Is national socialism socialism?

[Seth]

Could nazism be considered a petty bourgeois form of socialism, or in the case of strassersm just Marxism mixed with anti-semitism and a misconception about the Bolsheviks?

What about Italian fascism?

The flag of national socialist Germany was red for socialism, according to some sources. Hitler said the red represented "the social ideal of the movement" or something like that.

[Misanthrope]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Seth]

I need a better answer than that. and what about the other way around? the USSR under Lenin and Stalin satisfied most of the 14 points of fascism.

[Misanthrope]

I need a better answer than that. and what about the other way around? the USSR under Lenin and Stalin satisfied most of the 14 points of fascism.

Could socialism be considered Nazism? No. Fascists are corporatists, imperialist, bourgeois anti-worker idiots.

The USSR was not ever socialist or communist. Nazis and yourself have no idea what socialism/communism is.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-theory-faq-t23569/index.html

[The Man]

Well, let's let Hitler explain his reasoning for calling it "National Socialism". The following is a 1923 interview with Adolf Hitler conducted by George Sylvester Viereck. Read the bold text.


"When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home."
Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea, but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

"Bolshevism," the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany, continued, gazing at me balefully, "is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst.

"The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of St Germain are kept alive by Bolshevism in Germany. The Peace Treaty and Bolshevism are two heads of one monster. We must decapitate both."

When Adolf Hitler announced this programme, the advent of the Third Empire which he proclaims seemed still at the end of the rainbow. Then came election after election. Each time the power of Hitler grew. While unable to dislodge Hindenburg from the presidency, Hitler today heads the largest party in Germany. Unless Hindenburg assumes dictatorial measures, or some unexpected development completely upsets all present calculations, Hitler's party will organise the Reichstag and dominate the government. Hitler's fight was not against Hindenburg but against Chancellor Bruening. It is doubtful if Bruening's successor can sustain himself without the support of the National Socialists.

Many who voted for Hindenburg were at heart with Hitler, but some deep-rooted sense of loyalty impelled them nevertheless to cast their vote for the old field marshal. Unless overnight a new leader arises, there is no one in Germany, with the exception of Hindenburg, who could defeat Hitler - and Hindenburg is 85! Time and the recalcitrance of the French fight for Hitler, unless some blunder on his own part, or dissension within the ranks of the party, deprives him of his opportunity to play the part of Germany's Mussolini.

The first German Empire came to an end when Napoleon forced the Austrian emperor to surrender his imperial crown. The second empire came to an end when William II, on the advice of Hindenburg, sought refuge in Holland. The third empire is emerging slowly but surely, although it may dispense with sceptres and crowns.

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

Hitler himself is not a purely Germanic type. His dark hair betrays some alpine ancestor. For years he refused to be photographed. That was part of his strategy - to be known only to his friends so that, in the hour of crisis, he could appear here, there, and everywhere without detection. Today he could no longer pass unrecognised through the obscurest hamlet in Germany. His appearance contrasts strangely with the aggressiveness of his opinions. No milder mannered reformer ever scuttled ship of state or cut political throat.

"What," I continued my cross-examination, "are the fundamental planks of your platform?"

"We believe in a healthy mind in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous." "Mussolini," I interjected, "said the same to me." Hitler beamed.

"The slums," he added, "are responsible for nine-tenths, alcohol for one-tenth, of all human depravity. No healthy man is a Marxian. Healthy men recognise the value of personality. We contend against the forces of disaster and degeneration. Bavaria is comparatively healthy because it is not completely industrialised. However, all Germany, including Bavaria, is condemned to intensive industrialism by the smallness of our territory. If we wish to save Germany we must see to it that our farmers remain faithful to the land. To do so, they must have room to breathe and room to work."

"Where will you find the room to work?"

"We must retain our colonies and we must expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world dominion with England. Now we can stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east. The Baltic is necessarily a German lake."

"Is it not," I asked, "possible for Germany to reconquer the world economically without extending her territory?"

Hitler shook his head earnestly.

"Economic imperialism, like military imperialism, depends upon power. There can be no world trade on a large scale without world power. Our people have not learned to think in terms of world power and world trade. However, Germany cannot extend commercially or territorially until she regains what she has lost and until she finds herself.

"We are in the position of a man whose house has been burned down. He must have a roof over his head before he can indulge in more ambitious plans. We had succeeded in creating an emergency shelter that keeps out the rain. We were not prepared for hailstones. However, misfortunes hailed down upon us. Germany has been living in a veritable blizzard of national, moral, and economic catastrophes.

"Our demoralised party system is a symptom of our disaster. Parliamentary majorities fluctuate with the mood of the moment. Parliamentary government unbars the gate to Bolshevism."

"Unlike some German militarists, you do not favour an alliance with Soviet Russia?"

Hitler evaded a direct reply to this question. He evaded it again recently when Liberty asked him to reply to Trotsky's statement that his assumption of power in Germany would involve a life-and-death struggle between Europe, led by Germany, and Soviet Russia.

"It may not suit Hitler to attack Bolshevism in Russia. He may even look upon an alliance with Bolshevism as his last card, if he is in danger of losing the game. If, he intimated on one occasion, capitalism refuses to recognise that the National Socialists are the last bulwark of private property, if capital impedes their struggle, Germany may be compelled to throw herself into the enticing arms of the siren Soviet Russia. But he is determined not to permit Bolshevism to take root in Germany."

He responded warily in the past to the advances of Chancellor Bruening and others who wished to form a united political front. It is unlikely that now, in view of the steady increase in the vote of the National Socialists, Hitler will be in the mood to compromise on any essential principle with other parties.

"The political combinations upon which a united front depend," Hitler remarked to me, "are too unstable. They render almost impossible a clearly defined policy. I see everywhere the zigzag course of compromise and concession. Our constructive forces are checked by the tyranny of numbers. We make the mistake of applying arithmetic and the mechanics of the economic world to the living state. We are threatened by ever increasing numbers and ever diminishing ideals. Mere numbers are unimportant."

"But suppose France retaliates against you by once more invading your soil? She invaded the Ruhr once before. She may invade it again."

"It does not matter," Hitler, thoroughly aroused, retorted, "how many square miles the enemy may occupy if the national spirit is aroused. Ten million free Germans, ready to perish so that their country may live, are more potent than 50 million whose will power is paralysed and whose race consciousness is infected by aliens.

"We want a greater Germany uniting all German tribes. But our salvation can start in the smallest corner. Even if we had only 10 acres of land and were determined to defend them with our lives, the 10 acres would become the focus of regeneration. Our workers have two souls: one is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must uproot the canker of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism are antitheses.

"In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work."

The cords on Hitler's forehead stood out threateningly. His voice filled the room. There was a noise at the door. His followers, who always remain within call, like a bodyguard, reminded the leader of his duty to address a meeting.

Hitler gulped down his tea and rose.

I have no idea what 'Ancient Aryans' hes talking about.

[Seth]

I see this is a touchy subject. Do you even know what corporatism is? Or imperialism for that matter? And I know everyone and their dog has their own definition of socialism and they deny everyone else's.

[Misanthrope]

I see this is a touchy subject. Do you even know what corporatism is? Or imperialism for that matter? And I know everyone and their dog has their own definition of socialism and they deny everyone else's.

