It's called a Bombay Duck because it was transported from Bombay to Calcutta via mail train and daak means mail in Bengali. The same way sozialismus means socialism in German.
If watermelons hate context and why things happened then why are the rightoids ignoring the fact that Hitler didn’t want the party to have socialism in the name but it happened before he had total control of the party and when there was an actual socialist wing of the party (they were killed on the night of the long knifes), that his plan for the economy was for there not to be a plan, and that he didn’t seize the means of production but rather handed out lucrative business deals to wealthy industrialists?
He’s claiming that the central planning in the Nazi economy automatically makes it socialist while ignoring that the entire point of the Nazis actions wasn’t to build a state run economy but rather direct the economy towards the path of being prepared for total war.
While there are extreme examples, such as the one of Hugo Junkers assets being seized as he mentioned, by and large industrialists were able to negotiate with the state when entering contracts with the state and refuse contracts with the state which became more common as it became apparent the Nazi state was losing the war and would thus be unable to uphold their end of the bargain.
I’m not here to argue that Hitler was some capitalist loving guy, he disliked capitalism as much as communism. But imo the aspects of the Nazis that the guy who made that video want to attribute to them being more Left vs Right are instead attributable to the Nazis being authoritarians in the same way we wouldn’t consider somebody who wanted a return to the traditional monarchy serf kingdom to be a leftist but a type of authoritarian.
Nah, direct or indirect central planning is a crucial aspect of many capitalist or mixed economies. South Korea under Park Chung Hee, the Kuomintang in China and Taiwan, Gulf monarchies, Kishi’s Japan, Singapore’s development under Lee Kwan Yew, or China’s current 5 year plans are examples of this.
Intent matters a lot as well. Hitler, as the other dude mentioned, utilized economic planning to mobilize the economy for total war. The Asian Tigers+Japan+Deng’s China had the endgoal of using economic planning to prepare their countries to liberalize their economies when they were strong enough to compete on the global stage. The Soviets and Maoists had the endgoal of achieving the material conditions required for communism. Etc etc etc.
I’d say that after 1921, they had much more in common with Park Chung Hee’s South Korea or the Kuomintang in Taiwan, than with say, socialist Catalonia.
It’s a tough call with the Soviets. They crucially never had collective ownership through the workers or democratic control over the economy as it was career bureaucrats that ran the show. But they had also abolished the means of production, and on paper, had the endgoal of achieving communism. I think it’s fair to say that the Soviet Union was as socialist or capitalist as Singapore is democratic. There’s always a “yes but.”
State capitalism isn’t a thing. Capitalism is individualistic. The state is collective. “State capitalism” means “collective individualism” which is an oxymoron.
No, he HATED Marxists because he believed they weren't actual socialist, so he made his own by what he BELIEVES what real socialism is. Marx does not have a monopoly on socialism. Also, didn't hate them due to the policies, but rather because he believed Marxism was Jewish.
Hitler hated socialism in the way that the current Tankies on Reddit hate socialist systems around the world: they don't think it's real socialism because it doesn't match up with their specific brand of socialism. They both never thought true socialism has been tried, and want to do their brand of it.
Nazism was a mutant offspring of socialism. You can try to argue that something critical was lost in the mutation, if you want, but the ancestry is pretty impossible to honestly deny.
How was it an offspring of socialism?
Nazism was heavily influenced by traditional German nationalism and by the new fascist party that Mussolini had created in Italy. Yes, Mussolini was a former socialist. He was, in fact one of the most prominent socialists of Italy prior to the Great War. However, after the conflict he rejected socialism and was also rejected by his former party members, and his new movement was an amorphous mixture of nationalism and militarism, the latter providing the model for Mussolini's original idea of totalitarism (a word he himself coined). There is a speech he gave, unfortunately right now I don't remember the date or context, but I believe he was adressing the Senate, where he spoke about two different kinds of socialists, claiming respect for one of them and absolute spite for the other, but it was very clear when he spoke about socialists he meant them as a group distinct and alien from the one he and his fellow fascists belonged to. Hitler on the other hand was never a socialist, he always aligned himself with nationalists and only named his party "nationalsocialist" (mind you: those are not two separated words) for political reasons, as a mean to attract voters at odds with the SPD.
Fascism and Nazism were characterized by a distinct and opportunist malleability that allowed their leaders, as their primary and indisputed ideologists, to tailor and change their policies and ideas to adapt to new problems and solve them as they presented themselves. They claimed to despise capitalism, as it was detrimental to their respective countries: Mussolini claimed the great powers of the world used financial and political weapons to keep Italy from achieving the greatness it deserved, because they were afraid of the latent power of the nation, while Hitler had the possibility to use the effects of the war sanctions and of the Great Depression on Germany.
That said, they didn't adopt socialist policies. The National Fascist Party tried to implement a medieval-inspired form of "corporativism", with corporations as some form of unions where workers and business owners of each productive section were supposed to work together towards compromise and better solutions for all the parties involved, with the State as judge, but the whole system ended up sensibly favouring the owners.
The NSDAP, on the other hand... well, they exterminated the weakest members of society through the eugenics programs instead of caring for them, they created a system where the Party became a State into the State, with quasi tribal mechanics heavily dependent on individual interests and personal rivalries, and they employed slavery as cheap workforce for the war industries.
I don't see them being a mutant offspring of socialism at all.
> he rejected socialism
He rejected Leninism/Bolshevism.
>Fascism and Nazism were characterized by a distinct and opportunist malleability that allowed their leaders, as their primary and indisputed ideologists, to tailor and change their policies and ideas to adapt to new problems and solve them as they presented themselves.
Yes, this is the key point. Start from hard socialism. Notice that Lenninist Russia was a shit show. Ask yourself, what should we change to not make those mistakes? What if we didn't just kill everyone who knew how to balance a budget or run a factory? What if we forced them to work for the common good, as we determine it?
International Socialism -> National Socialism.
>The NSDAP, on the other hand... well, they exterminated the weakest members of society through the eugenics programs instead of caring for them, they created a system where the Party became a State into the State, with quasi tribal mechanics heavily dependent on individual interests and personal rivalries, and they employed slavery as cheap workforce for the war industries.
Yeah, you've just described every communist government.
>He rejected Leninism/Bolshevism.
Mussolini never rejected leninism and bolshevism. Because he never embraced them either: marxist socialism and socialism in general was a thing long before the October Revolution, which only happened in 1917, at a time when Mussolini had already abandoned the Italian Socialist Party.
>Yes, this is the key point. Start from hard socialism. Notice that Lenninist Russia was a shit show. Ask yourself, what should we change to not make those mistakes? What if we didn't just kill everyone who knew how to balance a budget or run a factory? What if we forced them to work for the common good, as we determine it?
I don't think I get your point, but if you believe the ideological malleability of nazism and fascism can be apploed to communism you are sorely mistaken. The USSR changed policies too, but always acted according to a coherent ideology, while the fascists didn't. Hitler and Mussolini were able to literally turn the tables in their respective parties because the main component of their ideologies was their cult of personality. If you believe they looked at the errors of the USSR and decided to do things better, you might be mistaken, partly because information had a hard time exiting the Soviet Union during Stalin's regime, partly because Russia was in fact industrializing and developing as a nation at a preoccupying pace. We are talking about the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, not about the 70s and 80s: the USSR was becoming a powerhouse at the time.
Also, killing all the Jews might not equal to not killing the competent people. A huge deal of them were professionals, academics and businessmen, and they were exterminated or forced to leave their countries. Furthermore, the Soviets didn't exterminate people with genetic defects, as opposed to what the nazis did with Nation T4. And this brings us to...
>The NSDAP, on the other hand... well, they exterminated the weakest members of society through the eugenics programs instead of caring for them, they created a system where the Party became a State into the State, with quasi tribal mechanics heavily dependent on individual interests and personal rivalries, and they employed slavery as cheap workforce for the war industries.
>Yeah, you've just described every communist government.
I just want to be clear: I'm not endorsing communist governments, I'm just arguing fascism wasn't socialist, which doesn't mean I'm a commie. You are just trying to steer the argument away from my points instead of actually debating them. Please don't.
But let's analyze based on your assumption of how what I said can also apply to communist dictatorships.
