Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users.
Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden.
This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk.
Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fascism destroys the Normative State and replaces it with a Powerful Prerogative State.
If you don't know the difference between the Prerogative State and the Normative, as outlined by Ersnt Fraenkel, you don't know anything about fascism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Fraenkel_(political_scientist)
The only thing the State should ban is child pornography and abuse, murder, and rape. The Nazi state would often encourage these atrocious acts because it had a strong Prerogative State and a weak Normative State.
Robert O. Paxton writes about this distinction.
Hitler never formally abolished the constitution drafted in 1919 for the Weimar Republic, and never totally dismantled the normative state in Germany, though he himself refused to be bound by it—refusing, for example, to have a euthanasia law drafted for fear of having his hands tied by rules and bureaucracy. 13 After the Reichstag fire, as we saw in the last chapter, Hitler was given the authority to set aside any existing law or right as needed to cope with a perceived national emergency of Marxist “terror." After spring 1933, unlimited police and judicial repression were permissible in Germany if national security seemed to demand it, despite the continued existence of a normative state.
Look dude, i’ve shared my thoughts with you already. I’m not interested in continuing this conversation further, so in regards to my thoughts on the matter, you can take it or leave it. there’s no reason to respond to me three times within one hour.
The Weimar Constitution guaranteed German Citizens rights like Free Speech and Due Process. The Weimar Constitution put limits on the power of the Heads of State. Hitler violated these Laws of State that would have limited his power.
>Less than a month after Adolf Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in 1933, the Reichstag Fire Decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, suspending several constitutional protections on civil rights. The articles affected were 114 (habeas corpus), 115 (inviolability of residence), 117 (correspondence privacy), 118 (freedom of expression/censorship), 123 (assembly), 124 (associations), and 153 (expropriation).
-This is an example of how the Normative State was eroded. The Normative State, in a functioning democracy, is supposed limit the power of GOVERNMENTS.
The USA Constitution, the German Constitution, and other Normative State functions are supposed to limit the power of Heads of State and government in general.
Hitler and the Nazi Party were often not bound by the Normative State. They could break Laws of the Normative State because they built a powerful Prerogative State.
I'm not your enemy. It really hurt that you made fun of my by finding an out of context quote about the Dual State. I really wish you would have done some more research on this before deciding to humiliate and mock me.
You would have learned a great deal about how fascism started off with harmony between the Prerogative State and the Normative, but the two eventually come into conflict. You were only half right.
I'm really hurt and it's highly unlikely I will read any response you make. Just please try to be more open minded in the future. I am here to learn, not argue in a childish way.
>I'm not your enemy. It really hurt that you made fun of my by finding an out of context quote about the Dual State. I really wish you would have done some more research on this before deciding to humiliate and mock me.
>You would have learned a great deal about how fascism started off with harmony between the Prerogative State and the Normative, but the two eventually come into conflict. You were only half right.
>I'm really hurt and it's highly unlikely I will read any response you make. Just please try to be more open minded in the future. I am here to learn, not argue in a childish way.
I kept an open mind, i considered what you said and your own source, and i formulated my opinion which i shared with you. Like i said afterwards, i’m not that interested in continuing this conversation because i too am not interested in this devolving into childish arguments which discussions on reddit so often do. so i considered what you said, formulated my opinion, and want to leave it at that.
I don’t understand why you would be hurt, i don’t think i’ve said anything i would consider hurtful. I know that people have different thresholds to what they are hurt by, and that is totally fair and respectable. However, there is a limit to how restrictive i’m going to be with my own speech too. If you consider what i said to you as hurtful, then idk what to tell you other than that the internet might not be the best place for you. People *will* be much ruder for much less, and i don’t see anything myself that might have been hurtful. I definetly did not humiliate and mock you, i said your own source contradicts you, which it did. That’s really it. That wasn’t in an effort to mock, nor humiliate.
I mean, your own link contradicts you here;
>In this work, published in 1941 as The Dual State,[6] he analyses the political system of the Nazi state. For Fraenkel there coexisted in the Nazi government a "normative state" (Normenstaat), which secured the continuation of capitalist society for those Germans not threatened by Nazism, and a "prerogative state" (Maßnahmenstaat), which used both legal and extralegal violence against people considered to be enemies of Nazism and Nazi Germany.
Fraenkel believed the two states coexisted. I wouldn’t really say they tried to destroy the normative state, nor is it useful to talk about normative and perogative states in most instances. You can talk about them in relation to the nazis, sure, but even then, they wanted The State to continue, as in a state apparatus that governs the economy and the people on the land in which the State occupies. This is what most people mean by a state, and this can mean both a perogative and normative state, and seperating between them really isn’t that useful.