Actually I adhere to the definition of socialism as it's described by y'know, socialists. Also, I do know what corporatism and imperialism are. You have an obvious ignorance in regard to leftist theory, if you want to start a debate make a claim and I'll refute it. I'm not going to write paragraphs trying to prove to you I know the definitions of imperialism and corporatism.

[Seth]

Actually I adhere to the definition of socialism as it's described by y'know, socialists. Also, I do know what corporatism and imperialism are. You have an obvious ignorance in regard to leftist theory, if you want to start a debate make a claim and I'll refute it. I'm not going to write paragraphs trying to prove to you I know the definitions of imperialism and corporatism.

But who? socialism according to Stalinists, anarchists, national socialists, nasserists? Socialism is just a word and the only common denominator is that the state or community holds some property in common.

[The Man]

Also, I forgot to mention. Hitler did not put Red in the flag for Socialism. He wanted to attract Communists, Anarchists, and Workers to his side.

[Property Is Robbery]

Yes national socialism is a form of socialism. It is NOT marxist socialism or anything close to it. It is socialism for a certain race and fascism for everyone else. Nazis recognize the exploitation capitalism causes but they obviously don't care that anyone but non jewish white people are effected by this.

Remember there is more than the Marxist definition of the word socialism even if that is the best and most valid form

[Seth]

Lol cuz red just attracts communists and workers? Like bugs to a light? There's no political implications or statement about ones movement involved in using an all red flag?

[Seth]

Yes national socialism is a form of socialism. It is NOT marxist socialism or anything close to it. It is socialism for a certain race and fascism for everyone else. Nazis recognize the exploitation capitalism causes but they obviously don't care that anyone but non jewish white people are effected by this.

Remember there is more than the Marxist definition of the word socialism even if that is the best and most valid form

Thank you for being honest. I get the impression that most around here just want to deny the national socialist's socialism just so they feel better about themselves. They don't want to consider that maybe their enemy isn't that different from them.

[Property Is Robbery]

Thank you for being honest.
The other posters are being honest, but they're also wrong :p

Edit: No I think National Socialism is very very far from Marxist Socialism. I believe Nazis are VERY different than Marxists.

[Rodrigo]

<X> mixed with anti-semitism and a misconception about the Bolsheviks?

Then it's not socialist. Period.


What about Italian fascism?

Golden rule: anticommunism.

Fascism and Nazism, ideologies of the bourgeoisie, teach the working class to obey the capitalists. In the speech, both are "on the same boat", with State above, but in reality, the bourgeoisie is the dominating class.

Corporatism is right-wing, extremely. No relation to socialism in any way!


The flag of national socialist Germany was red for socialism, according to some sources. Hitler said the red represented "the social ideal of the movement" or something like that.

It's a lie. The colors stand for it being the III Reich; just look at the colors of the flag of II Reich and I Reich. For Hitler, German "socialism", which doesn't repudiate private property, is the real and only socialism in the universe.

[Die Rote Fahne]

No, it is fascism. It is class collaborationist, and based on a racial/national analysis of society, and not a class analysis. It still has private property, and uses the capitalist mode of production. The means of production may be both state and owned privately, though the state ownership is not representative of the working class as it is a dictatorial bourgeois racial government.

[Seth]

The other posters are being honest, but they're also wrong :p

Edit: No I think National Socialism is very very far from Marxist Socialism. I believe Nazis are VERY different than Marxists.

Of course, like the anarchists and leninists are very different. But the point is that the national socialists aren't some embodiement of everything the left opposes, like most like to think. It isn't right wing.

[Экс-фашистских]

Hitler explains the programme behind his flag:


Not only that the unique colors, which all of us so passionately love and which once won so much honour for the German people, attest our veneration for the past; they were also the best embodiment of the movement's will. As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for victory of the Aryan man, and by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic.

We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.

National Socialism is, in no way shape or form, socialism. It is comprised of the most petty-bourgeoisie elements that leached off of the cheap labour of Jewish prisoners during wartime and deceived the poor class into electing him as their capitalist dictator.

Learn what a political misnomer is, OP.

[Reznov]

No, it's not. And that's I'll care to write.

[Seth]

No, it is fascism. It is class collaborationist, and based on a racial/national analysis of society, and not a class analysis. It still has private property, and uses the capitalist mode of production. The means of production may be both state and owned privately, though the state ownership is not representative of the working class as it is a dictatorial bourgeois racial government.

That makes sense.

[Property Is Robbery]

Of course, like the anarchists and leninists are very different. But the point is that the national socialists aren't some embodiement of everything the left opposes, like most like to think. It isn't right wing.
I have to disagree with you there. Anarchists and Leninists have the same end goal. A stateless classless society. Nazis obviously have a very different goal

[Seth]

No, it's not. And that's I'll care to write.

That shows how open minded you are.

[Misanthrope]

Thank you for being honest. I get the impression that most around here just want to deny the national socialist's socialism just so they feel better about themselves. They don't want to consider that maybe their enemy isn't that different from them.

Wow. Apparently, we're all closet Nazis. Fascists are anti-worker and nationalists. Leftists are pro-worker and internationalist. Honestly, you're not making any claims with any facts, stop mindlessly making assumptions you fascist sympathizer.

We're not the ones trying to make ourselves feel better, you came here to make yourself feel better by calling us all fascists too.


But who?

Marx

[Seth]

I have to disagree with you there.

Why, the nationalism? Well there was a lot of that in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other places. And Makhno was very nationalist.

[Rodrigo]

Thank you for being honest. I get the impression that most around here just want to deny the national socialist's socialism just so they feel better about themselves. They don't want to consider that maybe their enemy isn't that different from them.

We can't deny "national socialism's socialism" because there's NO SOCIALISM in national-socialism, so nothing to be denied.

[Экс-фашистских]

That shows how open minded you are.

He doesn't need to explain anything to you. Everyone already knows that industrialists don't support Leftist movements.

*cough* Henry Ford, Andrew Mellon and John D. Rockefeller were supporters of Hitler. *cough*

[Seth]

Wow. Apparently, we're all closet Nazis. Fascists are anti-worker and nationalists. Leftists are pro-worker and internationalist. Honestly, you're not making any claims with any facts, stop mindlessly making assumptions you fascist sympathizer.



Apparently it's lost on you that Mussolini's fascism came from syndicalism and the Nazis were the National socialist German Worker's Party.




Marx

Does Marx have a monopoly on socialism?

[Seth]

Also, Wolves of Paris, I'm not a "fascist." I want a society where no one has to worry about the state or his neighbor hurting him or infringing on his rights. Obviously fascism and most socialism is the opposite of that.

[Экс-фашистских]

Why, the nationalism? Well there was a lot of that in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other places. And Makhno was very nationalist.

You mistaken nationalism for patriotism.

Nationalism is composed of racialism and culturalism. Was that in effect in any of those territories?

[Property Is Robbery]

Makhno was very nationalist.
Semi-Educated Troll.

Apparently it's lost on you that Mussolini's fascism came from syndicalism and the Nazis were the National socialist German Worker's Party.

