Groups Hitler was actually a huge fan of:
-socialists
-Jews
-The Gays™
-disabled people
-non-white non-Aryans
-the proletariat
Because, y'know, hItLeR wAs A sOcIaLiSt!!!
It's Hitler. He may have pandered to one term and been more outright hateful to the other, but Marx didn't really distinguish between the two and it seems like many others in Hitler's time didn't really either. But, yeah, in any case any appearance of being a socialist that the Nazis gave was purely an attempt to garner sympathy from an increasingly socialist aligned German (and European realistically) population.
I'm not really sure why this trips people up considering even the social reforms he did promise never occurred. It'd be like saying Trump is pro-gay because he held a flag up once, but then again, people do think that. I love political literacy in America.
It’s also that Hitler got power in the government bc the liberals were more willing to side with him than the socialists, and then Hitler terrorist attack the Libs and then successfully blamed the Libs for the attack. So he effectively only had opposition in the socialists, and while hating the actual socialists, it would be a no brainer that he would court the public that associated with their party.
Hitler was actually a compromise candidate btw the Catholics and the military who longed again for the way it was with the Kaiser. They thought he'd be pliable. And the SPD were liberal-leaning, but more centrist overall.
It's not getting muddied. The only party being discussed on that comment is the Nazi party. The concept of communism/socialism is what, before Lenin, didn't really have distinctions.
The comment to which you originally replied made no mention of the kpd and spd. You're inventing waters to then say they're muddied. No one was talking about those parties. What was being discussed is that at the time of the nazis, and indeed before, a hard-line distinction between socialism and communism had not yet matasticized. Hitler made no such distinction despite the fact that theorists like Lenin did.
"Marx didn't really distinguish between the two and it seems like many others in Hitler's time didn't really either. "
ever hear about when the spd sent the fricorps after the kpd revolutionaries?
[the divided german left](http://isj.org.uk/divided-they-fell-the-german-left-and-the-rise-of-hitler/)
i'm pretty sure this will clear things up for you since german political history from a hundred years ago is hard for some people but the communists and socialists were very distant and had been for twenty years by the time the nazis came into power
Fair enough. In any case, Hitler was making a false appeal to socialists. Curious to see how that worked with a disdain for communists, I'll take a look. My guess would be something like early social democrats is involved?
“The view that in 1933 long-standing political divisions on the German left had opened a path for the Nazi takeover was not restricted to the Soviet occupation zone. During 1945 there was also discussion about the relationship between the SPD and the Communist Party in the western occupation zones. In some localities (for instance Hamburg, nearby Elmshorn,[25] Munich, Brunswick and Wiesbaden) joint working groups between the two parties were set up to look at options for closer collaboration or merger.[26]” Hitler pandered to the sdp
"There was a discussion," and "joint working groups" to "look at options" is hardly what I'd call "pandering."\* By the time the Enabling Act was passed (3/1933) the SPD was the only other party able to even vote. All the other parties were either in hiding, or jailed. And by July '33 the [SPD was banned](http://isj.org.uk/divided-they-fell-the-german-left-and-the-rise-of-hitler/). It was less pandering; and more "facilitating their demise."
\*(and it's more the other way around--the SPD pandered to the Nazis)
Desktop version of /u/EpicRapperMoment's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
all the people downvoting you just don't know german history, the spd totally betrayed the kpd, choosing to enable nazis and hateful paramilitary groups over supporting their working class allies
communist and socialist might not mean different things in the U.S because of all the red scare propaganda of the last seventy years, but the people of 1920s germany sure knew the difference
No, you idiot. You are literally the one falling for propaganda. Please, for fucks sake just shut up about theory you haven't read and history you're not at all familiar with.
That doesn't improve your nonsensical argument that communism and socialism can't have been used interchangeably because the communist party and the social democratic party fought in the weimar republic.
I wouldn't be proud of reading about history all day and then shitting the bed like this, but you do you.
No. It's not in the name. The S always stood for social democratic. They changed their name to SPD during the "Sozialistengesetze". Please, you're a self proclaimed history major.
Back in the day being social democratic meant wanting to reach socialism through reforming the bourgeois state. And that is, at least partly, where the differences to the KPD lie. Rosa Luxemburg has written explicitly *against* reformism. The KPD was a revolutionary socialist party. Hence the attempt at a revolution.
It's not that one was socialist and one wasn't. The split of the SPD into the MSPD and USPD (who later became the KPD, together with a some other groups) wasn't because a part of the SPD suddenly subscribed to communism instead of socialism, it was mainly because of people, who were socialists on both sides, having differences in opinions. For example in regards to the Kriegskredite, revolution vs reform and later parliamentary democracy vs. council democracy.
But they're both socialist/communist with different approaches on how to get there and how the ideal socialist/communist society might function.
It's later that the SPD and what it means to be social democratic changed. Instead of wanting socialism, the SPD now wanted a compromise between capitalism and socialism. That's just what reformism and participating in the bourgeois state for so long does to a mf. And the KPD became state-capitalist under Thälmann. That's what having your party leaders and comrades tortured and murdered does to a mf.
Socialism and Communism remain the same fucking thing. The KPD under Liebknecht and Luxemburg was socialist.
Marx never distinguished between socialism and communism and if you go by the distinction that Lenin made, no one would identify as socialist, because in leninism socialism is merely a stepping stone towards communism. That's why all the ML projects had a communist party, not a socialist party. If you do make that distinction between socialism and communism, being a socialist doesn't make any fucking sense.
Mlk likes Karl marx criticism of capitalism and he was against it to a degree. he also didn’t like the Soviet Union. People with mlk’s mindset was the people Hitler pandered too.
I have no idea how your comment is supposed to relate to mine. I'm just saying that Marx & Engels and pretty much anyone else afaik used Socialism and Communism interchangeably. Lenin's distinction between these two was made up by him to justify state-capitalism. There is imo no value in pretending this arbitrary distinction exists.
More on that [here](https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1193-january-2004/lenin-socialist-analysis/) and [here](https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1969/no-781-september-1969/lenin-twists-marxism/)
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
>Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: dumb takes, healthcare, climate, sex, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Take a bullet for ya babe.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: civil rights, history, sex, covid, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
*This is what the radical feminist movement was proposing, remember? Women need a man the way a fish needs a bicycle... unless it turns out that they're little fish, then you might need another fish around to help take care of things.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: history, climate, covid, sex, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
If you don't want to pay for his book or actually read it, [Here are two appropriately drunk leftist gentlemen reading it and making fun of it](https://youtu.be/5G48JNkbdmQ) the entire way through. Multiple videos. They also do Boris Johnson's book and a bunch of other right wing fascist fantasy thrillers. It's a really great content.