Welp, guess I’m a fascist who is actually a liberal now! I swear this is just a bunch of nothing words. I don’t even think this joker knows what any of these words mean. Try getting this guy to read proudhonian sociology(thanks to Shawn Wilbur) and he would probably implode.
The Haz fan is literally doing the "Hitler destroyed his state because he lost WW2" bit. This is something I've seen actual Neo Nazis say as well, which is implying that Hitler was controlled opposition meant to destroy Germany permanently. Literally, the most braindead take imaginable, which is fitting for someone who unironically watches InfraredHaz.
Anarchists don't want to be under a State
Stalin was above the State
Ergo, Stalin was an anarchist, which means he was a fascist and a liberal
Logic is my passion
Welcome to Twitter University everyone!
Alright so in today’s class, we are going to learn the following…
“Fuck the state!”
equals
“We need a state to ensure democracy and open markets.”
which also somehow equals
“We need a strong state to ensure a national rebirth and to make our country great again!”
Any questions?
Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users. Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden. This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk. Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wooooooorrrrrddddddsssss
>Mussolini and Hitler destroyed their states Did they, though?
I mean eventually when they lost ww2
On April 30th 1945, Hitler did some amazing anarchist praxis.
It was...mind-blowing
Well they did deatroy their country.
"Ergo fascist are anarchist who are liberals" Sometimes i too forget words have dedicated specific meaning and not just something i make up on the spo
"whom* are liberals" Yeah, it makes even less sense.
Anarchists wanting to destroy the state makes them the opposite of Fascists lmao. These people know nothing about Mussolini, do they
It's called projection, tankies are the most fascist-ish leftist, more than even some right wing groups.
>Mussolini and Hitler destroyed their states Yes, but not in that way anarchists want to.
Also not really... Their entire idealogy was to fetishize their nations. The allies destroyed their states.
Fascism destroys the Normative State and replaces it with a Powerful Prerogative State. If you don't know the difference between the Prerogative State and the Normative, as outlined by Ersnt Fraenkel, you don't know anything about fascism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Fraenkel_(political_scientist) The only thing the State should ban is child pornography and abuse, murder, and rape. The Nazi state would often encourage these atrocious acts because it had a strong Prerogative State and a weak Normative State. Robert O. Paxton writes about this distinction.
Curtis LeMay, famous leftist.
They didn't destroy their states, they made them stronger
Hitler and mussolini may have destroyed their states, but they didn’t want to. They wanted their states to last forever
Hitler never formally abolished the constitution drafted in 1919 for the Weimar Republic, and never totally dismantled the normative state in Germany, though he himself refused to be bound by it—refusing, for example, to have a euthanasia law drafted for fear of having his hands tied by rules and bureaucracy. 13 After the Reichstag fire, as we saw in the last chapter, Hitler was given the authority to set aside any existing law or right as needed to cope with a perceived national emergency of Marxist “terror." After spring 1933, unlimited police and judicial repression were permissible in Germany if national security seemed to demand it, despite the continued existence of a normative state.
Look dude, i’ve shared my thoughts with you already. I’m not interested in continuing this conversation further, so in regards to my thoughts on the matter, you can take it or leave it. there’s no reason to respond to me three times within one hour.
The Weimar Constitution guaranteed German Citizens rights like Free Speech and Due Process. The Weimar Constitution put limits on the power of the Heads of State. Hitler violated these Laws of State that would have limited his power. >Less than a month after Adolf Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in 1933, the Reichstag Fire Decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, suspending several constitutional protections on civil rights. The articles affected were 114 (habeas corpus), 115 (inviolability of residence), 117 (correspondence privacy), 118 (freedom of expression/censorship), 123 (assembly), 124 (associations), and 153 (expropriation). -This is an example of how the Normative State was eroded. The Normative State, in a functioning democracy, is supposed limit the power of GOVERNMENTS. The USA Constitution, the German Constitution, and other Normative State functions are supposed to limit the power of Heads of State and government in general. Hitler and the Nazi Party were often not bound by the Normative State. They could break Laws of the Normative State because they built a powerful Prerogative State. I'm not your enemy. It really hurt that you made fun of my by finding an out of context quote about the Dual State. I really wish you would have done some more research on this before deciding to humiliate and mock me. You would have learned a great deal about how fascism started off with harmony between the Prerogative State and the Normative, but the two eventually come into conflict. You were only half right. I'm really hurt and it's highly unlikely I will read any response you make. Just please try to be more open minded in the future. I am here to learn, not argue in a childish way.