You're either dumb or a troll. Mussolini had long abandoned socialism for Italian nationalism by the time he had any supporters and the Nazis called themselves that so they would be popular. They also used a hammer and sickle once in their may day propaganda. Does that make them Marxists? Hell no.

[Seth]

We can't deny "national socialism's socialism" because there's NO SOCIALISM in national-socialism, so nothing to be denied.

Hurr.

[Die Rote Fahne]

That shows how open minded you are.
If you are asking people to be open minded to Nazism, you will find your stay here very unpleasant and very short lived.

National Socialism has no goal of attaining worker control of the means of production -- which is socialism's goal. In fact, the goal of national socialism is to maintain a racialist bourgeois control. Replace the Jews who own the means of production with Germans, etc. etc.

National Socialism is not based on class analysis. Socialism is.

National Socialism produces to make profit (capitalist mode of production), socialism does not.

Etc.

The use of "Socialism" was a buzz word used by the fascists of the Nazi party. It garnered attention from the workers who were not Marxists.

Just because some public services were provided, does not make it "socialist" or "a little socialist". Public services are not socialist, they are the result of the bourgeois realizing they need to take care of the unemployed (the reserve labour force).

[Экс-фашистских]

Apparently it's lost on you that Mussolini's fascism came from syndicalism and the Nazis were the National socialist German Worker's Party.

Why would Mussolini take drastic economic steps towards capitalism? It is true that he used syndicalism at first, but it was used to climb to capitalism (that he eventually achieved). In 1923, Mussolini signed the Palazzo Chigi Pact (which simplified business relations by declaring the capitalist the sole representative of labour). That is only one of many steps he took to raise the capitalists' power.

[Seth]

Semi-Educated Troll.


You're either dumb or a troll. Mussolini had long abandoned socialism for Italian nationalism by the time he had any supporters and the Nazis called themselves that so they would be popular. They also used a hammer and sickle once in their may day propaganda. Does that make them Marxists? Hell no.

Lol, obviously you're in a corner, that's why you resort to petty insult slinging.

Are Italian nationalism and socialism incompatible? But Russian nationalism, Cuban, Black, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc are different?

And I'm not saying the nazis were Marxists. I'm saying they were socialists.

[Misanthrope]

Apparently it's lost on you that Mussolini's fascism came from syndicalism and the Nazis were the National socialist German Worker's Party.

Hitler banned trade unions and ordered the murder of communists. Workers rebelled with constant absents, sabotaging machinery, deliberately working slow, ect.

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805210/03582/sample/9780521003582ws.pdf

Evidence > their party name



Does Marx have a monopoly on socialism?

yup



Also, Wolves of Paris, I'm not a "fascist." I want a society where no one has to worry about the state or his neighbor hurting him or infringing on his rights. Obviously fascism and most socialism is the opposite of that.


but fascism and socialism are the same HURDUR

[Seth]

Replace the Jews who own the means of production with Germans, etc. etc.

So you at least admit that national socialism is based on a class analysis, even if it's a racial class analysis? That the Jews brought capitalism into existence and are the ruling class, controlling all media, government, business and finance?

That's not my view, I'm just saying. It's obvious they're socialists. I don't buy the idea that it was "just to fool workers."

[#FF0000]

Nah, Hitler's conception of "socialism" has nothing to do with Marxism (he says this himself). He's pro-property and all that. He even eventually said "socialism" was a poor word to use in the first place.

So no.

[Property Is Robbery]

Lol, obviously you're in a corner, that's why you resort to petty insult slinging.

Are Italian nationalism and socialism incompatible?
It wasn't an insult it was an observation.

Yes because Mussolini went from being a Marxist socialist to a nationalist fascist after WW 1

[Property Is Robbery]

Nah, Hitler's conception of "socialism" has nothing to do with Marxism (he says this himself). He's pro-property and all that. He even eventually said "socialism" was a poor word to use in the first place.

So no.
Finally. Sense has been made.

[eric922]

Guys, I hate to say it, but we are being trolled, I'm pretty sure.

[Seth]

Hitler banned trade unions and ordered the murder of communists.

So did Lenin and Stalin to some extent, and so did Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein. Not all socialists like unions, even among anarchists.




yup

Because you say so? You will it so? That sounds pretty...fascist.




but fascism and socialism are the same HURDUR

No, but fascism is socialism. Most non-fascist socialists and even some quasi-fascist socialists just don't want to admit it.

[#FF0000]

Are Italian nationalism and socialism incompatible? But Russian nationalism, Cuban, Black, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc are different?

Nah, people have this dumb idea of "left-wing nationalism" that is based specifically on nation economic sovereignty, whereas right-wing/fascist nationalism is based on this weird idealist rambling.


And I'm not saying the nazis were Marxists. I'm saying they were socialists.

Define socialism, then?

[Die Rote Fahne]

So you at least admit that national socialism is based on a class analysis, even if it's a racial class analysis? That the Jews brought capitalism into existence and are the ruling class, controlling all media, government, business and finance?

That's not my view, I'm just saying. It's obvious they're socialists. I don't buy the idea that it was "just to fool workers."
It's based on racial/national analysis. Hence replacing bourgeois Jews with German bourgeoisie. It isn't even giving the German workers control over the means of production. Ergo, you are an asshat.

Idiot. I hope you get banned really soon.

[Rusty Shackleford]

National Socialism and Italian Fascism developed in times of very open and very violent class conflict in their respective national societies.

Italian Fascism was really empowered by the defection of Mussolini from the Italian Socialist Party. Many 'socialist' parties of the time ended up splitting over the issue of participation or non-participation in war in the interests of their respective national bourgeoisie. Mussolini was part of that 'pro war' faction in Italy.

Mussolini then moved on to class collaborationism (if that didnt already exist in the ISP at the time, i dont know. I dont know if they were simply social democrats* or not) Mussolini was more interested in the greatness of Italy as a nation state and had a hard-on for the glory days of the Romans and shit. reactionary.

In Germany, National Socialism was a fascist tendency that was more race based than anything. The only point of their economic policy was that the strength of the race/nation and the state are top priority. Jews were commonly scapegoated in the 10s and 20s as much as they have been for centuries in continental Europe.

Of course, Socialism was VERY popular in Germany. the SPD of Germany was one of the oldest, and most popular Socialist Parties. So, of course, socialist rhetoric and thought was kind of pervasive in German society amongst workers. The Nazis skewed it into a nationalist form, "pro worker" rhetoric was also used. (Of course, pro german worker") and so on.

Something that should be noted is that the NSDAP was bankrolled by German Industrialists and Bankers.

On revleft, Socialism is almost universally understood in the Marxist sense. There are various 'socialisms' as well. utopianist, scientific, and racialist/bourgeois/reactionary.

Utopianist socialism generally refers to certain anarchist and hippie(for lack of a better word, and i am not calling all utopian anarchists hippies) tendencies, whereas scientific refers to all Marxist tendencies and some anarchist tendencies.

And the third conception of socialism,the racialist/bourgeois/reacitonary one, is forbidden on here. It is thoroughly class collaborationist and anti-internationalist. And of course, that "socialism" is racist and reactionary.

*Social democrats in our modern conception of the term, not the radical working class conception of the time


i guess i could write more. but i am very tangential when i write so im going to stop here.