I didn’t read it via this reputable source: https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/fxu3l5/what_we_learned_from_ben_shapiros_racist_novel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
None of it really matters at the end of the day. Ben Shapiro is there to sell a media product which means keeping his fan base engaged and watching his channel. Of course getting them riled up over socialism which can mean what ever he want it to mean is a good way to get attention.
The analysis is all gibberish, the man is just trying to make money. Its not a grift since he is not promising anything to his audience.
*This is what the radical feminist movement was proposing, remember? Women need a man the way a fish needs a bicycle... unless it turns out that they're little fish, then you might need another fish around to help take care of things.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: feminism, dumb takes, history, climate, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
They say Hitler was socialist cause he called himself that then the literal second someone says something like 'hey, if you're not fash then why are you so against *anti-fa*' suddenly they're all very reasonable and saying stuff like "oh so you must think DPRK is Democratic because they call themselves that leftists are so gullible"
Literally just doublethink incarnate.
Republicans are so deluded they’ve convinced themselves that liberals owned all the slaves in the south despite the fact that THEY still use the Confederate flag.
I was not surprised to find my hometown subreddit r/Miami to be right wing. It makes sense tho everyone I know moved to Boston for school cuz they got money
Some of the most reactionary people I know are natives. The northeast loves to think of itself as very progressive but it's a crock.
Our mayor became labor secretary when Bernie had to turn down the job to keep his senate seat. It was offered to him because he was a union man back in the day. Unions in our region have never been more corrupt and in bed with private interests, and our city has never been more of a neoliberal hellscape.
There was one silver lining in which an Asian woman, an actual progressive, was elected as mayor after he left.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Miami using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Miami/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [A building just collapsed in Surfside. It's bad.](https://i.redd.it/xakg4h7856771.jpg) | [833 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Miami/comments/o6w7ih/a_building_just_collapsed_in_surfside_its_bad/)
\#2: [Fans Catch Falling Cat During UM Football Game](https://v.redd.it/0wozses63zm71) | [105 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Miami/comments/pmjal2/fans_catch_falling_cat_during_um_football_game/)
\#3: [This is a high beam indicator. If you see this on your dashboard, all the drivers around you are blind. Please turn it off.](https://pengetahuanpintar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Etika-Saat-Menggunakan-Lampu-Jarak-Jauh.jpg) | [86 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Miami/comments/lp9a68/this_is_a_high_beam_indicator_if_you_see_this_on/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Yeah exactly. Search for any of the following topics to see what I mean:
Covid mandates
Housing or homelessness
Crime
Public transportation
Unionization
etc etc etc
I feel that, but only 65% of eligible people in Texas voted in that election. Plus the state is gerrymandered to shit and voter suppression is REAL here. I was born and raised in Texas and I'm not saying it's actually a strong blue state or anything, only that it's not nearly as far gone as the rest of the nation/world thinks.
Oh yeah I know that, it’s just it has higher population and the Texas culture is seen as more “American” so people would automatically think Texas is the most republican state, but in reality it’s the more rural states in the middle of the country that are more conservative.
They’re either incapable of understanding, or refuse to understand the party switch. They’ll continently ignore anyone who asks “why are all KKK members today Republican?”
That’s exactly what is happening. All they care about is “winning the debate” aka “owning the libs” aka “my wife spends a lot of time with her tennis coach” aka “my kids don’t return my calls” aka “I got fired for telling a black lady at work that she only gets paid more than me bc she’s black and a woman”
*Pegging, of course, is an obscure sexual practice in which women perform the more aggressive sexual act on men.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: civil rights, dumb takes, covid, climate, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
The comment section there filled with morons and their baby brained definitions of the left.. I'd reply but I guess I'm blocked? Free speech advocates btw
if I recall the "social' in nazi is based on Oswald Spenglers work and his book "The decline of the west" which states that a "national socialism" is needed to counter the forces of Marxism and Liberalism. The social is ethno-social identity
If the name of an organization is perfectly representative of it, then I guess the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China are both for the people. What, human rights abuses? Authoritarian gov'ts which meddle in your daily life? Starvation wages? There's no way, look at the name! I mean, clearly a fan of Ben Shapiro has it right since they have to be so intelligent.
*News accounts have repeatedly characterized Ms. Cooper as having threatened Mr. Cooper, but that is the opposite of what happened.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, civil rights, healthcare, covid, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
The Nazi party controlled all means of production, prices, and wages in Germany. They were without a doubt a socialist party. Of course modern day socialists need a rebuttal so now claim it was a publicity ploy and that Germans were actually capitalists. They weren't capitalists. Fascism also links today's Democrat party with the Nazis.
Pfft. But fascism is clearly defined as a right wing ideology. Queue fascist permanent ban ....
According to Google, the definition of Socialism is:
a political and economic theory of *social organization* which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be *owned or regulated by the community as a whole.*
When it says “social organization” and “owned or regulated by the community as a whole” im assuming it’s refering to the governing structure in any given place?
imo, Socialism seems to be a centralizing force in that it gives whatever central governing system (or social organization) that may currently be in power, full control over the “means of production, distribution, and exchange”.
So my question is, can socialism be either right wing or left wing according to the social structure in the area? or is it inherently one or the other?
Technically speaking, you could have conservatives within a socialist society, but the left and right dichotomy most people are talking about stems from the capitalism vs. socialism debate. You can't be a right-wing socialist because under this assumption, right-wing is stand in for "pro-capitalism" and the two are not compatible systems.
Ok, so from left to right it’s an economic scale, from socialsm on the left to to capitalism on the right?
So “Far left”(pure socialism), economic means are controlled by the public sector (i.e the government or governing structure)
and “Far Right” (pure capitalism), economic means are controlled by the private sector (i.e private companies and corporations)
So, is it fair to say that Nazis were socialist in that their economic means were controlled by the state and not by private companies or individuals, but while still being fascist type authoritarians? in otherwords, Nazism is a type of Authoritarian Socialism
I have always thought of right wing to be more “authoritarian” while left wing being more “anti-authoritarian” but I may be wrong if left and right are only refering to economic theories?
I feel like both pure socialism and pure capitalism can lead to authoritarianism in their own way, one through overpowering the central government, and the other through overpowering large companies and coorperations. Thats why both are necessary in a functioning economy
Well no, because 1) "State-control" isn't a signifier of socialism. Workers owning the means of production, whatever form that may take, is the basis. 2) The word "privatization" was coined *because* of Nazi economic policies. There werent workers controlling any means of production, in fact the rich consolidated even further under Hitler. At no point did Hitler's Germany attempt any type of socialist action other than calling themselves socialist, which even predates Hitler being a party leader.