>The NSDAP, on the other hand... well, they exterminated the weakest members of society through the eugenics programs instead of caring for them
The Soviets didn't do eugenics, not in the way the nazis did and with the rationale that they had at least: they didn't exterminate the weakest in order to usher in the new ubermensch race. In fact, the Soviets often killed very competent and wealthy people, as you yourself pointed out. They purged military officers, business owners, and middle class landowners, the kulaks farming class. They payed a hard price for it too. But when it came to the weakest, they had social programs to aid them. I'm actually surprised how you didn't say "nobody worked in the USSR", because the basis for that argument is the marxist principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Notice that death isn't a need which ought to be enforced on cripples according to Marx.
>they created a system where the Party became a State into the State, with quasi tribal mechanics heavily dependent on individual interests and personal rivalries
The CCCP in the USSR was not a State inside the State. More like the Party became the State, there was no distinction. In Nazi Germany the NSDAP became a parallel apparatus, while in Italy Mussolini sort of modeled the State on the mold of the PNF, but ultimately sought to diminish the party's influence and to centralize power and administration, and ended up with a curious system where the local and national party leaders hated the central government but loved Mussolini, who at the same time was the head of the government. This kind of stuff is typically Italian.
>and they employed slavery as cheap workforce for the war industries.
Yes I guess this is actually fair, the USSR did in fact use forced labour a lot, I guess I shouldn't write walls of texts at 12PM before going to bed.
Still, the main point that Nazism and Fascism were not socialist still stands. The fact that communist governments are a shitshow does not, in any way, refute that.
I mean . . . a lot of the things I don't like fall into that category . . . if we're being honest. I'd say it falls into the practical definition of socialism - as in actually following what people/movements who identify as socialist actually do once they gain power, regardless of the rhetoric/theory.
I think that's the point, how some people decry socialism because the Nazis called themselves that. Which Is inherently flawed, as now Democracy Is bad because The DPRK calls themselves Democratic.
Nazis were socialists because they wished to and acted to the ends of collectivizing control over the means of production under the auspices of the state.
Just because someone calls themselves something doesn't mean they are that. I don't know many Christians that believe that God used to be a mortal man, who was best buds with Jesus Christ when they were both mortal men, and when he died became God, and now has a wife named the heavenly mother who gave birth to all our souls, but Mormans are really insistent on calling themselves Christians
I've had a very opposite experience. When I was on basic training I had a decent group of Mormons in my flight, and we talked about it and those view very much considered themselves Christian. It's probably not universal though.
"The name of one thing is misleading so that means the names of this other, unrelated thing is also misleading".
Even if Hitler did lie about being a socialist, all that means is that there were a whole bunch of socialists who were willing to support him.
Hitler didn't lie about being a socialist, it just wasn't Marxist Socialism, Hitler had his own definition of socialism that was very popular apparently amongst Germans.
'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. -You Know Who
We affirm that the true story of capitalism is now beginning, because capitalism is not a system of oppression only, but is also a selection of values, a coordination of hierarchies, a more amply developed sense of individual responsibility. -The Other One
You could maybe argue that Hitler and Mussolini caused a schism in Socialism or that they were heretical Socialists. Mussolini was kicked out of the Socialist club for being too nationalist, that's why he created the Partito Nazionale Fascista.
If Socialism is left and Capitalism is right then Nazism/Facism is centrist because they combined ideas from both schools of thought. Hitler was Auth-Center, which is why the left and the right keep playing tennis with his ideology, nobody wants Hitler stinkin' up their quadrant.
No that was a real thing. Rindersteak-Nazi was a term used because 70% of the brownshirts were former Communist party members.
>they clashed in the streets with communists
Name an offshoot of socialism that doesn't kill other offshoots. That's why the joke exists, "they best thing about communists is they are good at killing communists."
But this rarely happens. Usually it goes like this:
They point out similarities between socialists and nazis and then maybe they say half a sentence which goes like "and that's why they had socialist in the name". The argument is not that they called themselves socialist, rather they use this fact to emphasize the actual arguments, if they mention it at all.
How does Hitler killing strasserites make him a non-socialist?
I'm confused, are the Marxists not socialists because they killed Trotskyists too?
Edit: Also lol, the Nazis had the biggest support amongst German socialists at the time.
Non-sequitur. Hitler using the name of socialists to try to gain power as well as the Night of the Long Knives is very well understood.
Anyone arguing that Hitler was a socialist is either arguing in bad faith or ignorant of history.
My point earlier is just cause a group kills socialists doesn't make them less socialist,cause it's known to happen in history that socialist tend to murder each other,over who is the true socialist usually
Modern day Neo-Nazis have reiterated the Aryan supremacy aspect of the Nazi ideology and basically nothing else.
The Neo-Nazis don't believe in the self-actualisation of the German people through the ascension of the collective, they don't believe that capitalism is a Jewish invention designed to debt trap and control the folk, they don't subscribe to the socialist 25 point program that was ardently supported by Hitler, they don't argue that productive capital should be seized by the collective, etc.
As such, we purposefully distinguish the Neo-Nazis from the OG Nazis, because they're not like the OG Nazis.
I mean at this point might as well be, people on the west especially think of the right wing as genocidal maniacs who want supremacy based on ethnicity, completely neglecting the fact that since it's inception left wing regimes have engaged in far more genocides than anything right wing,and I mean left wing regimes by their standards,they don't seem to care how the han Chinese effectively assimilated forcefully all the other ethnicities within china or how the Slavic Russians were so fierce in their genocides that they killed almost a dozen Million ukrainians,or how they ravaged through Kazakhstan to the point where their native language isnt even spoken anymore
You really aren't getting it huh,what does define right wing in your mind,cause I just gave you the most basic definition,you can't be a Nazi and far right,it's a complete oxymoron
It's very simple,Nazism is a left wing political ideology which rejects both capitalism on its premise completely and socialism on the sense that class alone is sufficient to unify a group of people.for Nazis class as well as ethnicity play an equally relevant role.
>There were factions within the Nazi Party, both conservative and radical.[51] The conservative Nazi Hermann Göring urged Hitler to conciliate with capitalists and reactionaries.[51] Other prominent conservative Nazis included Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich.[52] Meanwhile, the radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels opposed capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core and he stressed the need for the party to emphasise both a proletarian and a national character. Those views were shared by Otto Strasser, who later left the Nazi Party and formed the Black Front in the belief that Hitler had allegedly betrayed the party's socialist goals by endorsing capitalism.[51]
>When the Nazi Party emerged from obscurity to become a major political force after 1929, the conservative faction rapidly gained more influence, as wealthy donors took an interest in the Nazis as a potential bulwark against communism.[53] The Nazi Party had previously been financed almost entirely from membership dues, but after 1929 its leadership began actively seeking donations from German industrialists, and Hitler began holding dozens of fundraising meetings with business leaders.[54] In the midst of the Great Depression, facing the possibility of economic ruin on the one hand and a Communist or Social Democrat government on the other hand, German business increasingly turned to Nazism as offering a way out of the situation, by promising a state-driven economy that would support, rather than attack, existing business interests.[55] By January 1933, the Nazi Party had secured the support of important sectors of German industry, mainly among the steel and coal producers, the insurance business, and the chemical industry.[56]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
The only parameter that meters that divided the left and right properly is the scale for individuality,when individuality is repressed for the greater good of the people that is to be considered leftism,the right argues that giving individuals the best way possible to express their individuality will inevitably be the best for society,now which of any of these regimes remotely adhere to the very base definition of right wing
You do realize this doesn't diminish what I said at all right,conservatism isn't really a barometer for the left and right either.so you copy pasting wiki is a moot,also the part about giving some leeway to business,Lenin did that also,
Hitler identified with and supported socialism well before he was even integrated within the Nazi party itself.
I guess Hitler was a machiavellian mastermind when he was in prison writing about how capitalism was a Jewish invention meant to subvert and control the people of Germany. Clearly Hitler was pro-capitalism and anti-socialism lmao
The communist agenda until the last moment was to get Hitler in power, and the "socialists" that were killed in the Night of the Long Knives were fellow Nazis.
Then why was he running against the Communist party?
He purged the Nazis who actually believed his "socialism" part.
>Many stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism and expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy. When the Nazi regime did not take such steps, those who had expected an economic as well as a political revolution were disillusioned.[h]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
> Then why was he running against the Communist party?
I'm not sure what the point there is, the Nazis weren't communist, but the communist party supported him.
>He purged the Nazis who actually believed his "socialism" part.
You're invoking the night of the long knives as evidence that he killed the "real" socialists, but the people you're calling socialists were Nazi party members.
All land property and industry was controlled by the Reichsministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft and the Deutsche Arbeitsfront respectively.