[Property Is Robbery]

Has this troll broken any rules yet?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Has this troll broken any rules yet?
Trolling.

[Property Is Robbery]

Trolling.
lol yeah but its still arguable if he is one yet.

[Seth]

Idiot. I hope you get banned really soon.

This and similar comments tell me everything I need to know statists and totalitarians in general, thanks. You can close this thread now.

[Die Rote Fahne]

This and similar comments tell me everything I need to know statists and totalitarians in general, thanks. You can close this thread now.
You're calling a Luxemburgist a statist and totalitarian. That is just precious.

[Seth]

You're calling a Luxemburgist a statist and totalitarian. That is just precious.

Well you share the impulse to silence those who question the dogma with the statists and totalitarians...so what are you?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well you share the impulse to silence those who question the dogma with the statists and totalitarians...so what are you?
No, I share the impulse to silence those who think Nazism is a form of socialism.

You can see plenty of anti-Stalinists (anti-totalitarian folks) and anarchists (anti-totalitarian and anti-statists) around here.

[#FF0000]

This and similar comments tell me everything I need to know statists and totalitarians in general, thanks. You can close this thread now.

1) all y'all need to chill out and are crybabies
2) you are a crybaby and received some decent responses that you are ignoring because you're not really here for a discussion. you're here to rile people up and then bail when our reaction satisfies your preconceived notion of leftists as irrational because you are too dishonest and lazy to recognize confirmation bias.

[Seth]

No, I share the impulse to silence those who think Nazism is a form of socialism.

You can see plenty of anti-Stalinists (anti-totalitarian folks) and anarchists (anti-totalitarian and anti-statists) around here.

So my crime is disagreeing with you, correct?

[Die Rote Fahne]

So my crime is disagreeing with you, correct?
You're "crime" is being a Nazi sympathizer.

[Rusty Shackleford]

if you dont want to get banned then calm the fuck down

[Seth]

1) all y'all need to chill out and are crybabies
2) you are a crybaby and received some decent responses that you are ignoring because you're not really here for a discussion. you're here to rile people up and then bail when our reaction satisfies your conception of leftists as irrational because you are too dishonest and lazy to recognize confirmation bias.

Whatever.

The only socialist I truly admire is George Orwell. In 1984, the ideologies of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia portray each other as the enemy, but in reality we learn that they are pretty much identical. I feel that is the situation with socialism - the idea of "fascism" as the enemy is a convenient fiction and the day when people question the left-right model and recognize all statism and totalitarianism as part of the same phenomenon, then totalitarianism will truly die for good and maybe humanity will have a chance to be free. Until then the dichotomy will prop up both.

I am a socialist, but in the tradition of Orwell.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Whatever.

The only socialist I truly admire is George Orwell. In 1984, the ideologies of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia portray each other as the enemy, but in reality we learn that they are pretty much identical. I feel that is the situation with socialism - the idea of "fascism" as the enemy is a convenient fiction and the day when people question the left-right model and recognize all statism and totalitarianism as part of the same phenomenon, then totalitarianism will truly die for good and maybe humanity will have a chance to be free. Until then the dichotomy will prop up both.

I am a socialist, but in the tradition of Orwell.
Yes, most of us are anti-totalitarian socialists. I question whether or not you know what socialism is, if you think that Hitler's Germany was a form of socialism.

[#FF0000]

The only socialist I truly admire is George Orwell. In 1984, the ideologies of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia portray each other as the enemy, but in reality we learn that they are pretty much identical. I feel that is the situation with socialism - the idea of "fascism" as the enemy is a convenient fiction and the day when people question the left-right model and recognize all statism and totalitarianism as part of the same phenomenon, then totalitarianism will truly die for good and maybe humanity will have a chance to be free. Until then the dichotomy will prop up both.


I think this is all really stupid but we can talk about that somewhere else or in another thread.

So yeah are you still defending this whole "Are Fascists socialists" thing or what?


I am a socialist, but in the tradition of Orwell.

Well I mean

Orwell sold out a lot of socialists, of all stripes, to the police

so.

[Veovis]

I've come to learn that anyone who throws around the word 'statist' like that is probably a right-wing libertarian snob.

[Seth]

Yes, most of us are anti-totalitarian socialists. I question whether or not you know what socialism is, if you think that Hitler's Germany was a form of socialism.

It was totalitarian socialism. I want liberty and socialism. Socialism is just slavery.

[#FF0000]

I've come to learn that anyone who throws around the word 'statist' like that is probably a right-wing libertarian snob.

Nah, not in my experience. Usually some dummy who ties in all sorts of "collectivism" together and throws it on the left, whether it be anarchist, fascist, or regular old mainstream liberals and conservatives.

[Rusty Shackleford]

from my experience, using "statist" in such a way by a person generally points to them being a mutualist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It was totalitarian socialism. I want liberty and socialism. Socialism is just slavery.
What is your definition of "Socialism"?

[#FF0000]

It was totalitarian socialism. I want liberty and socialism. Socialism is just slavery.

Define socialism, please.

[OHumanista]

It was totalitarian socialism. I want liberty and socialism. Socialism is just slavery.

So according to your own quote...you want freedom and slavery ? :laugh:

[#FF0000]

So according to your own quote...you want freedom and slavery ? :laugh:

no it's kind of like acid and bleach. on their own they are awful. together it is salt water

seth wants salt water

[Seth]

What is your definition of "Socialism"?


Define socialism, please.

Community or state ownership of the means of production.

I want a community model. I would also consider myself an individualist as I accept the non aggression principle as the cornerstone of my politics.

[Seth]

I don't define my politics much or subscribe to any ideology. If it's defined it can be controlled. Do I want a revolution? I don't know. I'm just here to learn and decide who I might stand with.

[Rusty Shackleford]

and if its not defined, it has no direction.

[#FF0000]

Community or state ownership of the means of production.

And Nazism falls into this definition?

[Seth]

And Nazism falls into this definition?

Yes?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Community or state ownership of the means of production.

I want a community model. I would also consider myself an individualist as I accept the non aggression principle as the cornerstone of my politics.
What about the mode of production?

If a state owns the means of production, but extracts profits from the worker, and essentially forms the bourgeoisie themselves, is that socialism?

[Seth]

and if its not defined, it has no direction.

To have direction I need to bow down to the glorious vanguard, I suppose.

[Property Is Robbery]

Do I want a revolution? I don't know.
Surprise surprise, unfortunately for you, around here that means you will be banned.

[Die Rote Fahne]

To have direction I need to bow down to the glorious vanguard, I suppose.
I don't believe in a vanguard. What are your thoughts on that?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Surprise surprise, unfortunately for you, around here that means you will be banned.
Restricted, not banned.

[Rusty Shackleford]

To have direction I need to bow down to the glorious vanguard, I suppose.


you said you were for community or state owned means of production and for individualism but at the same time not defined. its a contradiction.

[#FF0000]

Yes?

Oh, well you're flat out wrong, here. Private property was definitely protected in Nazism. Their Charter of Labor was all about how the boss was king of the castle when it came to his enterprise, with workers being completely under his control within the context of the enterprise.

Of course businesses had to play ball with the Nazis from time to time but they by no means ran the businesses. That's just flat out wrong.