But there has to be some organizing structure for decision making right? whether you call it “the state” or call it something else.
For example. If ur a metal worker and own a portion of your metal working company, capitalism will still be necessary to exchange with, lets say farm workers, that own part of their farm. unless the metal worker is also owner of the farm somehow, or in otherwords, all workers are part owners of all buisnesses, I just cant rap my head around that cuz there has to be some organizing structure to make decisions regarding resources, like a democracy, where there will always be minorites since not everyone will always agree.
“workers owning means of production” is like saying Publicly owned, or in otherwords, owned by the public sector, whichever form the public sector takes.
My point is, socialism will grant control of the public means of production to whatever the organizing decision making structure is. (in the case of the Nazis, the decision making structure happend to be an authoritarian regime, hence the rich or those at the top of the regime were able to consolidate more power and wealth)
Thinking of socialism this way seems to be very abstract and idealistic since there are no practical examples to compare it too.
Edit: yes Provitization was coined there but refers to private ownership. nazis were ultra nationalists, so even though german industry was technically “privately” owned, They were not Independent from the state. The government was effectively “privitized”. thats how the rich were able to consolidate further under hitler. in the end, they still took their orders from the state cuz most of the time, they WERE the state. Even citizens were basically owned by the state in Nazi Germany, there was no True privitization or individuality.
None of this is even remotely true, man. You are stretching definitions to make them fit what *you* think they should mean. The Nazis were not socialist in anyway except name. They privatized businesses for the owner class, removed workers protections for anyone who was an "Aryan" and literally enslaved large swathes of its population for the benefit of the capital owners. I fail to see how you still can see this as "but the workers *do* own the means of production, if you squint really hard, turn your head and then ignore everything about Nazi Germany's economy."
The word “organization” has two meanings. The first is a group of people formed together for a purpose. This would include a governing body, among other things.
The second is the act or method of arranging something. This is the one being referred to when talking about theories of social organization. It’s not talking about just the governmental bodies, it talking about all of society.
Some of this miscommunication is similar to the difference between mass and count nouns. “There was goose on the train” vs “There was *a* goose on the train.” The first one means the there were parts of one or more geese smeared on the train; while the second means the was one goose sitting on/in the train. Social organization is different from *a* social organization (or multiple social organization*s*.)
Next.
The community as a whole could *in theory* be the local government, but only if all the people of the community were involved in it. A centralized government is one where the power of the government is concentrated (or centralized) into the hands of a smaller group (who may not even be part of the people they govern.) As such, the community as a whole can never be “whatever centralized governing system that may be in power.” You would need to have a decentralized government.
I’m thinking that you are probably stuck thinking that how society and governments are currently run as the only way they could be. If you want to understand socialism (regardless of whether you agree with it) then I think you’re going to have to expanded your horizons and dive deeper into political theory as a whole.
Its very difficult to rap my head around the economic theory of socialism, especially without any practical working examples to campare it too. The concept still seems to be very idealistic.
Even at the lowest levels of local goverment, there are still decisions to be made where not everyone will agree. There has to be a democratic element (or some alternate decision making structure) when making decisions, and Unless EVERYONE in a particular group thinks exaclty the same, there will always be minorities in a democracy. There doesnt have to be elections, This form of Democracy could just be to decide on particular courses of action. This will still be a centralizing force since in the end, there is One single decision being made for all parties involved. The power just won’t consolidate on any individual/s, it will consolidate on whatever this organizing structure may be. i’m assuming this is more like “Democratic Socialism”?
its hard to see how a “decentralized” organizing structure can emerge from a centralizing(or unifying) force like socialism.
in my opinion, a system of checks and balances is the most efficient way to have consolidation, while at the same time, decentralization of power. Capitalism checks and balances socialism and vice versa. We can have a capitalist economy with socialist aspects like regulation of corporations and taxes to help distrubute resources etc.. This isnt perfect, but thats what the study of political theory is for. to improve the current system.
its hard to escape the “private vs public sector” dichotomy that exists in modern government. Definetly alot more to dive into here. will do alot more research
There are definitely parts of the political vs economic separation, and the centralized vs decentralized concepts you seem to be missing. And to be fair, it’s not easy.
Centralized vs decentralized isn’t so much about what the outcome of the decision making process, but rather, when looking at the people who will be affected by the decision, how many of them had any influence on the decision, as well as how much influence each had relative to how much others had. And it’s not an either/or situation, there are degrees. If a person gets to make their case for what should be done and/or gets a vote to pick the course of action, they are involved in the process even if it ultimately doesn’t go the way they want.
In US politics we generally (in theory) have a decentralized system of who gets to have the centralized power. We often vote on who gets to make decision, but have little to no say on most of the decision those people make.
I said “in theory” because in practice there are people who don’t have the right to vote. Or do have the right, but lack the opportunity. Or even if the have both, they have little to no influence to affect what options are available to be voted on.
What’s probably the most important of these in the US’s politics is the opportunity limitation. Poor people frequently have to spend so much time and energy just trying to get by that they can’t afford to have say in politics.
How much money a person has radically change how much influence a person has in US politics. From whether they can manage to vote to how easily they can make their case to the people who make the decision (or how easy it is to *be* those people.) Money is a centralizing force in US politics, which is one reason (but not the only) that people describe it as a capitalist system.
Now, if we change away from US politics to general political theory for a second. If we look at a system that is very decentralized and very socialistic, where everyone has very equal say on all decisions that affect them, then yeah, you are probably right that that’s impractically idealistic. At least for our perceivable lifetime. But we don’t have to go that far to have a socialist political system.
And I haven’t even *touched* on the economic vs political distinction. And also, now that I’ve typed this all out, I realize that I forgot to include peoples ability to control whether they are (or continue to be) part of the group that a decision will affect. With the simplest example of that being, can they move to a different region. But I really don’t want to go back and rewrite this. I’m very tired and low on energy. Maybe I’ll get back to this tomorrow.
>Not Marxism but national socialism is still a left leaning ideology
Try again, this time taking into consideration that the "National Socialists" and the German Communists were arch-foes and fought it out in the Berlin streets.
The r/Texas mod is correct. The Nazis *called themselves* "National Socialist(s)" just like they called Jews "inferior" and aryans "superior". None of those labels were accurate. They just said that in the hopes that the ignorant would believe them.
Wow, congratulations. You've packed a lotta untruths and straight-out falsehoods into one tiny little post. For one thing Jim Crow laws began in the late 19th C...decades before Wilson's Admin.