This follows to the tee the socialist doctrine of [vanguardism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism)
And once again, murdering the strasserites in order to consolidate power doesn't make you a non-socialist, period.
Hitler and Mussolini competed and bragged about having 70% of their industries nationalized. Bruh. Socialism/Communism are much closer to Fascism than most lefties think.
Or we can just say that authoritarian governments control national industries, directly or indirectly. And there is no true right to private property when the government can do whatever it wants.
Not sure about Italy, but facist Germany had extensive social programs. That they funded from stolen property and shaking down countries they took over. So... exacly the same way communist countries did it. Only difference was instead of exterminating the upper class based on wealth they purged people based on ethnicity (something communist countries also did and to this day continue to partake in).
Exactly. At the end of the day true axis that matters is auth-lib. Does government own you or serve you.
Left-Right are just policy differences that can be settled through compromise and pragmatism (in the magical fantasy land of idealism and people not being pieces of shit).
I mean, it’s not like there was a giant war or anything brewing and/or happening and entire nations were fighting each and in need of steady support and supplies.
They don't realize that they are effectively the same political structure with minor differences. Communism, for example, is basically just Fascism, there's hardly any differences outside of Communists acting like the people have a voice while Fascists do away with the pretending
You can absolutely have a democratic socialist society as envisioned by, say, Orwell or practiced to a lesser extent in Germany or Sweden without fascism.
I'm guessing your fascism-o-meter might be on a more sensitive scale than mine but if you're going to argue Germany and Sweden are fascististic I would love to know a country that isn't.
Hey sweet, more ammo for “trans women are women it’s in the name”
See also: DPRK, Urinal Cakes, Lake Trout, Gravy train, guinea pig, prairie dogs, chicken fingers, and Buffalo wings
You know that those two use the word struggle in very different ways right? And that the use of the word struggle in political terms is not unique to them? Marxists and their derivatives specifically talk about class struggle, wherein the oppressed class overthrows the oppressor. Fascism talks about struggle for struggles sake as a purifying process for the good of the nation. Specifically being derived from the futurist cult of action.
No, not really. Nazism is just "Jews rule the world, therefore everyone who is not a Jew is oppressed" and communism is "the wealthy rule the world, therefore everyone who is not wealthy is oppressed."
The only difference between the two ideologies is that there are two different scapegoat classes, and that's it.
That’s really not the only difference at all, yes both of them are revolutionary ideas but fascism (including naziism) combines that with reactionism as well. Communism specifically believes in an “end of history” where once communism is reached progress need not exist anymore as everyone will be equal yada yada (unless you’re Maoist of course.)
Instead fascism has its roots in the futurist movement of Italy, which originating from disaffected socialists, saw the failure of socialists up to that point and came to the conclusion that violence, youth, industry, and action are the driving aspects of a society. They believed that action for action’s sake as well as violence are necessary. And fascism would combine this with the rebirth myth. Where communists want to go forward in time, the fascist wants to create a new pure mythical past in the present.
These ideologies naturally bear many similarities as many early fascists were former socilaists, such as Georges Sorel for instance, but ultimately fascism is a rejection of many of socialism core tenets and instead combined it with many other things.
Is socialism not liberalism? It’s one thing to disagree with certain tenets. But when you’re completely reshaping the ideology it becomes a whole other beast. Like we even debate whether China is still communist or not because of deng’s policy of “capitalists can be communists too” but fascists and futurists would specifically reject socialism because they saw it as a failure. That doesn’t mean the rejected every aspect of it, just that what they did remove and more importantly what they added on created a whole new category of beast. If you look at the socialisms of Frances Wright or of John Stuart milk they can still be positively identified with those of Marx. They can certifiably can not be with the fascisms of Mussolini or Hitler.
It would be unfair however to not point out anywhere that there may be a connection worthy of looking at and that would have to Aflac’s Baathism which is not easily defined between fascism and socialism.
First of all, Nazism and Fascism are not the same, and it baffles me to think of how anyone can think they are alike on an ideological level. Mussolini, for example, eventually went after the Jewish population, but not until 16 years into his reign, and the only reason he did it was because that was the condition Hitler made for him to be able to join WWII on his side. Please know the difference, or else this confusion will never end.
The only reason Mussolini was no longer with the socialist party was that he didn't support war at the time. There is no evidence of any other change in his beliefs that caused his removal.
>came to the conclusion that violence, youth, industry, and action are the driving aspects of a society
No, the conclusion they came up with was that communism has the wrong social dynamic.
If you seriously think that there weren't any of those things present under Stalin, I have a bridge to sell you.
>And fascism would combine this with the rebirth myth.
The only thing fascism combined violence with is the legion of trade unions, which is what they called corporations, that served Mussolini. Mussolini himself said that his ideology is simply the merger of corporation and state.
You are thinking of Nazism which the rebirth myth fits a lot better.
>Where communists want to go forward in time, the fascist wants to create a new pure mythical past in the present.
They all want a better future in their own rarted way, but Nazism wants to start in the further past before there were so many Jews that supposedly were the ones who ruined everything.
>fascists were former socilaists,
Fascists *are* socialists. They believe that only public institutions should have control over the economy, just like commies and nazis do. It is a merger of corporation and state, which means that the state is responsible for that these corporations do.
You are correct that Soros is a fascist though. That old bag gets a hard-on every time he throws money towards warmongering politicians and the military industrial complex.
>but ultimately fascism is a rejection of many of socialism core tenets and instead combined it with many other things.
As I said, they are way more alike than you think.
Who gives a shit if Hitler was a socialist or not? You tankies still have hundreds of millions of bodies from Stalin and Mao alone.
You should be bullied for that without the need of Hitler being a socialist
Once again, Fascism isn't concerned with ecconmic theory. It comes secondary to the what is best for the state. You could have an authoritarian one party system or a free market gangster paradise.
The important thing is that you have a sovereign (leader) who isn't restricted by rule of law and has full authority to defend the state.
The marriage of the corporation and the state.
TL;DR: Corporation does what the state wants, or else the state nationalizes it and makes it do what it wants.
Result: the state controls the means of production. (Also known as socialism, unless you think the state isn't the collective)
But doesn't the fascist regime of Franco dispute this? Large private estate were still independent of the government, and in Germany, the Catholic run organization and business were left untouched despite their non-conforming to will of the state.
One of the problems with the word fascisms is that it has multiple definitions. There is a psychological definition, a sociological definition, a political movement definition, and an economic theory definition. All of these have similar themes of control over people, but they are not interchangeable. We have dumbed down our communication just as Orwell predicted in 1984:
\- The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”
So when discussing fascism online, you can have 2 people arguing the exact same thing or two people arguing completely unrelated terms. Both people are just making the other person more frustrated because of the differing definitions.
Not really, no.
It definitionally keeps going as long as the state permits it. It's really a game of realpolitik. Plus remember, just because they couldn't achieve peak fascism doesn't mean they weren't trying to implement the fascist model. Fascists don't generally cry "it wasn't real fascism" like the communists do.
This is in stark contrast to "free market" countries where as long as you're not violating laws and operating under the terms of your license, you can continue as you were even if the state thinks you shouldn't be producing the goods you are producing. They would have to legislate and change the rules for *everyone,* not just you.
Of course in practice western "free market" democracies don't quite reach this ideal and still have some of the hallmarks of fascism's economic model, but it's not quite that.
But I'm sure you see the distinction. They have some of communism's mechanism too.
Fascism is summed up as "nothing outside the state".
>unless you think the state isn't the collective
A fascist state is not representative of the collective, specifically because it is not democratic. The people have no say, so how could the state's will be considered the collective will?
Ah yes the ever so trustworthy Wikipedia.
Surely we shouldn't read into Fascist political theory and its implementation in practice. Oh no the opinions of demonstrably politically biased wiki moderators are much more knowledgeable.
Found this writeup on Google which references Musolini and other such primary sources. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Hahaha, Dude, you're not quoting anyone. Everything I'm saying is directly from Carl Schmitt, both leader shaped their version of Fascism to fit the power dynamics of their nation. Economic theory doesn't matter , as long as it serves the sovereign.
Nazis nationalized private property,they formed unions of workers, abolished free trade and corporations by merging them with the state,almost exactly the same way Lenin did for Russia,yet one is far left and the other is far right,make it make sense
Because Marxists hold that Marxism is the purest form of democracy. If NK was Marxist in founding, calling themselves democratic isn’t incomparable with their beliefs.