[#FF0000]

To have direction I need to bow down to the glorious vanguard, I suppose.

man, shut up. your self righteousness is is oozing out of my monitor and getting all over my desk and the mail I just brought in. My fucking registration just came in goddamn

[Property Is Robbery]

Restricted, not banned.
Lame :p

[Seth]

What about the mode of production?

If a state owns the means of production, but extracts profits from the worker, and essentially forms the bourgeoisie themselves, is that socialism?

The state works on profit? :rolleyes:

[Die Rote Fahne]

The state works on profit? :rolleyes:
Has the concept of "State Capitalism" ever entered your pea brain?

[Seth]

I don't believe in a vanguard. What are your thoughts on that?

The vanguard is just big brother, the new boot that will crush people. But the vanguard isn't the only entity capable of suppressing liberty.

[#FF0000]

Has the concept of "State Capitalism" ever entered your pea brain?

do you think you can word your answers without the being a dick part

[Veovis]

So according to your own quote...you want freedom and slavery ? :laugh:

Well, he is a fan of Orwell. Freedom is slavery and all that.

[Seth]

Has the concept of "State Capitalism" ever entered your pea brain?

That doesn't make any sense. If you take property away from capitalists in the free market, then it isn't capitalism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

do you think you can word your answers without the being a dick part
Not with this particular case. I find it hard to not insult someone who actually thinks Nazism is a form of socialism. However, out of respect for you, I will.

[Seth]

Well, he is a fan of Orwell. Freedom is slavery and all that.

Socialism without liberty is slavery. The worst kind of slavery.

[Property Is Robbery]

Has the concept of "State Capitalism" ever entered your pea brain?
There is no point in feeding the troll.

[Die Rote Fahne]

That doesn't make any sense. If you take property away from capitalists in the free market, then it isn't capitalism.
Under cpaitalism, the government is bourgeois (capitalist). So, if the government controls the means of production, capitalists own the means of production.

[#FF0000]

However, out of respect for you, I will.

hahaha i like how my name carries weight on the internet you made my day <3

[Rusty Shackleford]

That doesn't make any sense. If you take property away from capitalists in the free market, then it isn't capitalism.
State ownership of the means of production doesn't mean anything if class context is not provided.

In feudal society, shops, smiths, and various industries were either owned by the state, artisans, or guilds. Socialism didn't exist.

In capitalist society, some industries are owned by capitalist states. Socialism doesn't exist in this case.

In socialist society, MoPs are state owned but the state is a workers' state. socialism exists.

[Seth]

Under cpaitalism, the government is bourgeois (capitalist). So, if the government controls the means of production, capitalists own the means of production.

So if the government gets rid of capitalists it becomes capitalist? That's pure doublethink.

[Die Rote Fahne]

hahaha i like how my name carries weight on the internet you made my day <3
Hahahaha. I respect all revlefters -- who aren't restricted --, but you have been one to make many a good point.

[Die Rote Fahne]

So if the government gets rid of capitalists it becomes capitalist? That's pure doublethink.
No, however, if the government replaces the capitalist, by becoming the capitalist itself, then yeah, it is still capitalism.

[Seth]

No, however, if the government replaces the capitalist, by becoming the capitalist itself, then yeah, it is still capitalism.

Wow. Please tell me how the state can hold private property.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So if the government gets rid of capitalists it becomes capitalist? That's pure doublethink.
the state is an institution of class power. what governs it is a class.

simply because non-state capital doesnt exist doesnt mean that the working class has suddenly come into political power.

[#FF0000]

So if the government gets rid of capitalists it becomes capitalist? That's pure doublethink.

For someone who makes a big deal of not getting labeled you sure are a stickler for semantics.

Think of it like this.

People who own things - rulin class

People who don't. - not rulin class

[MarxSchmarx]

Has the concept of "State Capitalism" ever entered your pea brain?

#FF000 is right. This is a verbal warning.0

[Die Rote Fahne]

#FF000 is right. This is a verbal warning.0
So, the guy who thinks that Nazism is a form of socialism...what about him?

[#FF0000]

So, the guy who thinks that Nazism is a form of socialism...what about him?

Being wrong isn't warnable or infractable

[Die Rote Fahne]

Being wrong isn't warnable or infractable
...ahhh, how it should be.

[PhoenixAsh]

this thread is hillarious. :laugh:

Nazism does not advocate community or state control. It actually emphasizes private ownership. It advocates class collaboration and social stratisfication and hierarchy instead of social cooperation and self management based on reduced or absent hierarchical structures. If anything Nazism regresses back to a pre-capitalist state...both mercantislistic in nature and based on the concept of guilds.

Nazism has socialism in its name...that does not mean it is socialist. And even Hitler agreed with this statement I just made.

[Seth]

Fine. Find me proof that Nazi Germany had private property and that Hitler one day said something like "I shouldn't have called this socialism because socialism is stupid." or something like that and I'll retract the argument of this thread.

[Veovis]

The socialism in "National Socialism" is simply an oxymoronic (emphasis on the moronic) buzzword. It's just like "scientific creationism" or "compassionate conservatism."

[PhoenixAsh]

Socialism without liberty is slavery. The worst kind of slavery.

Really? Are there begning forms of slavery? Name one.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Fine. Find me proof that Nazi Germany had private property and that Hitler one day said something like "I shouldn't have called this socialism because socialism is stupid." or something like that and I'll retract the argument of this thread.
“Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”- Adolf Hitler, 1930

[Property Is Robbery]

Being wrong isn't warnable or infractable
No but being a reformist individualist is, assuming restriction is an infraction.

[Seth]

Really? Are there begning forms of slavery? Name one.

I didn't say there were...

[Seth]

“Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”- Adolf Hitler, 1930

But he still claims socialism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

But he still claims socialism.
So, if George Bush claimed to be a pacifist, he would be a pacifist?

If Malcolm X claimed to be a Caucasian singer, it would be true?

[Seth]

No but being a reformist individualist is, assuming restriction is an infraction.

I love how you try to define me.

Fyi, I'm an individualist in that I believe in individual liberty.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Fine. Find me proof that Nazi Germany had private property and that Hitler one day said something like "I shouldn't have called this socialism because socialism is stupid." or something like that and I'll retract the argument of this thread.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=895247

http://www.revleft.com/vb/privatization-nazi-germany-t130195/index.html?p=1690342

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091124211034AAesK3E








Allow me to be a billboard for just one post.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-J7Q7cUDEFOU/S_bKEoyMSzI/AAAAAAAAGIw/PZJduitsVa0/largeNewGoogleLogoFinalFlat-a.png

[#FF0000]

Fine. Find me proof that Nazi Germany had private property and that Hitler one day said something like "I shouldn't have called this socialism because socialism is stupid." or something like that and I'll retract the argument of this thread.

"Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."

Cited from Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 77

But I know I found it somewhere else as well. Either way, Hitler said it, I believe, in 1923 or so?

Then there's this (http://books.google.com/books?id=sY8svb-MNUwC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=Nazi+Charter+Of+Labor&source=bl&ots=FHxtTO84c4&sig=u2_PLU0IzgLGzJcIFzSTrWKy2EI&hl=en&ei=VPp_To_sE8nt0gG2-NzyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Nazi%20Charter%20Of%20Labor&f=false), on the Nazi Charter of Labor.