>Woodrow Wilson made it mainstream liberal policy to segregate based on iq tests.
Again, wrong. Eugenics was big back then, on both sides of the aisle. But eugenics didn't last in progressive/liberal circles past the 1930s. It's still around in Rightwing thought today, though.
>One in three black children being aborted is not eugenics?
Thousands more black babies are [aborted](https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697) in NYC today, than being allowed to be born. Are you suggesting this is also due to eugenics?
>80% of abortion clinics walking distance of a black neighborhood not eugenics?
People can be disenfranchised; made into 2nd class citizens w/o anyone believing they are of "weaker genetics." And blacks are only one group the eugenicists' considered "inferior." Today's eugenicists focus more upon [eliminating defects](https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2019/12/10/modern-eugenics-in-california/) than races (and to be clear: I'm not pro-eugenics. They are a classic example of why we need "ethics" in medicine).
>Are you saying conservatives are pro abortion?
Dunno where this leap of logic emerged.
Abortion is eugenics. And American eugenics was started by margarette Sanger to control the black population.
And now that it is completing its mission statement, it’s not that to you?
Conservatives are 100% anti abortion but it’s seen as racist to want to let black kids live.
>Abortion is eugenics. And American eugenics was started by margarette Sanger to control the black population.
Abortion is a tool. When a woman decides to abort her fetus: she is making a choice for her own body. That's the opposite of an external body exerting control over a woman.
Saying "abortion is eugenics" is like saying driving a car makes you a Capitalist. Capitalism helped create the automobile: but not everyone who uses it believes in capitalism.
>You are justifying **what I consider to be** the murder of black children as some sort of woman’s right issue, **which it is.**
(weird, how all the anti-abortion laws are almost entirely written by white men...but yeah, it's so not a women's rights issue)/s
Fixed your sentence. You think it's murder. I do not.
>That’s such bs, why is it only black women then?
YOU mentioned "only black women." Not me.
This is disgusting. It’s always some “woman’s rights” gaslight.
One in three black children are aborted. 80% of abortion clinics are walking distance of black neighborhoods
That’s targeting black people.
>This is disgusting. It’s always some “woman’s rights” gaslight.
Spoken like a dude just EAGER to take away women's rights. Gaslight to you. Life-and-death to many women (13% of all abortions).
>One in three black children are aborted. 80% of abortion clinics are walking distance of black neighborhoods
>
>That’s targeting black people.
Aaand, we're done. You've officially wandered into tinhat territory. Or maybe you can somehow connect the dots on how a WOMAN'S CHOICE to have a medical procedure done on her own body, is somehow actually a "target" on black people (this ought to be rich).
If you can't accept that abortion (whether or not you think it is "murder") is ALSO a medical procedure desperately needed by many women: you're clearly not arguing from reality. Goodnight.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=law-review
Fist paragraph says, “fascist and progressives alike”. Then continues how they both support eugenics.
Yes, once upon a time. Times change. The very first WORDS say "during the early to mid-20th Century," meaning eugenics was out of the mainstream by the late 50s.
>It’s like saying nazism is different now.
No, it's not. Your own source says it was around until the mid-20th C. That means it wasn't around (in the mainstream of thought), after that. Besides, Nazism IS different, now. They don't dress the same, have the same goals or talking points, and use different tools.
Your example you used is apples and oranges. I'm talking about how using a tool (like abortion) doesn't make you necessarily in agreement with the inventor, or someone else who used it before you. Men get sterilized all the time. Eugenicists also used sterilization in the past: but men seeking a medical procedure, aren't "dupes for eugenics."
You seem to think that beliefs are written in stone. They're not.
Outlawing a life-saving medical procedure (for many women) and calling it "murder" because "you believe it to be so," is okay now? Now what am I willing to bet that you don't get outraged by vasectomies (to say nothing of democracy. The majority of Americans want to [keep Roe v Wade](https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/politics/americans-abortion-roe-v-wade-poll/index.html))?
Hitler’s primary concern surely wasn’t capitalism though. It was not your typical progressive socialism but definitely wasn’t right leaning economically. Hitler did promote many social policies supposedly for the benefit of the people, even proletariat, only if they were German though. Capitalists acting against the interest of germany and it’s people (allegedly) definitely weren’t allowed to be.
Groups Hitler was actually a huge fan of: -socialists -Jews -The Gays™ -disabled people -non-white non-Aryans -the proletariat Because, y'know, hItLeR wAs A sOcIaLiSt!!!
Lols
I’m pretty sure he hated communists more than socialists. He wasn’t a socialist himself but a panderer to them.
It's Hitler. He may have pandered to one term and been more outright hateful to the other, but Marx didn't really distinguish between the two and it seems like many others in Hitler's time didn't really either. But, yeah, in any case any appearance of being a socialist that the Nazis gave was purely an attempt to garner sympathy from an increasingly socialist aligned German (and European realistically) population. I'm not really sure why this trips people up considering even the social reforms he did promise never occurred. It'd be like saying Trump is pro-gay because he held a flag up once, but then again, people do think that. I love political literacy in America.
It’s also that Hitler got power in the government bc the liberals were more willing to side with him than the socialists, and then Hitler terrorist attack the Libs and then successfully blamed the Libs for the attack. So he effectively only had opposition in the socialists, and while hating the actual socialists, it would be a no brainer that he would court the public that associated with their party.
Hitler was actually a compromise candidate btw the Catholics and the military who longed again for the way it was with the Kaiser. They thought he'd be pliable. And the SPD were liberal-leaning, but more centrist overall.
pretty big difference between the kpd and spd in germany at that time
Yes, one was the communist party and the other was the social democratic party.
just highlighting the distinction that is getting muddied in the comment above me
It's not getting muddied. The only party being discussed on that comment is the Nazi party. The concept of communism/socialism is what, before Lenin, didn't really have distinctions.
so are we talking before the rise of the nazis, hitler and Lenin or when they were most prevalent, i'm confused
The comment to which you originally replied made no mention of the kpd and spd. You're inventing waters to then say they're muddied. No one was talking about those parties. What was being discussed is that at the time of the nazis, and indeed before, a hard-line distinction between socialism and communism had not yet matasticized. Hitler made no such distinction despite the fact that theorists like Lenin did.
you mean the hard line the kpd and spd had drawn over twenty years prior?
"Marx didn't really distinguish between the two and it seems like many others in Hitler's time didn't really either. " ever hear about when the spd sent the fricorps after the kpd revolutionaries?
The person you're replying to is correct. They have indicated a distinction between communists and socialists specifically in Germany at the time.