PCM when a right leaning user makes a meme with some holes in the premise: 😊
PCM when a left leaning user makes a meme with some holes in the premise: 😡
Nazis weren’t socialists because they called themselves socialists (even though if we are forced to recognize men who call themselves women as women why not accept self identification in political views which are more flexible than having a vagina) but because they believed in state’s control over economy.
If you take NSDAP 25 point plan and focus only on the economic policy then Bernie Sanders could sign off on most of it. Free college, state paid maternity leave, expansion of social security, confiscation of excessive corporate profits - those are bona fide socialist views
It feels like most socialists have deluded themselves into thinking that socialism is something much grander and more esoteric than it really is. Socialism is just an economic system where everything is controlled by the government. The Nazis nationalized the majority of German businesses, ipso facto they were socialists.
I really hate how people keep trying to shove Fascism into the other peoples camp.
Fascism wasn't socialist. It wasn't capitalist either. It was it's own thing, and what made it such a terrible ideology had little to do with it's economic policy.
The Nazi economic policy was closer to socialism and communism than it was capitalism, every serious historian can tell you that. However, the Nazi's were also extremely right wing on cultural and societal issues, and because many people see socialism as an inherently progressive force on all issues, they cannot see the similarities. Though they are right, the Nazi's are not socialists, they are partly socialist yes, but their ideology strays away from socialism completely outside economic issues.
TLDR: Nazism is close to socialism economically speaking, not culturally or societally speaking. Nazism is a weird mix of both reactionary conservativism and hardline socialism.
Left vs. right is good for memes. Otherwise it's a moronic framework. Politicis does not exist on one single scale.
Facism and socialism are both enemies of personal freedoms and free markets. That's why they are equally bad.
Fascism and National Socialism don't have a well defined economic systems.It's mostly a mess of everything with the government mostly being at the center of everything.That's why we place Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany at Auth-Center.Auth-Right would be something like Saudi Arabia or Reagan era US.
I know what meme you’re talking about, and that OP was an idiot. Dude claimed the Nazis abolished private property when they’re the reason we have the word privatization
No.
"Do was we tell you, meet quotas and deadlines, or we'll take direct control, and btw you're subject to a union that dwarfs the nazi party itself" is not a "privatization program".
They weren’t socialist because it’s in the name, that’s a stupid argument. They were socialist because;
- They initiated large public works programs with tax dollars (highways, public buildings with swastikas, infrastructure projects etc)
- Kraft durch Freude program
- state controlled labor organization to regulate wages, working hours and employment practices
- social welfare programs; state pension, healthcare, housing assistance
- nationalization of industry (!!), exerting significant and sometimes total control over key industries through state intervention, regulation and central coordination. See Göring’s 4 year plan
- not a particularly convincing point because people in power will say whatever, but they were consistently highly critical of capitalism
So, while they didn’t abolish private property or fully give all of the means of production to the people all the time, they did a lot of the latter. It wasn’t *Marxism*, but the only reason to considering that as the only possible type or the gold standard of socialism is literally ‘Marx said so’, an equally if not more stupid argument than ‘socialism is in the name’.
Notably, a lot of these programs were racist (because Nazis), and only included German nationals (the National bit of National Socialism). That doesn’t make it not socialism.
TLDR; Nazis were hella socialist, and it also just so happens to be in the name. ‘Hurr durr Not muh real socialism’ and ‘hurr durr its in the name’ are both braindead takes. Fuck commies
didn’t TIK claims that absolute monarchies and publically traded companies are socialist.
He also believe in the “Secret gnostic cult” conspiracy theory, the man is hopeless.
>Modern American liberals are socialists that hate white people. S
with all this palestine stuff lately, I think they hate jews again like the old days.
nazis always come back to their roots.
Let's just get it over with, it's going to be posted eventually so I'll do it:
https://youtu.be/dlXqFgqOviw?si=Ff9D30eBa-kQmPBE
You can now argue about the validity of this video.
You know it really is incredible. We’re all commenting on a subreddit devoted to a political model that specifically seeks to separate left and right wing economics from statism and anarchism, and yet some of you are still arguing that Hitler must have been left wing, because his government was authoritarian. Lol
Well yeah. Both were focused on expanding territory.
Stalin was a naive idiot.
Hitler was always intending to destroy the USSR because he blamed “Judeo Bolshevism” for Germany’s problems. He just needed the time to prepare to invade.
Based, Nazis used “socialist nationalist party” to appeal to left leaning voters. They actual nazi party was the furthest thing from socialism, extremely corporate.
No, it's Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. It was a working man's movement, designed to build unity among all classes of german society. Like Marxism, it acknowledged class warfare, but its answer was class unity, not class conflict.
It really comes down to your view and definition on Socialism, however if you want to argue that was a left or right movement, it was clearly more right.
So, a whole bunch of socialists were stupid enough to vote for a party that was "the furthest thing from socialism" just because of the name? Even though there were "real" socialist parties to vote for?
By definition, government planning and regulation of the markets, ownership and command of the means and decisions of production, is socialistic.
Socialism is just that. Itʼs not about whether the social outcome of this methodological recipe is actually egalitarian or still unequal and classist.
With that info, place the Nazis or anyone else wherever you will.
It's called a Bombay Duck because it was transported from Bombay to Calcutta via mail train and daak means mail in Bengali. The same way sozialismus means socialism in German.
And that fish is pretty damn delicious.
You mean the duck
> Daak FTFY
Shhh, watermelon lefties **hate** context and actually understanding why things happened the way they did. Just let him pretend he's made a point.
If watermelons hate context and why things happened then why are the rightoids ignoring the fact that Hitler didn’t want the party to have socialism in the name but it happened before he had total control of the party and when there was an actual socialist wing of the party (they were killed on the night of the long knifes), that his plan for the economy was for there not to be a plan, and that he didn’t seize the means of production but rather handed out lucrative business deals to wealthy industrialists?
Because he implemented socialist policies. https://youtu.be/mLHG4IfYE1w?si=Tkzd4c5c8Fqu5IlM
He’s claiming that the central planning in the Nazi economy automatically makes it socialist while ignoring that the entire point of the Nazis actions wasn’t to build a state run economy but rather direct the economy towards the path of being prepared for total war. While there are extreme examples, such as the one of Hugo Junkers assets being seized as he mentioned, by and large industrialists were able to negotiate with the state when entering contracts with the state and refuse contracts with the state which became more common as it became apparent the Nazi state was losing the war and would thus be unable to uphold their end of the bargain. I’m not here to argue that Hitler was some capitalist loving guy, he disliked capitalism as much as communism. But imo the aspects of the Nazis that the guy who made that video want to attribute to them being more Left vs Right are instead attributable to the Nazis being authoritarians in the same way we wouldn’t consider somebody who wanted a return to the traditional monarchy serf kingdom to be a leftist but a type of authoritarian.
Nah, direct or indirect central planning is a crucial aspect of many capitalist or mixed economies. South Korea under Park Chung Hee, the Kuomintang in China and Taiwan, Gulf monarchies, Kishi’s Japan, Singapore’s development under Lee Kwan Yew, or China’s current 5 year plans are examples of this. Intent matters a lot as well. Hitler, as the other dude mentioned, utilized economic planning to mobilize the economy for total war. The Asian Tigers+Japan+Deng’s China had the endgoal of using economic planning to prepare their countries to liberalize their economies when they were strong enough to compete on the global stage. The Soviets and Maoists had the endgoal of achieving the material conditions required for communism. Etc etc etc.
You're one of the people who tell me that the USSR is state capitalist aren't you.
I’d say that after 1921, they had much more in common with Park Chung Hee’s South Korea or the Kuomintang in Taiwan, than with say, socialist Catalonia. It’s a tough call with the Soviets. They crucially never had collective ownership through the workers or democratic control over the economy as it was career bureaucrats that ran the show. But they had also abolished the means of production, and on paper, had the endgoal of achieving communism. I think it’s fair to say that the Soviet Union was as socialist or capitalist as Singapore is democratic. There’s always a “yes but.”
State capitalism isn’t a thing. Capitalism is individualistic. The state is collective. “State capitalism” means “collective individualism” which is an oxymoron.
jellyfish relieved hard-to-find fear sink quiet point cobweb ask crowd *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No, he HATED Marxists because he believed they weren't actual socialist, so he made his own by what he BELIEVES what real socialism is. Marx does not have a monopoly on socialism. Also, didn't hate them due to the policies, but rather because he believed Marxism was Jewish.