And then there's the bit from Mein Kampf where Hitler literally says "TRUE SOCIALISM IS NOT AGAINST PRIVATE PROPERTY"

[#FF0000]

I love how you try to define me.

You remind me of myself in middle school and I am cringing hard

[Rusty Shackleford]

I should also add. Military industries were actually privatized in the 30s too. The Army used to control production but the Nazis privatized it to provide a new source of profit.

Also, even in the middle of the war, the Nazi government willingly paid over asking price for things like anti-tank rockets for panzershreks. for example.

[Seth]

So, if George Bush claimed to be a pacifist, he would be a pacifist?

If Malcolm X claimed to be a Caucasian singer, it would be true?

but Nazi germany practiced central planning, so there was only private property on paper. He still had to try to get business on his side.

[Die Rote Fahne]

but Nazi germany practiced central planning, so there was only private property on paper. He still had to try to get business on his side.

The United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) utilized economic planning during the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World_War). The Federal Government supplemented the price system with centralized resource allocation and created a number of new agencies to direct important economic sectors; notably the Food Administration, Fuel Administration, Railroad Administration and War Industries Board.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_planning#cite_note-9) During the Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War), the economy experienced staggering growth under a similar system of planning.
From the start of the Cold War to the present, the United States Federal Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Government) directs a significant amount of investment and funding into research and development, often initially through the Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense). The government performs 50% of all R&D in the United States,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_planning#cite_note-10) with a dynamic state-directed public-sector developing most of the technology that later becomes the basis of the private sector economy.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_planning#cite_note-11) Examples include laser technology, the internet, telecommunications and computers.
- Wikipedia

[Rusty Shackleford]

but Nazi germany practiced central planning, so there was only private property on paper. He still had to try to get business on his side.
the german economy was not centrally planned. it was a corporatist economy. business and the state worked symbiotically but not in a planned fashion like the soviet union, and in the soviet union, private business was crushed in the 30s after the NEP was ended.

[PhoenixAsh]

"we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system" (speech in Toland)

,but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." (to Sunday express)

At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."

^ Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 77

In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[12] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[13] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[14]

[PhoenixAsh]

I didn't say there were...

Yes you did. You said the "worst" kind. The word "worst" is superlative. Which means there are less worse kinds of slavery...either your use of the word "worst is totally misplaced and wrong and only used by you to sort some kind of effect....or I simply want you to answer my question. Which one will it be?

[Crux]

but Nazi germany practiced central planning, so there was only private property on paper. He still had to try to get business on his side.
Just out of curiousity how recently did you stop considering yourself a right wing libertarian?`Because you sure talk the talk. You've gotten several replies, replies which you have not aknowledged or responded to. Oh and a reminder anyone can claim to believe anytrhing. I mean Sara fucking Palin railed against "crony capitalism" so yeah National "Socialism" is in that cathegory pretty much.

[Seth]

the german economy was not centrally planned. it was a corporatist economy. business and the state worked symbiotically but not in a planned fashion like the soviet union, and in the soviet union, private business was crushed in the 30s after the NEP was ended.

But what about the free market? Business in nazi germany was completely controlled by the government and thus they didn't even own their own private property.

[#FF0000]

But what about the free market? Business in nazi germany was completely controlled by the government and thus they didn't even own their own private property.

This simply is not true.

[Seth]

Oh and a reminder anyone can claim to believe anytrhing.

Yeah such as hitler saying private property is good and then practicing central planning. And don't tell me it was the same as in the US.

[Die Rote Fahne]

But what about the free market? Business in nazi germany was completely controlled by the government and thus they didn't even own their own private property.
Private business was not completely controlled by the government, actually.

"The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party."

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2006/200607.pdf

[Seth]

And I didn't say there was a benign slavery. Only that socialism without the individual is the worst kind.

[Seth]

Just out of curiousity how recently did you stop considering yourself a right wing libertarian?`Because you sure talk the talk. You've gotten several replies, replies which you have not aknowledged or responded to. Oh and a reminder anyone can claim to believe anytrhing. I mean Sara fucking Palin railed against "crony capitalism" so yeah National "Socialism" is in that cathegory pretty much.

about a month. I'm a libertarian and a socialist, and I don't believe in the left vs. right bullshit.

[Rusty Shackleford]

But what about the free market? Business in nazi germany was completely controlled by the government and thus they didn't even own their own private property.
the 'free market' died in the 1800s. The notion that modern capitalist society operates on a 'free market' basis is false. We live in a monopoly capitalist society here in the US. Industrial capital is really owned by financial institutions because of the power of credit that developed in the late 1800s in Europe and really blossomed post WWII in the united states. Industrial capital was usurped by financial capital and further concentrated profits into fewer and fewer hands. This is also monopoly capitalist in the sense that Industries are divided by a handful of umbrella corporations.

A capitalist society does not have to operate on a 'free market' classical liberal basis to still have the same mode of production. how capitalists relate to one another does not change the fact that surplus value is still accumulated privately, and in the hands of a few, while on the other side, billions sell their labor, for a wage or salary who are deprived of ownership of what they produce or the value they create. And furthermore, labor, in all forms of capitalist society, is socialized, but not socialist.

[PhoenixAsh]

But what about the free market? Business in nazi germany was completely controlled by the government and thus they didn't even own their own private property.

Yes they did. Examples:

The Krupps owned their factory. Duisberg and Bosch owned IG Farben...and the other Bosch owned Bosch. All of these companies were huge sponsors of the NSDAP and vied for government projects....and profited hugely from government orders of weapons, Zyklon B, slave labour etc.

They became filthy rich and/or managed to establish pure monopolies on certain markets.

Bussiness was not controlled by the government. Bussiness owned the government just as much. A marriage of you would like.

[#FF0000]

Yeah such as hitler saying private property is good and then practicing central planning. And don't tell me it was the same as in the US.

He did not practice central planning.

Jesus Christ being a history buff/major and listening to this is like sitting in an MRI machine with a prison tattoo

[Seth]

the 'free market' died in the 1800s. The notion that modern capitalist society operates on a 'free market' basis is false. We live in a monopoly capitalist society here in the US. Industrial capital is really owned by financial institutions because of the power of credit that developed in the late 1800s in Europe and really blossomed post WWII in the united states. Industrial capital was usurped by financial capital and further concentrated profits into fewer and fewer hands. This is also monopoly capitalist in the sense that Industries are divided by a handful of umbrella corporations.

A capitalist society does not have to operate on a 'free market' classical liberal basis to still have the same mode of production. how capitalists relate to one another does not change the fact that surplus value is still accumulated privately, and in the hands of a few, while on the other side, billions sell their labor, for a wage or salary who are deprived of ownership of what they produce or the value they create. And furthermore, labor, in all forms of capitalist society, is socialized, but not socialist.

yeah but this is a corporatocracy. Hitler practiced central planning and totalitarian socialism, don't tell me it's the same.

[PhoenixAsh]

And I didn't say there was a benign slavery. Only that socialism without the individual is the worst kind.

By using a superlative you are practically saying that there is worst kind of slavery in comparison to other forms of slavery. That means that if socialism without liberty is the worst kind of slavery...there are more begining forms of socialism because they are less worse than socialism without liberty.