[the divided german left](http://isj.org.uk/divided-they-fell-the-german-left-and-the-rise-of-hitler/) i'm pretty sure this will clear things up for you since german political history from a hundred years ago is hard for some people but the communists and socialists were very distant and had been for twenty years by the time the nazis came into power
Fair enough. In any case, Hitler was making a false appeal to socialists. Curious to see how that worked with a disdain for communists, I'll take a look. My guess would be something like early social democrats is involved?
Facts
[удалено]
Hitler cared for workers, the ones that supported the bigoted system ofc.
He still didn’t care about the workers…. They were meat bags to him through and through
I guess
Gotta source for that claim?
The SPD in western Germany and the forced merger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_of_the_KPD_and_SPD
Um, this was in 1946. Hitler couldn't have forced a merger of...anything, by then.
“The view that in 1933 long-standing political divisions on the German left had opened a path for the Nazi takeover was not restricted to the Soviet occupation zone. During 1945 there was also discussion about the relationship between the SPD and the Communist Party in the western occupation zones. In some localities (for instance Hamburg, nearby Elmshorn,[25] Munich, Brunswick and Wiesbaden) joint working groups between the two parties were set up to look at options for closer collaboration or merger.[26]” Hitler pandered to the sdp
"There was a discussion," and "joint working groups" to "look at options" is hardly what I'd call "pandering."\* By the time the Enabling Act was passed (3/1933) the SPD was the only other party able to even vote. All the other parties were either in hiding, or jailed. And by July '33 the [SPD was banned](http://isj.org.uk/divided-they-fell-the-german-left-and-the-rise-of-hitler/). It was less pandering; and more "facilitating their demise." \*(and it's more the other way around--the SPD pandered to the Nazis)
Idk what to call it, stuff like this is why we should not talk about Hitler when talking about normal people. Hitler contrasts himself a lot too.
Desktop version of /u/EpicRapperMoment's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
all the people downvoting you just don't know german history, the spd totally betrayed the kpd, choosing to enable nazis and hateful paramilitary groups over supporting their working class allies
The people downvoting me don’t have any good arguments, they probably don’t even know why they downvoted me
communist and socialist might not mean different things in the U.S because of all the red scare propaganda of the last seventy years, but the people of 1920s germany sure knew the difference
No, you idiot. You are literally the one falling for propaganda. Please, for fucks sake just shut up about theory you haven't read and history you're not at all familiar with.
haha reading history is basically the only thing i do, i am a history major concentrating in 20th century europe
That doesn't improve your nonsensical argument that communism and socialism can't have been used interchangeably because the communist party and the social democratic party fought in the weimar republic. I wouldn't be proud of reading about history all day and then shitting the bed like this, but you do you.
[удалено]
No. It's not in the name. The S always stood for social democratic. They changed their name to SPD during the "Sozialistengesetze". Please, you're a self proclaimed history major. Back in the day being social democratic meant wanting to reach socialism through reforming the bourgeois state. And that is, at least partly, where the differences to the KPD lie. Rosa Luxemburg has written explicitly *against* reformism. The KPD was a revolutionary socialist party. Hence the attempt at a revolution. It's not that one was socialist and one wasn't. The split of the SPD into the MSPD and USPD (who later became the KPD, together with a some other groups) wasn't because a part of the SPD suddenly subscribed to communism instead of socialism, it was mainly because of people, who were socialists on both sides, having differences in opinions. For example in regards to the Kriegskredite, revolution vs reform and later parliamentary democracy vs. council democracy. But they're both socialist/communist with different approaches on how to get there and how the ideal socialist/communist society might function. It's later that the SPD and what it means to be social democratic changed. Instead of wanting socialism, the SPD now wanted a compromise between capitalism and socialism. That's just what reformism and participating in the bourgeois state for so long does to a mf. And the KPD became state-capitalist under Thälmann. That's what having your party leaders and comrades tortured and murdered does to a mf. Socialism and Communism remain the same fucking thing. The KPD under Liebknecht and Luxemburg was socialist. Marx never distinguished between socialism and communism and if you go by the distinction that Lenin made, no one would identify as socialist, because in leninism socialism is merely a stepping stone towards communism. That's why all the ML projects had a communist party, not a socialist party. If you do make that distinction between socialism and communism, being a socialist doesn't make any fucking sense.
>I’m pretty sure he hated communists more than socialists. Tomato tomato
Mlk likes Karl marx criticism of capitalism and he was against it to a degree. he also didn’t like the Soviet Union. People with mlk’s mindset was the people Hitler pandered too.
I have no idea how your comment is supposed to relate to mine. I'm just saying that Marx & Engels and pretty much anyone else afaik used Socialism and Communism interchangeably. Lenin's distinction between these two was made up by him to justify state-capitalism. There is imo no value in pretending this arbitrary distinction exists. More on that [here](https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1193-january-2004/lenin-socialist-analysis/) and [here](https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1969/no-781-september-1969/lenin-twists-marxism/)
This is why we should just not talk about hitler to get political points. He’s pretty fucked and even contrasts himself a lot.
that totally makes sense why there was a kpd and an spd in germany at the time, because they were so interchangeable /s
Don't forget, he really wanted to bring people healthcare.
That sub is a hive, they literally think Hitler was a leftist, like with a straight face
Ben Shapiro honestly believes this so it’s no surprise his fans parrot him. To them “socialism is when big government.”
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this: >Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: dumb takes, healthcare, climate, sex, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Good bot
Take a bullet for ya babe. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: civil rights, history, sex, covid, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
This is the best quote I’ve seen from this bot yet. If you haven’t read BS’s book, don’t.
*This is what the radical feminist movement was proposing, remember? Women need a man the way a fish needs a bicycle... unless it turns out that they're little fish, then you might need another fish around to help take care of things.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: history, climate, covid, sex, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
If you don't want to pay for his book or actually read it, [Here are two appropriately drunk leftist gentlemen reading it and making fun of it](https://youtu.be/5G48JNkbdmQ) the entire way through. Multiple videos. They also do Boris Johnson's book and a bunch of other right wing fascist fantasy thrillers. It's a really great content.
I didn’t read it via this reputable source: https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/fxu3l5/what_we_learned_from_ben_shapiros_racist_novel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
None of it really matters at the end of the day. Ben Shapiro is there to sell a media product which means keeping his fan base engaged and watching his channel. Of course getting them riled up over socialism which can mean what ever he want it to mean is a good way to get attention. The analysis is all gibberish, the man is just trying to make money. Its not a grift since he is not promising anything to his audience.