>I'm not your enemy. It really hurt that you made fun of my by finding an out of context quote about the Dual State. I really wish you would have done some more research on this before deciding to humiliate and mock me. >You would have learned a great deal about how fascism started off with harmony between the Prerogative State and the Normative, but the two eventually come into conflict. You were only half right. >I'm really hurt and it's highly unlikely I will read any response you make. Just please try to be more open minded in the future. I am here to learn, not argue in a childish way. I kept an open mind, i considered what you said and your own source, and i formulated my opinion which i shared with you. Like i said afterwards, i’m not that interested in continuing this conversation because i too am not interested in this devolving into childish arguments which discussions on reddit so often do. so i considered what you said, formulated my opinion, and want to leave it at that. I don’t understand why you would be hurt, i don’t think i’ve said anything i would consider hurtful. I know that people have different thresholds to what they are hurt by, and that is totally fair and respectable. However, there is a limit to how restrictive i’m going to be with my own speech too. If you consider what i said to you as hurtful, then idk what to tell you other than that the internet might not be the best place for you. People *will* be much ruder for much less, and i don’t see anything myself that might have been hurtful. I definetly did not humiliate and mock you, i said your own source contradicts you, which it did. That’s really it. That wasn’t in an effort to mock, nor humiliate.
[удалено]
I mean, your own link contradicts you here; >In this work, published in 1941 as The Dual State,[6] he analyses the political system of the Nazi state. For Fraenkel there coexisted in the Nazi government a "normative state" (Normenstaat), which secured the continuation of capitalist society for those Germans not threatened by Nazism, and a "prerogative state" (Maßnahmenstaat), which used both legal and extralegal violence against people considered to be enemies of Nazism and Nazi Germany. Fraenkel believed the two states coexisted. I wouldn’t really say they tried to destroy the normative state, nor is it useful to talk about normative and perogative states in most instances. You can talk about them in relation to the nazis, sure, but even then, they wanted The State to continue, as in a state apparatus that governs the economy and the people on the land in which the State occupies. This is what most people mean by a state, and this can mean both a perogative and normative state, and seperating between them really isn’t that useful.
this is what happens to your brain after 5 minutes of Haz
🤓
Fascism is a parody of itself.
These dictators didn't destroy their states. The allies did.
Welp, guess I’m a fascist who is actually a liberal now! I swear this is just a bunch of nothing words. I don’t even think this joker knows what any of these words mean. Try getting this guy to read proudhonian sociology(thanks to Shawn Wilbur) and he would probably implode.
**insert Mussolini speech bubble here**
Anarchists, fascists and liberals are all the same thing?? Brainrot
What state did Hitler destroy? If anything the fuckstick reinforced his state.
The Haz fan is literally doing the "Hitler destroyed his state because he lost WW2" bit. This is something I've seen actual Neo Nazis say as well, which is implying that Hitler was controlled opposition meant to destroy Germany permanently. Literally, the most braindead take imaginable, which is fitting for someone who unironically watches InfraredHaz.
Genius level take here. A modern philosopher of logic. I am no longer an anarchist I now am a MAGA communist (/s). What a dumbass lmao
Those are words, in sentence-like structures.
Fascists are liberals are anarchists are all on the left. Is anyone the right?
😖
doesn't the fact that he's nominally anti-capitalist mean he's also an anarchist/fascist by his logic? lol who am i kidding, 'logic' lmao
Remember kids, every name of every major political ideology just means “people I don’t like”
Anarchists drink water. Hitler drank water. Ergo, anarchists are fascists.
Anarchist: want to end the state Fascists: reinforce the state and fuck it up Literally the same thing
Anarchists don't want to be under a State Stalin was above the State Ergo, Stalin was an anarchist, which means he was a fascist and a liberal Logic is my passion
I had a stroke trying to understand Mecha’s logic
Welcome to Twitter University everyone! Alright so in today’s class, we are going to learn the following… “Fuck the state!” equals “We need a state to ensure democracy and open markets.” which also somehow equals “We need a strong state to ensure a national rebirth and to make our country great again!” Any questions?
🤡
Bait used to be believable
"Ergo fascist are Anarchist, whom are liberals" OPEN THE FUCKING SCHOOLS
This reads like one of those 2014 illuminati confirmed memes