Name one.

[Seth]

Yes they did. Examples:

The Krupps owned their factory. Duisberg and Bosch owned IG Farben...and the other Bosch owned Bosch. All of these companies were huge sponsors of the NSDAP and vied for government projects....and profited hugely from government orders of weapons, Zyklon B, slave labour etc.

They became filthy rich and/or managed to establish pure monopolies on certain markets.

Bussiness was not controlled by the government. Bussiness owned the government just as much. A marriage of you would like.

Only on paper. The government told them what to do adn when to do it, and where, and to whom.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Only on paper. The government told them what to do adn when to do it, and where, and to whom.
Provide some proof.

[Rusty Shackleford]

yeah but this is a corporatocracy. Hitler practiced central planning and totalitarian socialism, don't tell me it's the same.
corporatocracy?

Change the word to monopoly capitalism and you basically understand the concept.


In Germany in the 30s Industrial capital was still pretty strong since German banks got annihilated by war reparations and stuff. German fascism was very industrialist.



EDIT: also, you cannot liberate the individual without liberating labor and abolishing class. So long as there is a class division of society, the individual is an atom with a definite relationship that is unequeal. In classless society, human interrelation is free and not bound by anything except the total lack of ownership (and at the same time, total social control of) the means of production. Only then can one truly develop as an individual.

[Seth]

Provide some proof.

Lol, this is like asking for proof that the grass is green or the sky is blue. It's common knowledge that the nazis controlled the economy.

[PhoenixAsh]

yeah but this is a corporatocracy. Hitler practiced central planning and totalitarian socialism, don't tell me it's the same.

Hitler did not practice central planning. Do you understand what central planning is?

Hitler also did not practice socialism. We have already been over this. We told you exactly why Nazism =/= socialism. And yet you fundamentally stick to this flawed and incorrect idea.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Lol, this is like asking for proof that the grass is green or the sky is blue. It's common knowledge that the nazis controlled the economy.
Well, it should be easy to provide the evidence then.

[#FF0000]

Lol, this is like asking for proof that the grass is green or the sky is blue. It's common knowledge that the nazis controlled the economy.

Then surely you can provide a reputable source.

Actually no you can't because virtually no serious scholarship on Nazi Germany will classify its economy as "socialist", and no one with a name would say it was centrally planned.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Lol, this is like asking for proof that the grass is green or the sky is blue. It's common knowledge that the nazis controlled the economy.
"common sense" is not always correct.

You can be raised to believe that it is common sense that God exists. But it cannot be proven or disproven so it is neither correct nor incorrect.

It could also be "common sense" that Black people are inferior and are destined to be poor yet the truth is that such "common sense" perpetuates and actually creates that very condition because of how people economically relate to one another with that kind of notion influencing them in any situation that involves a black person.

[Seth]

Fine.

http://mises.org/daily/1937

[#FF0000]

Fine.

http://mises.org/daily/1937

No. From a historian, not political groups.

[PhoenixAsh]

Only on paper. The government told them what to do adn when to do it, and where, and to whom.

No...this is not true. German industrials were very active in the party and committees and basically econommic policy was made in consort between government and representation. This is all very well documented and not very hard to find out for yourself. Nazi Germany had a mixed economy. And yes...there were economic regulations and non banking finance systems (meaning government financed) but even when Goring took over from Schacht and there was a central planning for the military industry...all companies that were established were privately onwed and had complete freedom over their operations, finances and productions.

[Crux]

Yeah such as hitler saying private property is good and then practicing central planning. And don't tell me it was the same as in the US.
The german Nazi state was put in place to defend private property, as a bulwark against Bolshevism. Hitler acted with the support of German and some foreign Big Bussiness. Given how recently you've embraced socialism may I advice you to have some humility. As you have a very recent background as a libertarian I guess a basic rundown on what constitutes private property, what economic classes are and how the state functions in a class society is in order.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Fine.

http://mises.org/daily/1937

I got two sentences in and...HAHAHAHAHHAHAH

[PhoenixAsh]

Reisman, just like Temin, has already been debunked by Scherner.

o...yes...and before I forget. He is a Rand adept...a fervent supporter of extreme free market liberalism (you know...the one we had in the 1800's...where workers were merely slaves who were fit to work and die and nothing else) and HATES socialists. His entire political agenda is to slant anything that opposes laissez fair political capitalism as being as bad a spossible. It is his personal interest to throw socialism and nazism together because they do both oppose his view of the world...

Seeing as you are a (former??) right-wing libertarian it doesn't suprise me you use him as the evidence for your argument. The guy may have a PHD but he is political in his "science" and serves his own personal agenda.

[Misanthrope]

But he still claims socialism.

I'm a dog, I may technically be a human but I like to be considered a dog despite my biological make up, woof. I say I'm a dog so it's 100 percent true, woof.

[Seth]

The german Nazi state was put in place to defend private property, as a bulwark against Bolshevism. Hitler acted with the support of German and some foreign Big Bussiness. Given how recently you've embraced socialism may I advice you to have some humility. As you have a very recent background as a libertarian I guess a basic rundown on what constitutes private property, what economic classes are and how the state functions in a class society is in order.

No, the state exists for its own self perpetuation and power.

Prove that business put the nazis in power, adn prove that bolshevism was a hair away from establishing a dictatorship in germany.

[Crux]

Fine.

http://mises.org/daily/1937
miseanism is just a badly stitched together set of false premises. They had wage and price controls? Oh my. Complete and utter fantasies.

[#FF0000]

No, the state exists for its own self perpetuation and power.

Prove that business put the nazis in power, adn prove that bolshevism was a hair away from establishing a dictatorship in germany.

Dude at this point I'm just going to say we are not responsible for the canyons left in your education. Consider this a victory if you're that petty but I for one am bailing. I seriously implore you to read a book -- any book -- on the Nazis and maybe pre-WW2 Germany. Please.

[Seth]

No...this is not true. German industrials were very active in the party and committees and basically econommic policy was made in consort between government and representation. This is all very well documented and not very hard to find out for yourself. Nazi Germany had a mixed economy. And yes...there were economic regulations and non banking finance systems (meaning government financed) but even when Goring took over from Schacht and there was a central planning for the military industry...all companies that were established were privately onwed and had complete freedom over their operations, finances and productions.

I refuse to believe that Nazi germany had a free market.

[Agent Equality]

This thread makes me lol incredibly hard. Why he is not restricted yet I have no idea. When asked for proof that Nazi Germany was socialist, he references an Austrian school capitalist website as a source...He is OBVIOUSLY not a revolutionary leftist in any way shape or form.

I would say:

at best): a confused reactionary trying to argue a lost cause = restricted

at worst): a nazi sympathizing troll = b&d

I pretty much lost hope for him 3 pages into the thread after he continually ignored valid responses as to why National Socialism is not socialist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I refuse to believe that Nazi germany had a free market.

Just because an economy isn't "free market" doesn't mean it is not capitalist. Look up, via Wikipedia even, social democracy.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No, the state exists for its own self perpetuation and power.

Prove that business put the nazis in power, adn prove that bolshevism was a hair away from establishing a dictatorship in germany.