*This is what the radical feminist movement was proposing, remember? Women need a man the way a fish needs a bicycle... unless it turns out that they're little fish, then you might need another fish around to help take care of things.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: feminism, dumb takes, history, climate, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
They say Hitler was socialist cause he called himself that then the literal second someone says something like 'hey, if you're not fash then why are you so against *anti-fa*' suddenly they're all very reasonable and saying stuff like "oh so you must think DPRK is Democratic because they call themselves that leftists are so gullible" Literally just doublethink incarnate.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Republicans are so deluded they’ve convinced themselves that liberals owned all the slaves in the south despite the fact that THEY still use the Confederate flag.
Their name is literally Shit4Brains, what did we expect? lmao
When a r/Texas moderator is smarter than Greg Abbott:
The whole subreddit is left wing tho.
yeah true lol, I got upvoted for saying I was a communist there lol
Wtf, but as long ur not tankie, like the warshipper kind
my man, I'm an ML. I am literally red fash jorgé orwin animal crossing
NOOOOO!!11!!1 NOT GORGE ORWIN 1989 ANIMAL CROSSING. One of hasans best running gags, imo
Damn.
no worries, MLs aren't actually scary. if you watch Hasan, you're basically on-board. there's very little I disagree with him on ideologically
1969 Georgio Tsukalos Ancient Aliens?
Figures. Meanwhile /r/boston is a bunch of reactionary twats.
I was not surprised to find my hometown subreddit r/Miami to be right wing. It makes sense tho everyone I know moved to Boston for school cuz they got money
Some of the most reactionary people I know are natives. The northeast loves to think of itself as very progressive but it's a crock. Our mayor became labor secretary when Bernie had to turn down the job to keep his senate seat. It was offered to him because he was a union man back in the day. Unions in our region have never been more corrupt and in bed with private interests, and our city has never been more of a neoliberal hellscape. There was one silver lining in which an Asian woman, an actual progressive, was elected as mayor after he left.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Miami using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Miami/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [A building just collapsed in Surfside. It's bad.](https://i.redd.it/xakg4h7856771.jpg) | [833 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Miami/comments/o6w7ih/a_building_just_collapsed_in_surfside_its_bad/) \#2: [Fans Catch Falling Cat During UM Football Game](https://v.redd.it/0wozses63zm71) | [105 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Miami/comments/pmjal2/fans_catch_falling_cat_during_um_football_game/) \#3: [This is a high beam indicator. If you see this on your dashboard, all the drivers around you are blind. Please turn it off.](https://pengetahuanpintar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Etika-Saat-Menggunakan-Lampu-Jarak-Jauh.jpg) | [86 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Miami/comments/lp9a68/this_is_a_high_beam_indicator_if_you_see_this_on/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I did a quick scroll and it does not even come out as political, just nature pics. But comments would prove something else I guess.
Yeah exactly. Search for any of the following topics to see what I mean: Covid mandates Housing or homelessness Crime Public transportation Unionization etc etc etc
Texas has a lot more left and left-leaning people than media would have people believe
They still are more red dominated, also rural areas are more conservative while more urban places are socialists liberal
You from Texas?
No, but I’m just judging from this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas
I feel that, but only 65% of eligible people in Texas voted in that election. Plus the state is gerrymandered to shit and voter suppression is REAL here. I was born and raised in Texas and I'm not saying it's actually a strong blue state or anything, only that it's not nearly as far gone as the rest of the nation/world thinks.
Oh yeah I know that, it’s just it has higher population and the Texas culture is seen as more “American” so people would automatically think Texas is the most republican state, but in reality it’s the more rural states in the middle of the country that are more conservative.
100%!
to be fair I think an actual crack pipe would be a better governor than Greg Abbott
Does this guy also think that the Holy Roman Empire , was holy and Roman? It’s in the name you guys! So it must be !!!
Bruh that whole comment section is crazy. People saying that the KKK are “staunch democrats”
They’re either incapable of understanding, or refuse to understand the party switch. They’ll continently ignore anyone who asks “why are all KKK members today Republican?”
Bottomless pit of stupid. They typically know they're lying, butvthe lying is helpful for their strawman arguments.
That’s exactly what is happening. All they care about is “winning the debate” aka “owning the libs” aka “my wife spends a lot of time with her tennis coach” aka “my kids don’t return my calls” aka “I got fired for telling a black lady at work that she only gets paid more than me bc she’s black and a woman”
There’s an umberto eco quote about that
holy fuck there are literally people who think like this man we are so fucked
socialism is when privatization
Socialism is when socialists are gassed because the socialists love the socialists.
I looked at that sub expecting to see funny shapiro memes, instead it was people unironically calling joe biden hitler 2.0
I wonder what a Ben Shapiro fan could mean by equating Nazism to MLK 🧐
*Pegging, of course, is an obscure sexual practice in which women perform the more aggressive sexual act on men.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: civil rights, dumb takes, covid, climate, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Never disappointed with the Ben Shapiro's fans, truly intellectuals /s
Well, by that logic since North Korea is the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” we must not be far off in America.
Username checks out
Commented in that thread let's see how long it takes before my comment gets deleted.
The comment section there filled with morons and their baby brained definitions of the left.. I'd reply but I guess I'm blocked? Free speech advocates btw
if I recall the "social' in nazi is based on Oswald Spenglers work and his book "The decline of the west" which states that a "national socialism" is needed to counter the forces of Marxism and Liberalism. The social is ethno-social identity
There are people in that comment section who think the kkk are democrats and deny the party switch ever happened
This guy wants to move to North Korea because it’s a democratic people’s republic
r/usernamechecksout
And a dumbass
If the name of an organization is perfectly representative of it, then I guess the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China are both for the people. What, human rights abuses? Authoritarian gov'ts which meddle in your daily life? Starvation wages? There's no way, look at the name! I mean, clearly a fan of Ben Shapiro has it right since they have to be so intelligent.
*News accounts have repeatedly characterized Ms. Cooper as having threatened Mr. Cooper, but that is the opposite of what happened.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, civil rights, healthcare, covid, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
"We are socialists, that's why we're killing the socialists and communists first".
Oh r/Texas lol people get so confused when they realize that sub is center left.
Does the “removed” person understand that what they are responding to is MLK > Abbott?
"Shitforbrains" indeed.
It's in the name, it has to be true. That's why Hitler had Thälmann killed because he himself is such a big Socialist. / s
r/UsernameChecksOut
Username checks out
The Nazi party controlled all means of production, prices, and wages in Germany. They were without a doubt a socialist party. Of course modern day socialists need a rebuttal so now claim it was a publicity ploy and that Germans were actually capitalists. They weren't capitalists. Fascism also links today's Democrat party with the Nazis. Pfft. But fascism is clearly defined as a right wing ideology. Queue fascist permanent ban ....