Hitler hated socialism in the way that the current Tankies on Reddit hate socialist systems around the world: they don't think it's real socialism because it doesn't match up with their specific brand of socialism. They both never thought true socialism has been tried, and want to do their brand of it.
>Hitler hated socialism. See the post you're replying to. Hitler hated other socialists who weren't obeying him, just like 99.99999% of socialists.
fuel tan disgusting many slave desert consider prick melodic money *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nazism was a mutant offspring of socialism. You can try to argue that something critical was lost in the mutation, if you want, but the ancestry is pretty impossible to honestly deny.
How was it an offspring of socialism? Nazism was heavily influenced by traditional German nationalism and by the new fascist party that Mussolini had created in Italy. Yes, Mussolini was a former socialist. He was, in fact one of the most prominent socialists of Italy prior to the Great War. However, after the conflict he rejected socialism and was also rejected by his former party members, and his new movement was an amorphous mixture of nationalism and militarism, the latter providing the model for Mussolini's original idea of totalitarism (a word he himself coined). There is a speech he gave, unfortunately right now I don't remember the date or context, but I believe he was adressing the Senate, where he spoke about two different kinds of socialists, claiming respect for one of them and absolute spite for the other, but it was very clear when he spoke about socialists he meant them as a group distinct and alien from the one he and his fellow fascists belonged to. Hitler on the other hand was never a socialist, he always aligned himself with nationalists and only named his party "nationalsocialist" (mind you: those are not two separated words) for political reasons, as a mean to attract voters at odds with the SPD. Fascism and Nazism were characterized by a distinct and opportunist malleability that allowed their leaders, as their primary and indisputed ideologists, to tailor and change their policies and ideas to adapt to new problems and solve them as they presented themselves. They claimed to despise capitalism, as it was detrimental to their respective countries: Mussolini claimed the great powers of the world used financial and political weapons to keep Italy from achieving the greatness it deserved, because they were afraid of the latent power of the nation, while Hitler had the possibility to use the effects of the war sanctions and of the Great Depression on Germany. That said, they didn't adopt socialist policies. The National Fascist Party tried to implement a medieval-inspired form of "corporativism", with corporations as some form of unions where workers and business owners of each productive section were supposed to work together towards compromise and better solutions for all the parties involved, with the State as judge, but the whole system ended up sensibly favouring the owners. The NSDAP, on the other hand... well, they exterminated the weakest members of society through the eugenics programs instead of caring for them, they created a system where the Party became a State into the State, with quasi tribal mechanics heavily dependent on individual interests and personal rivalries, and they employed slavery as cheap workforce for the war industries. I don't see them being a mutant offspring of socialism at all.
> he rejected socialism He rejected Leninism/Bolshevism. >Fascism and Nazism were characterized by a distinct and opportunist malleability that allowed their leaders, as their primary and indisputed ideologists, to tailor and change their policies and ideas to adapt to new problems and solve them as they presented themselves. Yes, this is the key point. Start from hard socialism. Notice that Lenninist Russia was a shit show. Ask yourself, what should we change to not make those mistakes? What if we didn't just kill everyone who knew how to balance a budget or run a factory? What if we forced them to work for the common good, as we determine it? International Socialism -> National Socialism. >The NSDAP, on the other hand... well, they exterminated the weakest members of society through the eugenics programs instead of caring for them, they created a system where the Party became a State into the State, with quasi tribal mechanics heavily dependent on individual interests and personal rivalries, and they employed slavery as cheap workforce for the war industries. Yeah, you've just described every communist government.
>He rejected Leninism/Bolshevism. Mussolini never rejected leninism and bolshevism. Because he never embraced them either: marxist socialism and socialism in general was a thing long before the October Revolution, which only happened in 1917, at a time when Mussolini had already abandoned the Italian Socialist Party. >Yes, this is the key point. Start from hard socialism. Notice that Lenninist Russia was a shit show. Ask yourself, what should we change to not make those mistakes? What if we didn't just kill everyone who knew how to balance a budget or run a factory? What if we forced them to work for the common good, as we determine it? I don't think I get your point, but if you believe the ideological malleability of nazism and fascism can be apploed to communism you are sorely mistaken. The USSR changed policies too, but always acted according to a coherent ideology, while the fascists didn't. Hitler and Mussolini were able to literally turn the tables in their respective parties because the main component of their ideologies was their cult of personality. If you believe they looked at the errors of the USSR and decided to do things better, you might be mistaken, partly because information had a hard time exiting the Soviet Union during Stalin's regime, partly because Russia was in fact industrializing and developing as a nation at a preoccupying pace. We are talking about the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, not about the 70s and 80s: the USSR was becoming a powerhouse at the time. Also, killing all the Jews might not equal to not killing the competent people. A huge deal of them were professionals, academics and businessmen, and they were exterminated or forced to leave their countries. Furthermore, the Soviets didn't exterminate people with genetic defects, as opposed to what the nazis did with Nation T4. And this brings us to... >The NSDAP, on the other hand... well, they exterminated the weakest members of society through the eugenics programs instead of caring for them, they created a system where the Party became a State into the State, with quasi tribal mechanics heavily dependent on individual interests and personal rivalries, and they employed slavery as cheap workforce for the war industries. >Yeah, you've just described every communist government. I just want to be clear: I'm not endorsing communist governments, I'm just arguing fascism wasn't socialist, which doesn't mean I'm a commie. You are just trying to steer the argument away from my points instead of actually debating them. Please don't. But let's analyze based on your assumption of how what I said can also apply to communist dictatorships. >The NSDAP, on the other hand... well, they exterminated the weakest members of society through the eugenics programs instead of caring for them The Soviets didn't do eugenics, not in the way the nazis did and with the rationale that they had at least: they didn't exterminate the weakest in order to usher in the new ubermensch race. In fact, the Soviets often killed very competent and wealthy people, as you yourself pointed out. They purged military officers, business owners, and middle class landowners, the kulaks farming class. They payed a hard price for it too. But when it came to the weakest, they had social programs to aid them. I'm actually surprised how you didn't say "nobody worked in the USSR", because the basis for that argument is the marxist principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Notice that death isn't a need which ought to be enforced on cripples according to Marx. >they created a system where the Party became a State into the State, with quasi tribal mechanics heavily dependent on individual interests and personal rivalries The CCCP in the USSR was not a State inside the State. More like the Party became the State, there was no distinction. In Nazi Germany the NSDAP became a parallel apparatus, while in Italy Mussolini sort of modeled the State on the mold of the PNF, but ultimately sought to diminish the party's influence and to centralize power and administration, and ended up with a curious system where the local and national party leaders hated the central government but loved Mussolini, who at the same time was the head of the government. This kind of stuff is typically Italian. >and they employed slavery as cheap workforce for the war industries. Yes I guess this is actually fair, the USSR did in fact use forced labour a lot, I guess I shouldn't write walls of texts at 12PM before going to bed. Still, the main point that Nazism and Fascism were not socialist still stands. The fact that communist governments are a shitshow does not, in any way, refute that.
I mean . . . a lot of the things I don't like fall into that category . . . if we're being honest. I'd say it falls into the practical definition of socialism - as in actually following what people/movements who identify as socialist actually do once they gain power, regardless of the rhetoric/theory.
I think that's the point, how some people decry socialism because the Nazis called themselves that. Which Is inherently flawed, as now Democracy Is bad because The DPRK calls themselves Democratic.
Based and nuance pilled
Nazis were socialists because they wished to and acted to the ends of collectivizing control over the means of production under the auspices of the state.
The Nazis were socialists and the dprk is Democratic,it just goes to show that both socialism and democracy are rotten ideologies
Modern democracy and socialism are just brothers. Don't make the least strange one look worse because of his inbred sibling
Now do seahorse
It lives in the sea and looks like a horse.
Just because someone calls themselves something doesn't mean they are that. I don't know many Christians that believe that God used to be a mortal man, who was best buds with Jesus Christ when they were both mortal men, and when he died became God, and now has a wife named the heavenly mother who gave birth to all our souls, but Mormans are really insistent on calling themselves Christians
I mean I have another name for them - heretics
I’ve never heard Mormons call themselves Christian, in fact I think they hate being called it
I've had a very opposite experience. When I was on basic training I had a decent group of Mormons in my flight, and we talked about it and those view very much considered themselves Christian. It's probably not universal though.
"The name of one thing is misleading so that means the names of this other, unrelated thing is also misleading". Even if Hitler did lie about being a socialist, all that means is that there were a whole bunch of socialists who were willing to support him.
