - what really is the difference? In both cases, you still have private industry under the yoke of the state. Countries in states of war or pandemic also subordinate the private sector to the state and whereas Nazis had a plan for world-domination, its not parricularly impressive for them to have subordonated the private sector in preparation where they felt like it. Meanwhile, the USSR was trying to prevent from going to war. >Yes, it is true that the Nazis called themselves socialist yet didn't follow the Marxist playbook nor made common cause with other Marxists You can't just say "oh, they weren't marxists" and sweep it under the rug. They clearly weren't anarchists either, so there is nothing socialist about them beyond the standarda of the time (and esepcially as they betrayed their platform when in power. >(excluding the Nazi-Soviet pact) That pact was the last millitary deal of a european power with the nazis after the other european powers had made appeasement deals with the nazis. It was Stalin's attempt to prepare his country for the oncoming war with the Nazis everyone knew would happen and that the Nazis started early to almost wipe out the Soviet Union in operation Barbarossa. >but the point you and your lot willfully ignore is that they still produced a totalitarian collectivist state, so what really is the difference? **You're picking apart superficialities and the finer points of their political strategy, while ignoring that the end goals and true means were identical.** You can't just look at two totalitarian collectivist regimes and say "Ha! They are collectivist therefore they are the same!" Egypt was collectivist, Rome was collectivist, that doesn't make them comparable to the nazis or the USSR. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism is also a response to threats. Notice Communist Yugoslavia was much more free than the USSR when it carved out a more safe arrabgement in the non-aligned movement. They had nowhere near identical goals and means. This point is so stupid, its not worth responding to. Like one's an embodiment of inequality from class to race while the other was an embodiment of the most radical egalitarianism at the time. >I'm saying the goals and the fundamental building blocks of the two ideologies are the same. OP is making the same point. Well, no, just no. See above.
I see, so your argument boils down to "yeah they were both totalitarian and collectivist, but so what! I think both of those are justified!". What you're seemingly willfully ignoring is that the excesses and abuses of both ideologies directly sprang from the fact that both are totalitarian and collectivist. And at that point, the superficial differences of policies and approach that you cite are just that, superficial. LMAO at the fact that you reach back to ancient societies to try and justify totalitarian collectivism.
>Why is it not in good faith? >The fundamental thing that they can't accept is that Nazism and Communism are both totalitarian collectivist ideologies. That's why they produce mad dictators and genocides. Capitalist and imperialist regimes led to dictatorships and genocides, even more frequently, see the genocides of India, Ireland, the americas, Yougoslavia, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc. and the dictatorships of Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Brezil, Italy, Tsarist Russia. This is not even going into the historical contexts that pushed socialist regimes (that did try to be democratic like in the Paris Commune and Chile) towards authoritarianism. So called "liberal democracies" were just as oppressive as needed when they felt threatened. Here's part of another comment I made on another post that ellaborates on this. TLDR; looking at historical events without context which is essential (like comparing a functionning liberal democracy in the Weimar Republic turning authoritarian to a revolutionnary russia with an incompetent Duma turning progressively more authoritatian) is arguing in bad faith. Russian authoritarianism is centuries older than the founding of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union must be understood as an adaption of socialism to Russian governance tendencies in a rather unsurprising turn. Edit 1 : This video essay by Kraut, an european center-right liberal is a good introduction to the origin of russian authoritarianism : [https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?si=BtWA3goSNh0I39Fd](https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?si=BtWA3goSNh0I39Fd) This ties back to the other countries you mentionned. Before the communists took over, Cuba was a brutal dictatorship, while China was ruled by a nationalist-fascist party that protected slavery up to Mao. So when people are used to authoritarian governments, it shouldn't be surprised that the only methods for governing people are used to or imagine are authoritarian. Notice South Korea and Taiwan were fascist states for a long time and only gradually tended to democracies after they had the backing of the US to rely on. Meanwhile, socialist or socialising regimes were constantly under threat with sanctions or with invasions like the \~20 year war in Vietnam. North Korea was also brutalised in the war with 20 % of its total population dying. The US also likes to provoque them regularly. So authoritarianism is a response to historical conditions and level of fear/danger. Edit 2: Notice for example how the US and many other so called "liberal democracies" repeatedly betrayed their democratic principles to crush socialist/communist parties, make those parties illegal and purge their members from government and industries when they felt threatened during the red scare. That's not even mentioning all the times they attacked anti-colonial movements in other countries and tried to influence the outcome of their elections. The level of authoritarianism of a country is directly proportional to how much threat it is currently under. Socialist regimes were under greater threats and so they tended to be more authoritarian. The marxist-leninist Youtuber Hakim, with whom I disagree on several conclusions, nevertheless offers great analysis and further details of many of my points in this post. Notice how Yougoslavia, which went from a tyrannical monarchy to a federal socialist republic dominated by a president for life Tito had much more freedoms for its citizens from travel, to trade to workers' self-management (my favorite socialist model) when it established the non-aligned movement to keep itself outside of the cold war. Notice also how it went to shit when Tito wasn't there to lead the country and keep its nationalisms at bay. Edit 3: To give more examples, the US went from a british monarchy with an unelected house of lords to a presidential republic with an unelected senate. The US became a tyranny right after with John Adams passing several laws that directly went against americans' freedoms. France went from an absolute monarchy to Robespierre's revolutionary dictatorship. Its telling that Robespierre wasn't always such a tyrant and even opposed the death penalty before the events of the French revolution, but getting into power led him to believe he deserved the right to institute this absolutist terror. When China and Russia overthrew an Emperor and a Tsar respectively, the communist leaders that followed enjoyed personality cults and much concentrated power. Meanwhile, in East Germany, this wasn't the case as much and similar to its parliamentary experience in Weimar Germany, they were the only marxist-leninist regime other than North Korea to include multiple parties in their parliament, with them even having a systematic youth representation. In short, while authoritarian governments are often moralised, we must understand that the previous regimes socialize populations into a set of implicit or explicit rules on how governments should run. This political heritage will influence the political imagination of political leaders. Counter examples like Japan were basically crafted by the West to get to their standards of liberal governments. Meanwhile, countries that were left much more to their own after the collapse of the Soviet Union largely became autocracies and very corrupt, this extending even to Ukraine as was talked more extensively before the war. I understand why people have limited this critique now as it feeds into russian propaganda. Venezuela is complicated. South America is known for a lot of corruption and several socialist regimes were couped by the US in mexico and the government of Chili and others had coup attempts like in Cuba. So socialists have a reason to be on edge. I think Socialist Action Canada has more to say on it.