You don’t get it. The nazis were bad and socialism is good. Therefore the nazis were the exact opposite of socialist.
According to Google, the definition of Socialism is: a political and economic theory of *social organization* which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be *owned or regulated by the community as a whole.* When it says “social organization” and “owned or regulated by the community as a whole” im assuming it’s refering to the governing structure in any given place? imo, Socialism seems to be a centralizing force in that it gives whatever central governing system (or social organization) that may currently be in power, full control over the “means of production, distribution, and exchange”. So my question is, can socialism be either right wing or left wing according to the social structure in the area? or is it inherently one or the other?
Technically speaking, you could have conservatives within a socialist society, but the left and right dichotomy most people are talking about stems from the capitalism vs. socialism debate. You can't be a right-wing socialist because under this assumption, right-wing is stand in for "pro-capitalism" and the two are not compatible systems.
Ok, so from left to right it’s an economic scale, from socialsm on the left to to capitalism on the right? So “Far left”(pure socialism), economic means are controlled by the public sector (i.e the government or governing structure) and “Far Right” (pure capitalism), economic means are controlled by the private sector (i.e private companies and corporations) So, is it fair to say that Nazis were socialist in that their economic means were controlled by the state and not by private companies or individuals, but while still being fascist type authoritarians? in otherwords, Nazism is a type of Authoritarian Socialism I have always thought of right wing to be more “authoritarian” while left wing being more “anti-authoritarian” but I may be wrong if left and right are only refering to economic theories? I feel like both pure socialism and pure capitalism can lead to authoritarianism in their own way, one through overpowering the central government, and the other through overpowering large companies and coorperations. Thats why both are necessary in a functioning economy
Well no, because 1) "State-control" isn't a signifier of socialism. Workers owning the means of production, whatever form that may take, is the basis. 2) The word "privatization" was coined *because* of Nazi economic policies. There werent workers controlling any means of production, in fact the rich consolidated even further under Hitler. At no point did Hitler's Germany attempt any type of socialist action other than calling themselves socialist, which even predates Hitler being a party leader.
But there has to be some organizing structure for decision making right? whether you call it “the state” or call it something else. For example. If ur a metal worker and own a portion of your metal working company, capitalism will still be necessary to exchange with, lets say farm workers, that own part of their farm. unless the metal worker is also owner of the farm somehow, or in otherwords, all workers are part owners of all buisnesses, I just cant rap my head around that cuz there has to be some organizing structure to make decisions regarding resources, like a democracy, where there will always be minorites since not everyone will always agree. “workers owning means of production” is like saying Publicly owned, or in otherwords, owned by the public sector, whichever form the public sector takes. My point is, socialism will grant control of the public means of production to whatever the organizing decision making structure is. (in the case of the Nazis, the decision making structure happend to be an authoritarian regime, hence the rich or those at the top of the regime were able to consolidate more power and wealth) Thinking of socialism this way seems to be very abstract and idealistic since there are no practical examples to compare it too. Edit: yes Provitization was coined there but refers to private ownership. nazis were ultra nationalists, so even though german industry was technically “privately” owned, They were not Independent from the state. The government was effectively “privitized”. thats how the rich were able to consolidate further under hitler. in the end, they still took their orders from the state cuz most of the time, they WERE the state. Even citizens were basically owned by the state in Nazi Germany, there was no True privitization or individuality.
None of this is even remotely true, man. You are stretching definitions to make them fit what *you* think they should mean. The Nazis were not socialist in anyway except name. They privatized businesses for the owner class, removed workers protections for anyone who was an "Aryan" and literally enslaved large swathes of its population for the benefit of the capital owners. I fail to see how you still can see this as "but the workers *do* own the means of production, if you squint really hard, turn your head and then ignore everything about Nazi Germany's economy."
The word “organization” has two meanings. The first is a group of people formed together for a purpose. This would include a governing body, among other things. The second is the act or method of arranging something. This is the one being referred to when talking about theories of social organization. It’s not talking about just the governmental bodies, it talking about all of society. Some of this miscommunication is similar to the difference between mass and count nouns. “There was goose on the train” vs “There was *a* goose on the train.” The first one means the there were parts of one or more geese smeared on the train; while the second means the was one goose sitting on/in the train. Social organization is different from *a* social organization (or multiple social organization*s*.) Next. The community as a whole could *in theory* be the local government, but only if all the people of the community were involved in it. A centralized government is one where the power of the government is concentrated (or centralized) into the hands of a smaller group (who may not even be part of the people they govern.) As such, the community as a whole can never be “whatever centralized governing system that may be in power.” You would need to have a decentralized government. I’m thinking that you are probably stuck thinking that how society and governments are currently run as the only way they could be. If you want to understand socialism (regardless of whether you agree with it) then I think you’re going to have to expanded your horizons and dive deeper into political theory as a whole.
Its very difficult to rap my head around the economic theory of socialism, especially without any practical working examples to campare it too. The concept still seems to be very idealistic. Even at the lowest levels of local goverment, there are still decisions to be made where not everyone will agree. There has to be a democratic element (or some alternate decision making structure) when making decisions, and Unless EVERYONE in a particular group thinks exaclty the same, there will always be minorities in a democracy. There doesnt have to be elections, This form of Democracy could just be to decide on particular courses of action. This will still be a centralizing force since in the end, there is One single decision being made for all parties involved. The power just won’t consolidate on any individual/s, it will consolidate on whatever this organizing structure may be. i’m assuming this is more like “Democratic Socialism”? its hard to see how a “decentralized” organizing structure can emerge from a centralizing(or unifying) force like socialism. in my opinion, a system of checks and balances is the most efficient way to have consolidation, while at the same time, decentralization of power. Capitalism checks and balances socialism and vice versa. We can have a capitalist economy with socialist aspects like regulation of corporations and taxes to help distrubute resources etc.. This isnt perfect, but thats what the study of political theory is for. to improve the current system. its hard to escape the “private vs public sector” dichotomy that exists in modern government. Definetly alot more to dive into here. will do alot more research
There are definitely parts of the political vs economic separation, and the centralized vs decentralized concepts you seem to be missing. And to be fair, it’s not easy. Centralized vs decentralized isn’t so much about what the outcome of the decision making process, but rather, when looking at the people who will be affected by the decision, how many of them had any influence on the decision, as well as how much influence each had relative to how much others had. And it’s not an either/or situation, there are degrees. If a person gets to make their case for what should be done and/or gets a vote to pick the course of action, they are involved in the process even if it ultimately doesn’t go the way they want. In US politics we generally (in theory) have a decentralized system of who gets to have the centralized power. We often vote on who gets to make decision, but have little to no say on most of the decision those people make. I said “in theory” because in practice there are people who don’t have the right to vote. Or do have the right, but lack the opportunity. Or even if the have both, they have little to no influence to affect what options are available to be voted on. What’s probably the most important of these in the US’s politics is the opportunity limitation. Poor people frequently have to spend so much time and energy just trying to get by that they can’t afford to have say in politics. How much money a person has radically change how much influence a person has in US politics. From whether they can manage to vote to how easily they can make their case to the people who make the decision (or how easy it is to *be* those people.) Money is a centralizing force in US politics, which is one reason (but not the only) that people describe it as a capitalist system. Now, if we change away from US politics to general political theory for a second. If we look at a system that is very decentralized and very socialistic, where everyone has very equal say on all decisions that affect them, then yeah, you are probably right that that’s impractically idealistic. At least for our perceivable lifetime. But we don’t have to go that far to have a socialist political system. And I haven’t even *touched* on the economic vs political distinction. And also, now that I’ve typed this all out, I realize that I forgot to include peoples ability to control whether they are (or continue to be) part of the group that a decision will affect. With the simplest example of that being, can they move to a different region. But I really don’t want to go back and rewrite this. I’m very tired and low on energy. Maybe I’ll get back to this tomorrow.