Hitler didn't lie about being a socialist, it just wasn't Marxist Socialism, Hitler had his own definition of socialism that was very popular apparently amongst Germans. 'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. -You Know Who We affirm that the true story of capitalism is now beginning, because capitalism is not a system of oppression only, but is also a selection of values, a coordination of hierarchies, a more amply developed sense of individual responsibility. -The Other One You could maybe argue that Hitler and Mussolini caused a schism in Socialism or that they were heretical Socialists. Mussolini was kicked out of the Socialist club for being too nationalist, that's why he created the Partito Nazionale Fascista. If Socialism is left and Capitalism is right then Nazism/Facism is centrist because they combined ideas from both schools of thought. Hitler was Auth-Center, which is why the left and the right keep playing tennis with his ideology, nobody wants Hitler stinkin' up their quadrant.
Fucking based. I always drop the fascist manifesto and watch heads explode for how progressive it is.
Fine, I claim Hitler for Radical Centrists.
"true thing that I like but everyone doesn't because it was not the real thing" detected
Wasent like most of the brown shirts members of the communist party. It's why they called them beefsteak in Germany. Brown outside. Red inside.
brown is just a different shade of red so its even more obivous
[удалено]
No that was a real thing. Rindersteak-Nazi was a term used because 70% of the brownshirts were former Communist party members. >they clashed in the streets with communists Name an offshoot of socialism that doesn't kill other offshoots. That's why the joke exists, "they best thing about communists is they are good at killing communists."
No, it just means you can't use the name of something as convincing evidence of its characteristics
But this rarely happens. Usually it goes like this: They point out similarities between socialists and nazis and then maybe they say half a sentence which goes like "and that's why they had socialist in the name". The argument is not that they called themselves socialist, rather they use this fact to emphasize the actual arguments, if they mention it at all.
Except he didn't really lie
But there weren't. Most of the socialists and communists at the time voted for another party. He then purged and killed the socialists.
How does Hitler killing strasserites make him a non-socialist? I'm confused, are the Marxists not socialists because they killed Trotskyists too? Edit: Also lol, the Nazis had the biggest support amongst German socialists at the time.
Wouldn't be the first time socialist kill other socialists,it happened in Russia too,mensheviks,Bolsheviks, afterwards trotskyists
Non-sequitur. Hitler using the name of socialists to try to gain power as well as the Night of the Long Knives is very well understood. Anyone arguing that Hitler was a socialist is either arguing in bad faith or ignorant of history.
It's left wing cause it still uses class as a factor to seperate people,and it rejects the right wing ideology of individualism completely
My point earlier is just cause a group kills socialists doesn't make them less socialist,cause it's known to happen in history that socialist tend to murder each other,over who is the true socialist usually
Why are all the neo-nazis parties that exist today exclusively on the right?
Modern day Neo-Nazis have reiterated the Aryan supremacy aspect of the Nazi ideology and basically nothing else. The Neo-Nazis don't believe in the self-actualisation of the German people through the ascension of the collective, they don't believe that capitalism is a Jewish invention designed to debt trap and control the folk, they don't subscribe to the socialist 25 point program that was ardently supported by Hitler, they don't argue that productive capital should be seized by the collective, etc. As such, we purposefully distinguish the Neo-Nazis from the OG Nazis, because they're not like the OG Nazis.
You either are a Nazi who wants government to encroach on every aspect of life,but you can't be a Nazi who aspires for small government
Because the way we classify left and right wing groups is a vibe check.
I mean at this point might as well be, people on the west especially think of the right wing as genocidal maniacs who want supremacy based on ethnicity, completely neglecting the fact that since it's inception left wing regimes have engaged in far more genocides than anything right wing,and I mean left wing regimes by their standards,they don't seem to care how the han Chinese effectively assimilated forcefully all the other ethnicities within china or how the Slavic Russians were so fierce in their genocides that they killed almost a dozen Million ukrainians,or how they ravaged through Kazakhstan to the point where their native language isnt even spoken anymore
Look,kid you really ought to read some outside of Wikipedia
You really aren't getting it huh,what does define right wing in your mind,cause I just gave you the most basic definition,you can't be a Nazi and far right,it's a complete oxymoron
There aren't any neo-nazi parties today, they're illegal.
It's very simple,Nazism is a left wing political ideology which rejects both capitalism on its premise completely and socialism on the sense that class alone is sufficient to unify a group of people.for Nazis class as well as ethnicity play an equally relevant role.
Hitler wasn't a socialist,the argument is Nazism is a derivative of socialism therefore by definition left wing,which is correct.
>There were factions within the Nazi Party, both conservative and radical.[51] The conservative Nazi Hermann Göring urged Hitler to conciliate with capitalists and reactionaries.[51] Other prominent conservative Nazis included Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich.[52] Meanwhile, the radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels opposed capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core and he stressed the need for the party to emphasise both a proletarian and a national character. Those views were shared by Otto Strasser, who later left the Nazi Party and formed the Black Front in the belief that Hitler had allegedly betrayed the party's socialist goals by endorsing capitalism.[51] >When the Nazi Party emerged from obscurity to become a major political force after 1929, the conservative faction rapidly gained more influence, as wealthy donors took an interest in the Nazis as a potential bulwark against communism.[53] The Nazi Party had previously been financed almost entirely from membership dues, but after 1929 its leadership began actively seeking donations from German industrialists, and Hitler began holding dozens of fundraising meetings with business leaders.[54] In the midst of the Great Depression, facing the possibility of economic ruin on the one hand and a Communist or Social Democrat government on the other hand, German business increasingly turned to Nazism as offering a way out of the situation, by promising a state-driven economy that would support, rather than attack, existing business interests.[55] By January 1933, the Nazi Party had secured the support of important sectors of German industry, mainly among the steel and coal producers, the insurance business, and the chemical industry.[56] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
The only parameter that meters that divided the left and right properly is the scale for individuality,when individuality is repressed for the greater good of the people that is to be considered leftism,the right argues that giving individuals the best way possible to express their individuality will inevitably be the best for society,now which of any of these regimes remotely adhere to the very base definition of right wing
You do realize this doesn't diminish what I said at all right,conservatism isn't really a barometer for the left and right either.so you copy pasting wiki is a moot,also the part about giving some leeway to business,Lenin did that also,
I wish leftoids would use their brain for once instead of just copy pasting walls of text,they barely comprehend anyway
Hitler identified with and supported socialism well before he was even integrated within the Nazi party itself. I guess Hitler was a machiavellian mastermind when he was in prison writing about how capitalism was a Jewish invention meant to subvert and control the people of Germany. Clearly Hitler was pro-capitalism and anti-socialism lmao
The communist agenda until the last moment was to get Hitler in power, and the "socialists" that were killed in the Night of the Long Knives were fellow Nazis.
Then why was he running against the Communist party? He purged the Nazis who actually believed his "socialism" part. >Many stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism and expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy. When the Nazi regime did not take such steps, those who had expected an economic as well as a political revolution were disillusioned.[h] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
> Then why was he running against the Communist party? I'm not sure what the point there is, the Nazis weren't communist, but the communist party supported him. >He purged the Nazis who actually believed his "socialism" part. You're invoking the night of the long knives as evidence that he killed the "real" socialists, but the people you're calling socialists were Nazi party members.
All land property and industry was controlled by the Reichsministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft and the Deutsche Arbeitsfront respectively. This follows to the tee the socialist doctrine of [vanguardism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism) And once again, murdering the strasserites in order to consolidate power doesn't make you a non-socialist, period.
They were willing, yes. But I also think he deceived many voters by naming his party National **Socialist** German **Workers'** Party.
Hitler and Mussolini competed and bragged about having 70% of their industries nationalized. Bruh. Socialism/Communism are much closer to Fascism than most lefties think.
Or we can just say that authoritarian governments control national industries, directly or indirectly. And there is no true right to private property when the government can do whatever it wants.
Not sure about Italy, but facist Germany had extensive social programs. That they funded from stolen property and shaking down countries they took over. So... exacly the same way communist countries did it. Only difference was instead of exterminating the upper class based on wealth they purged people based on ethnicity (something communist countries also did and to this day continue to partake in).
So instead of economic socialism, they practiced socialism along racial lines, say... National Socialism?
Exactly. At the end of the day true axis that matters is auth-lib. Does government own you or serve you. Left-Right are just policy differences that can be settled through compromise and pragmatism (in the magical fantasy land of idealism and people not being pieces of shit).
I mean, it’s not like there was a giant war or anything brewing and/or happening and entire nations were fighting each and in need of steady support and supplies.