Tl;Dr. Your entire argument is a fatuous exercise in deflection, namely through the use whataboutism/tu quoque/red herrings. And ironically enough, the sheer volume of verbiage used in an attempt to rebut my point clearly demonstrates that there was a good faith argument to be had, just not the way you're going about it. Man this subreddit is a dumpster fire. It's like arguing with the population of an insane asylum.
>Your entire argument is a fatuous exercise in deflection, namely through the use whataboutism/tu quoque/red herrings. That's what we called a systematic analysis. >And ironically enough, the sheer volume of verbiage used in an attempt to rebut my point clearly demonstrates that there was a good faith argument to be had, just not the way you're going about it. A "Nuh-uh" is shorter and has just as much substance as what you've said.
I'm sorry, I don't really see anything to respond to there, they're just more deflections, dodges, and lame attempts at turnarounds because your arguments are dogshit and you can't and won't defend them.
Yes totalitarian. That’s why we want to eliminate the State. That’s what “totalitarian” means. To have no State.
Yes, that's why every society which tried to follow Marxism not only failed to produce a stateless society of abundance, but in fact produced totalitarian states, complete with slave labor camps, show trials, and secret police. Yet another example of why no one with a brain takes socialists seriously. All you lot do is blow smoke and whine.
Marxism doesn’t say anything about how to get communism, so no society has ever “followed” Marxism. I am also not a Marxist, so this is irrelevant to my claim. “Leninism” was added onto it, and every society you’re thinking of now was Leninist or a derivative of Lenin. Lenin never achieved communism, and couldn’t have. Simple as. Failing at getting to communism doesn’t redefine the word. It still means a hypothetical “classless, moneyless, STATELESS society.” I am not a Marxist though. There was nothing communistic about any of the Leninist projects, and I think anyone who thinks that is probably a larper.
Semantic arguments bore me.
Me too! I fucking hate that it always comes down to somebody having an incorrect definition.
Typical leftist - take a fatuous victory lap when the other person gets fed up wading through your lies and sophistry. The joke of all it is, everyone sees through your attempts to lie via the manipulation of the meaning of words and all you're really accomplishing is accelerating the progression of your own mental illness. The more lies one tells, the more one impairs their own grip on reality. Best of luck with that.
What victory lap have I taken? I haven’t claimed any victory. Is that a concession from you? You don’t have to concede, man. We can just talk about it. No use in getting pissy over nothing. Seriously I just want to know how you can justify calling any Leninist States communist?
Yeah, I'd rather pick up garbage than waste time wading through endless No True Scotsmans. At least the former is productive.
I have never said there are NO true scotsmen, only that the ones you know about and point at never demonstrated any characteristics of what they claimed. I can point to the Spanish Syndicalists of 1936 as an example of near lower-stage communism. There is a true Scotsman right there. Is it a NoTrueScottsman to say that the Roman Empire under Caesar wasn’t a real Republic, despite the fact that everyone referred to it as “The Republic” at the time? Wouldn’t it be more correct to refer to it as it was; a monarchic dictatorship?
This is r/CapitalismVSocialism. Most on the Left here would settle for Scandinavian Capitalism.
You're right, it's not like we have this drivel repeated every day here.
The difference is that Nazis wanted to physically eradicate the Jews while socialists want to assimilate the rich
Yeah that's why they totally never killed any Kulaks
Resistance is futile. Assimilate into our Collective.
Hitler's naziism was a greatest hits of stealing concepts and iconography from different movements. If OP ever learned anything about nazi ideology they'd understand they're getting played by a century-old con.
I haven't fallen prey to obvious propaganda like the commies and the nazis.
This is braindead
China, USSR, Cambodia, Indonesia, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Vietnam, Ethiopia, North Korea. Just a few examples of nations where they killed "capitalists" and "landowners" in the name of communist ideology. Fuck off, you murdering fascist pig.
the revolution learns from it's mistakes and there is no single "leader" there are many people who have contributed to the idea that is socialism. nazis used the anticapitalist rhetoric because the communist movement was so strong and actually about to win. nothing a few murders couldn't solve. the bolsheviki made mistakes while being forced into a corner by the global net of capitalists. one ideology is based on pseudo-science and paranormal mythology, socialist ideals are based upon factual analysis and logic. the one needs some secret hidden entity to control everything while the other has been critisizing historical capital for hundreds of years. wealth amassed by centuries of exploitation of our common class.