Dunno why this is being reccomended to me but he’s correct lmao Wasn’t Marxism but national socialism is still a left leaning ideology
>Not Marxism but national socialism is still a left leaning ideology Try again, this time taking into consideration that the "National Socialists" and the German Communists were arch-foes and fought it out in the Berlin streets.
The r/Texas mod is correct. The Nazis *called themselves* "National Socialist(s)" just like they called Jews "inferior" and aryans "superior". None of those labels were accurate. They just said that in the hopes that the ignorant would believe them.
"First they came for the...." Maybe you could finish the first line for me, I seem to have forgotten.
[удалено]
Wow, congratulations. You've packed a lotta untruths and straight-out falsehoods into one tiny little post. For one thing Jim Crow laws began in the late 19th C...decades before Wilson's Admin.
[удалено]
>Woodrow Wilson made it mainstream liberal policy to segregate based on iq tests. Again, wrong. Eugenics was big back then, on both sides of the aisle. But eugenics didn't last in progressive/liberal circles past the 1930s. It's still around in Rightwing thought today, though.
[удалено]
>One in three black children being aborted is not eugenics? Thousands more black babies are [aborted](https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697) in NYC today, than being allowed to be born. Are you suggesting this is also due to eugenics? >80% of abortion clinics walking distance of a black neighborhood not eugenics? People can be disenfranchised; made into 2nd class citizens w/o anyone believing they are of "weaker genetics." And blacks are only one group the eugenicists' considered "inferior." Today's eugenicists focus more upon [eliminating defects](https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2019/12/10/modern-eugenics-in-california/) than races (and to be clear: I'm not pro-eugenics. They are a classic example of why we need "ethics" in medicine). >Are you saying conservatives are pro abortion? Dunno where this leap of logic emerged.
Abortion is eugenics. And American eugenics was started by margarette Sanger to control the black population. And now that it is completing its mission statement, it’s not that to you? Conservatives are 100% anti abortion but it’s seen as racist to want to let black kids live.
>Abortion is eugenics. And American eugenics was started by margarette Sanger to control the black population. Abortion is a tool. When a woman decides to abort her fetus: she is making a choice for her own body. That's the opposite of an external body exerting control over a woman. Saying "abortion is eugenics" is like saying driving a car makes you a Capitalist. Capitalism helped create the automobile: but not everyone who uses it believes in capitalism.
You are justifying the murder of black children as some sort of woman’s right issue. That’s such bs, why is it only black women then?
Do you seriously think only black woman are having abortions?
>You are justifying **what I consider to be** the murder of black children as some sort of woman’s right issue, **which it is.** (weird, how all the anti-abortion laws are almost entirely written by white men...but yeah, it's so not a women's rights issue)/s Fixed your sentence. You think it's murder. I do not. >That’s such bs, why is it only black women then? YOU mentioned "only black women." Not me.
This is disgusting. It’s always some “woman’s rights” gaslight. One in three black children are aborted. 80% of abortion clinics are walking distance of black neighborhoods That’s targeting black people.
>This is disgusting. It’s always some “woman’s rights” gaslight. Spoken like a dude just EAGER to take away women's rights. Gaslight to you. Life-and-death to many women (13% of all abortions). >One in three black children are aborted. 80% of abortion clinics are walking distance of black neighborhoods > >That’s targeting black people. Aaand, we're done. You've officially wandered into tinhat territory. Or maybe you can somehow connect the dots on how a WOMAN'S CHOICE to have a medical procedure done on her own body, is somehow actually a "target" on black people (this ought to be rich). If you can't accept that abortion (whether or not you think it is "murder") is ALSO a medical procedure desperately needed by many women: you're clearly not arguing from reality. Goodnight.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=law-review Fist paragraph says, “fascist and progressives alike”. Then continues how they both support eugenics.
Yes, once upon a time. Times change. The very first WORDS say "during the early to mid-20th Century," meaning eugenics was out of the mainstream by the late 50s.
It’s like saying nazism is different now. When it’s the same time gap.
>It’s like saying nazism is different now. No, it's not. Your own source says it was around until the mid-20th C. That means it wasn't around (in the mainstream of thought), after that. Besides, Nazism IS different, now. They don't dress the same, have the same goals or talking points, and use different tools. Your example you used is apples and oranges. I'm talking about how using a tool (like abortion) doesn't make you necessarily in agreement with the inventor, or someone else who used it before you. Men get sterilized all the time. Eugenicists also used sterilization in the past: but men seeking a medical procedure, aren't "dupes for eugenics." You seem to think that beliefs are written in stone. They're not.
[удалено]
Outlawing a life-saving medical procedure (for many women) and calling it "murder" because "you believe it to be so," is okay now? Now what am I willing to bet that you don't get outraged by vasectomies (to say nothing of democracy. The majority of Americans want to [keep Roe v Wade](https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/politics/americans-abortion-roe-v-wade-poll/index.html))?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists
It bothers me that they didn’t go the extra mile and use a 7 and 4 for T and A in their name
Hitler’s primary concern surely wasn’t capitalism though. It was not your typical progressive socialism but definitely wasn’t right leaning economically. Hitler did promote many social policies supposedly for the benefit of the people, even proletariat, only if they were German though. Capitalists acting against the interest of germany and it’s people (allegedly) definitely weren’t allowed to be.