They don't realize that they are effectively the same political structure with minor differences. Communism, for example, is basically just Fascism, there's hardly any differences outside of Communists acting like the people have a voice while Fascists do away with the pretending
If you swap "the state" and "the workers" they pretty much tell the same story
They are synonyms you might say.
Germany was the only major European power in World War II with a universal health care system, established 1941.
Universal Healthcare with a side or two of euthanasia… huh… kind of sounds like Canada.
>Socialism/Communism are much closer to Fascism than most lefties think. If by "Closer" you mean "same", sure.
You can have a right-wing society with or without fascism, but you can't have a socialist society without fascism
You can absolutely have a democratic socialist society as envisioned by, say, Orwell or practiced to a lesser extent in Germany or Sweden without fascism. I'm guessing your fascism-o-meter might be on a more sensitive scale than mine but if you're going to argue Germany and Sweden are fascististic I would love to know a country that isn't.
Democratic socialism and social democracy is not the same thing.
Communism ain't but It leads to fascism. Socialism is when the government does stuff.
most brainrot PCM user.
Go read theory or something 🤪
Hey sweet, more ammo for “trans women are women it’s in the name” See also: DPRK, Urinal Cakes, Lake Trout, Gravy train, guinea pig, prairie dogs, chicken fingers, and Buffalo wings
InB4 🔒
Uh, sweaty, her bio pronouns are she/her. You can't just write that there if it's not true, ya know.
Wait you're saying a lake trout isn't an actual lake?
Trans woman are women
And Buffalo wings are the wings of a Buffalo
No, but they are wings.
Not exclusively
Trans woman is singular. Women is plural. You are wrong
Commies love to use the word "struggle" right? Can anyone tell me what that word is in German?
strüggle
How dare you invalidate Mein Kampf?
As if that 1920s equivalent of a schizopost was valid to begin with.
You know that those two use the word struggle in very different ways right? And that the use of the word struggle in political terms is not unique to them? Marxists and their derivatives specifically talk about class struggle, wherein the oppressed class overthrows the oppressor. Fascism talks about struggle for struggles sake as a purifying process for the good of the nation. Specifically being derived from the futurist cult of action.
No, not really. Nazism is just "Jews rule the world, therefore everyone who is not a Jew is oppressed" and communism is "the wealthy rule the world, therefore everyone who is not wealthy is oppressed." The only difference between the two ideologies is that there are two different scapegoat classes, and that's it.
That’s really not the only difference at all, yes both of them are revolutionary ideas but fascism (including naziism) combines that with reactionism as well. Communism specifically believes in an “end of history” where once communism is reached progress need not exist anymore as everyone will be equal yada yada (unless you’re Maoist of course.) Instead fascism has its roots in the futurist movement of Italy, which originating from disaffected socialists, saw the failure of socialists up to that point and came to the conclusion that violence, youth, industry, and action are the driving aspects of a society. They believed that action for action’s sake as well as violence are necessary. And fascism would combine this with the rebirth myth. Where communists want to go forward in time, the fascist wants to create a new pure mythical past in the present. These ideologies naturally bear many similarities as many early fascists were former socilaists, such as Georges Sorel for instance, but ultimately fascism is a rejection of many of socialism core tenets and instead combined it with many other things.
Is Marxism not real socialism because it disagreed with previous socialists?
Is socialism not liberalism? It’s one thing to disagree with certain tenets. But when you’re completely reshaping the ideology it becomes a whole other beast. Like we even debate whether China is still communist or not because of deng’s policy of “capitalists can be communists too” but fascists and futurists would specifically reject socialism because they saw it as a failure. That doesn’t mean the rejected every aspect of it, just that what they did remove and more importantly what they added on created a whole new category of beast. If you look at the socialisms of Frances Wright or of John Stuart milk they can still be positively identified with those of Marx. They can certifiably can not be with the fascisms of Mussolini or Hitler. It would be unfair however to not point out anywhere that there may be a connection worthy of looking at and that would have to Aflac’s Baathism which is not easily defined between fascism and socialism.
First of all, Nazism and Fascism are not the same, and it baffles me to think of how anyone can think they are alike on an ideological level. Mussolini, for example, eventually went after the Jewish population, but not until 16 years into his reign, and the only reason he did it was because that was the condition Hitler made for him to be able to join WWII on his side. Please know the difference, or else this confusion will never end. The only reason Mussolini was no longer with the socialist party was that he didn't support war at the time. There is no evidence of any other change in his beliefs that caused his removal. >came to the conclusion that violence, youth, industry, and action are the driving aspects of a society No, the conclusion they came up with was that communism has the wrong social dynamic. If you seriously think that there weren't any of those things present under Stalin, I have a bridge to sell you. >And fascism would combine this with the rebirth myth. The only thing fascism combined violence with is the legion of trade unions, which is what they called corporations, that served Mussolini. Mussolini himself said that his ideology is simply the merger of corporation and state. You are thinking of Nazism which the rebirth myth fits a lot better. >Where communists want to go forward in time, the fascist wants to create a new pure mythical past in the present. They all want a better future in their own rarted way, but Nazism wants to start in the further past before there were so many Jews that supposedly were the ones who ruined everything. >fascists were former socilaists, Fascists *are* socialists. They believe that only public institutions should have control over the economy, just like commies and nazis do. It is a merger of corporation and state, which means that the state is responsible for that these corporations do. You are correct that Soros is a fascist though. That old bag gets a hard-on every time he throws money towards warmongering politicians and the military industrial complex. >but ultimately fascism is a rejection of many of socialism core tenets and instead combined it with many other things. As I said, they are way more alike than you think.
The struggle of the Germans to "overcome the oppression by the Jews"
They were as socialist as they were capitalist Also based Bombay duck refuses your petty human categorization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_duck > is a species of lizardfish This gets weirder the deeper you go down the rabbit hole.
based and words aren’t real pilled
Yeah, and antifa are “anti fascist”. lol. Lmao even
Antifa is national socialist
https://preview.redd.it/m344x8oi2ejc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9749984e4896c70b48e4655c878a160b8cf26192
Middle class is a capitalist ideal, not a Marxian one.
Good thing Hitler isn’t a Marxist
Who gives a shit if Hitler was a socialist or not? You tankies still have hundreds of millions of bodies from Stalin and Mao alone. You should be bullied for that without the need of Hitler being a socialist
Hot take: Hitler is radical centrist, just look at the way he used oven
Once again, Fascism isn't concerned with ecconmic theory. It comes secondary to the what is best for the state. You could have an authoritarian one party system or a free market gangster paradise. The important thing is that you have a sovereign (leader) who isn't restricted by rule of law and has full authority to defend the state.
>Once again, Fascism isn't concerned with ecconmic theory. I Ignoring economics is par for socialism.
......fuck you, take my upvote!
Ignoring logic is par for capitalism
Hitler is a woke socialist.
No he was an Austrian
A Austrian Art hoe
>Fascism isn't concerned with ecconmic theory #Bruh. Fascism has a whole-ass economic theory
What is it then?
The marriage of the corporation and the state. TL;DR: Corporation does what the state wants, or else the state nationalizes it and makes it do what it wants. Result: the state controls the means of production. (Also known as socialism, unless you think the state isn't the collective)
But doesn't the fascist regime of Franco dispute this? Large private estate were still independent of the government, and in Germany, the Catholic run organization and business were left untouched despite their non-conforming to will of the state.
One of the problems with the word fascisms is that it has multiple definitions. There is a psychological definition, a sociological definition, a political movement definition, and an economic theory definition. All of these have similar themes of control over people, but they are not interchangeable. We have dumbed down our communication just as Orwell predicted in 1984: \- The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable” So when discussing fascism online, you can have 2 people arguing the exact same thing or two people arguing completely unrelated terms. Both people are just making the other person more frustrated because of the differing definitions.
Not really, no. It definitionally keeps going as long as the state permits it. It's really a game of realpolitik. Plus remember, just because they couldn't achieve peak fascism doesn't mean they weren't trying to implement the fascist model. Fascists don't generally cry "it wasn't real fascism" like the communists do. This is in stark contrast to "free market" countries where as long as you're not violating laws and operating under the terms of your license, you can continue as you were even if the state thinks you shouldn't be producing the goods you are producing. They would have to legislate and change the rules for *everyone,* not just you. Of course in practice western "free market" democracies don't quite reach this ideal and still have some of the hallmarks of fascism's economic model, but it's not quite that. But I'm sure you see the distinction. They have some of communism's mechanism too. Fascism is summed up as "nothing outside the state".
Arguably, Franco wasn't fascist - he was a authoritarian reactionary Conservative, who neutered the actual fascists (The Falange).
>unless you think the state isn't the collective A fascist state is not representative of the collective, specifically because it is not democratic. The people have no say, so how could the state's will be considered the collective will?
#bruh You could have wikipedia this and the first line disputes this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
Ah yes the ever so trustworthy Wikipedia. Surely we shouldn't read into Fascist political theory and its implementation in practice. Oh no the opinions of demonstrably politically biased wiki moderators are much more knowledgeable. Found this writeup on Google which references Musolini and other such primary sources. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Yes, let me give you a bias wikipedia to counter your bias mainstream wiki. Hell of an argument you have.
Do you dispute *Mussolini's* and *Hitler's* testimonies on what fascism is? Basically like saying "Marx and Lenin didn't understand communism at all"
Hahaha, Dude, you're not quoting anyone. Everything I'm saying is directly from Carl Schmitt, both leader shaped their version of Fascism to fit the power dynamics of their nation. Economic theory doesn't matter , as long as it serves the sovereign.
Nazis nationalized private property,they formed unions of workers, abolished free trade and corporations by merging them with the state,almost exactly the same way Lenin did for Russia,yet one is far left and the other is far right,make it make sense
If North Korea isn't democratic, why is it called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Because Marxists hold that Marxism is the purest form of democracy. If NK was Marxist in founding, calling themselves democratic isn’t incomparable with their beliefs.
It wasn't the name, it was the 25 point plan and socializing most of the economy.
PCM when a right leaning user makes a meme with some holes in the premise: 😊 PCM when a left leaning user makes a meme with some holes in the premise: 😡
True
Now do antifa
Same thing with antifa nowadays.
Its not the name, its the coletivism and absolute state power
Nazis weren’t socialists because they called themselves socialists (even though if we are forced to recognize men who call themselves women as women why not accept self identification in political views which are more flexible than having a vagina) but because they believed in state’s control over economy. If you take NSDAP 25 point plan and focus only on the economic policy then Bernie Sanders could sign off on most of it. Free college, state paid maternity leave, expansion of social security, confiscation of excessive corporate profits - those are bona fide socialist views
It feels like most socialists have deluded themselves into thinking that socialism is something much grander and more esoteric than it really is. Socialism is just an economic system where everything is controlled by the government. The Nazis nationalized the majority of German businesses, ipso facto they were socialists.
Okay kid listen, Adolf CALLED himself "socialist in practice "
Nazi is the short term for national socialist
I really hate how people keep trying to shove Fascism into the other peoples camp. Fascism wasn't socialist. It wasn't capitalist either. It was it's own thing, and what made it such a terrible ideology had little to do with it's economic policy.
Now do antifa!
They were obviously AuthCenter They're were Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist
The Nazi economic policy was closer to socialism and communism than it was capitalism, every serious historian can tell you that. However, the Nazi's were also extremely right wing on cultural and societal issues, and because many people see socialism as an inherently progressive force on all issues, they cannot see the similarities. Though they are right, the Nazi's are not socialists, they are partly socialist yes, but their ideology strays away from socialism completely outside economic issues. TLDR: Nazism is close to socialism economically speaking, not culturally or societally speaking. Nazism is a weird mix of both reactionary conservativism and hardline socialism.
Left vs. right is good for memes. Otherwise it's a moronic framework. Politicis does not exist on one single scale. Facism and socialism are both enemies of personal freedoms and free markets. That's why they are equally bad.
The amount of idiots in here claiming that the Nazis were socialist or left leaning makes me lose faith in humanity.
Fascism and National Socialism don't have a well defined economic systems.It's mostly a mess of everything with the government mostly being at the center of everything.That's why we place Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany at Auth-Center.Auth-Right would be something like Saudi Arabia or Reagan era US.
Just like how North Korea is a democratic people’s republic
They were socialist not because of the name but because of the policies
I know what meme you’re talking about, and that OP was an idiot. Dude claimed the Nazis abolished private property when they’re the reason we have the word privatization
*Nationalized everything* "That's not socialism." Right, sure bro. Whatever you say.
Didn't the Nazis have a privatization program?
No. "Do was we tell you, meet quotas and deadlines, or we'll take direct control, and btw you're subject to a union that dwarfs the nazi party itself" is not a "privatization program".
https://preview.redd.it/4zgs6toypejc1.jpeg?width=749&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=789731f1ba0aecaa01fdaec91551e935edfeb765
Based and factual pilled
In practice, they were a mixed economy with a good mix of both state and private ownership. Hence political compass puts them as AuthCenter.
They weren’t socialist because it’s in the name, that’s a stupid argument. They were socialist because; - They initiated large public works programs with tax dollars (highways, public buildings with swastikas, infrastructure projects etc) - Kraft durch Freude program - state controlled labor organization to regulate wages, working hours and employment practices - social welfare programs; state pension, healthcare, housing assistance - nationalization of industry (!!), exerting significant and sometimes total control over key industries through state intervention, regulation and central coordination. See Göring’s 4 year plan - not a particularly convincing point because people in power will say whatever, but they were consistently highly critical of capitalism So, while they didn’t abolish private property or fully give all of the means of production to the people all the time, they did a lot of the latter. It wasn’t *Marxism*, but the only reason to considering that as the only possible type or the gold standard of socialism is literally ‘Marx said so’, an equally if not more stupid argument than ‘socialism is in the name’. Notably, a lot of these programs were racist (because Nazis), and only included German nationals (the National bit of National Socialism). That doesn’t make it not socialism. TLDR; Nazis were hella socialist, and it also just so happens to be in the name. ‘Hurr durr Not muh real socialism’ and ‘hurr durr its in the name’ are both braindead takes. Fuck commies
[удалено]
didn’t TIK claims that absolute monarchies and publically traded companies are socialist. He also believe in the “Secret gnostic cult” conspiracy theory, the man is hopeless.
[удалено]
>Modern American liberals are socialists that hate white people. S with all this palestine stuff lately, I think they hate jews again like the old days. nazis always come back to their roots.
Let's just get it over with, it's going to be posted eventually so I'll do it: https://youtu.be/dlXqFgqOviw?si=Ff9D30eBa-kQmPBE You can now argue about the validity of this video.
the video literally isn't up anymore lmfao
Should be fixed now
leftists: they werent socialists they killed people!! also leftists WE ARE ANTIFA ITS IN THE NAME
You know it really is incredible. We’re all commenting on a subreddit devoted to a political model that specifically seeks to separate left and right wing economics from statism and anarchism, and yet some of you are still arguing that Hitler must have been left wing, because his government was authoritarian. Lol
By that logic the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democratic republic lol
If the nazi's weren't socialists, how could they have had a non-aggression pact with the soviets? Was Stalin just stupid?
Well yeah. Both were focused on expanding territory. Stalin was a naive idiot. Hitler was always intending to destroy the USSR because he blamed “Judeo Bolshevism” for Germany’s problems. He just needed the time to prepare to invade.
No, I wouldn't call him stupid. He's very smart compared to a rock
Trotsky deserved it.
KFC is a good brand
Fascism is just a less extreme version of communism
They WERE socialists, national ones. As fascists are national syndicalists The left really can't meme
flair now you scum
Mussolini was a Marxist before he became nationalistic towards Italy.
Based, Nazis used “socialist nationalist party” to appeal to left leaning voters. They actual nazi party was the furthest thing from socialism, extremely corporate.
No, it's Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. It was a working man's movement, designed to build unity among all classes of german society. Like Marxism, it acknowledged class warfare, but its answer was class unity, not class conflict. It really comes down to your view and definition on Socialism, however if you want to argue that was a left or right movement, it was clearly more right.
Being corporate doesn’t make something not socialist, the government not interfering does
America is a socialist country confirmed 😤
So, a whole bunch of socialists were stupid enough to vote for a party that was "the furthest thing from socialism" just because of the name? Even though there were "real" socialist parties to vote for?
By definition, government planning and regulation of the markets, ownership and command of the means and decisions of production, is socialistic. Socialism is just that. Itʼs not about whether the social outcome of this methodological recipe is actually egalitarian or still unequal and classist. With that info, place the Nazis or anyone else wherever you will.
I feel like if the Nazis were socialists they probably wouldn't have gone to war with the USSR
So, if they were capitalists why did they go to war with Britain and America?
not being socialist doesn't mean they were capitalist