There was a short lived revolution in Germany in 1919. German Communists of various stripes were becoming increasingly popular. In the mid to late 20s both the Nazis and Communists lost popularity electorally when the socialist party became more popular. but the 1933 elections were actually a pretty big and almost even split between the Socialists, the Nazis, and the Communists.


As for the state. the state is NOTHING when it is not put into action or has no basis for existence.

a rock is a rock, but it can become a hammer when put into action to be used to strike something.


The state is simply an organ that requires governance. The state is not some entity that is conscious. The state is not human nor does it have human characteristics. What is human and does have human characteristics is what governs it.

The state came about when society was cleaved into haves and have-nots. The haves used the ability to create laws that supported their interests and used force to defend and enforce those laws. The state is a tool of class power and class self-preservation. It is, like i said, not some entity that is self conscious.






fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu if you were trolling on that one, ill give it to you, you succeeded.

[Seth]

I'm not a "reactionary" (a term used by so many dictators its not funny). I'm not a Misean or a capitalist libertarian. Like I said, I'm an Orwellian libertarian socialist.

[Seth]

I simply don't see why the burden of proof is on me to prove that nazi germany was socialist when nazism means national socialism and hitler denounced capitalism and hated the free market. And controlled the economy.

[Crux]

No, the state exists for its own self perpetuation and power.

Prove that business put the nazis in power, adn prove that bolshevism was a hair away from establishing a dictatorship in germany.
Well, the SS uniforms were designed by none other than Hugo Boss. Just tot take one example. Adolf Dassler, founder of Adidas, was also a nazi supporter. Bayerische Motoren Werke, commonly known as BMW, were not allowed to make airplane engines after 1945 having been one of the major aircraft engine producers for Luftwaffe.I could probably make you a more comprehensive list if you'd like.

Well, the threat of communism was of course a usefull scare tactics, but the fact is that the KPD was on the rise. There were major upheavals in 1919 and 1923. Up until Hitlers ascent to power they had a steady and growing electoral support.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The nazi basis for their rejection of capitalism was that it was dominated by jews who were enslaving aryans. thats their argument.

[Seth]

Well, the SS uniforms were designed by none other than Hugo Boss. Just tot take one example. Adolf Dassler, founder of Adidas, was also a nazi supporter. Bayerische Motoren Werke, commonly known as BMW, were not allowed to make airplane engines after 1945 having been one of the major aircraft engine producers for Luftwaffe.I could probably make you a more comprehensive list if you'd like.

Well what about Armand Hammer who supported communism? That doesn't mean teh ussr had private property. and please do.

[Rusty Shackleford]

May i suggest you read these two pieces by Nikolai Bukharin, Communist Economist(i guess you could say) The are both very short.

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/07/08.htm)Economic Organization in Soviet Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1922/economic-organisation.htm) 1922

The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/07/08.htm) 1921


This was during a period when private industry still did exist in the Soviet Union.

[PhoenixAsh]

No, the state exists for its own self perpetuation and power.

No it serves the interests of the ruling class. This is common and very basic historical knowledge. No state exists for the sake of its own existance. It represents something. Always. And that something is always the ruling class. Wether this is the feudal lords, the guilds, the industrials or the party elite....it always and unfailing represents some group within society that has the power.


Prove that business put the nazis in power, adn prove that bolshevism was a hair away from establishing a dictatorship in germany.

Holy shit dude...do some research for yourself.

Krupp was aiding the Nazis before they even became the NSDAP.

Stinnen. Thyssen. Voegler. Von Schroeder. Kirndorf. Schneider-Creuzot. Van Detering. Harriman. Kiep....To name but a few of the largest industrialists and capitalists of that time.

AEG. IG FARBEN. DAPAG....Huge multinational corporations


Huge funds were tranferred. Some companies like, for example, those of Kirndorf even pledged a percentage of their profit to the NSDAP well before the 30's.

You may even recoginze some nice US-Nazi ties there.

And all this is extremely well documented even as the series of meetings between capitalists and industrialists and the NSDAP taking place in the late 20's and throughout the 30's.

Even the lobbying against the banning of the NSDAP...and the continuous lobbying of getting Hitler and his consorts out of jail after the putch attempt are well documented.

I mean...come one...this is basic knowledge.

[PhoenixAsh]

I refuse to believe that Nazi germany had a free market.

I said: mixed economy.

But the alternative for free market is NOT central planning.

[Seth]

Oh so was the soviet union right wing and fascist because of NEP? :rolleyes:

and what about venezuela? is it capitalist because theres still a business somewhere?

[Agent Equality]

I'm not a "reactionary" (a term used by so many dictators its not funny). I'm not a Misean or a capitalist libertarian. Like I said, I'm an Orwellian libertarian socialist.

You certainly do not act like any libertarian socialist I have ever seen, at least not an educated one anyways. While I admire the fact that you think you are a libertarian socialist, you simply come off as reactionary or confused at best and fascist troll at worst.

I am even in doubt if you actually even know what libertarian socialism is. Let this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism be a guidline for you to start your delve into the theory.

You see, there very much is a left and a right, just as well as there is an up and a down (at least on the left there is, on the right there really is no difference since they all lead to oppression and social hierarchy). Hitler was up and to the right. Stalin was up and to the left(hardly)

I actually agree with you on positions on parties and liberty and its relation to socialism(kind-of,not really) etc. etc...however, you do not seem to know enough about these things to be able to argue these points effectively without sounding like a reactionary libertarian.

Now I'm throwing the towl out there on this one for you, as it seems you are probably just confused and don't know what the fuck you are doing. Please don't prove me wrong.:rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm not a "reactionary" (a term used by so many dictators its not funny). I'm not a Misean or a capitalist libertarian. Like I said, I'm an Orwellian libertarian socialist.


You do realise that Orwell would have kicked you in the nuts for some of the outlandishly stupid things you say in the thread in the face of overwhelming arguments you continue to ignore right?

[Seth]

No it serves the interests of the ruling class. This is common and very basic historical knowledge. No state exists for the sake of its own existance. It represents something. Always. And that something is always the ruling class. Wether this is the feudal lords, the guilds, the industrials or the party elite....it always and unfailing represents some group within society that has the power.



Holy shit dude...do some research for yourself.

Krupp was aiding the Nazis before they even became the NSDAP.

Stinnen. Thyssen. Voegler. Von Schroeder. Kirndorf. Schneider-Creuzot. Van Detering. Harriman. Kiep....To name but a few of the largest industrialists and capitalists of that time.

AEG. IG FARBEN. DAPAG....Huge multinational corporations


Huge funds were tranferred. Some companies like, for example, those of Kirndorf even pledged a percentage of their profit to the NSDAP well before the 30's.

You may even recoginze some nice US-Nazi ties there.

And all this is extremely well documented even as the series of meetings between capitalists and industrialists and the NSDAP taking place in the late 20's and throughout the 30's.

Even the lobbying against the banning of the NSDAP...and the continuous lobbying of getting Hitler and his consorts out of jail after the putch attempt are well documented.

I mean...come one...this is basic knowledge.

Source all of this.

[Seth]

Like I said, I don't want to have some well defined ideology so that someone could trick me into supporting them for power.

I'm a Libertarian and a socialist, that's all I'll say. I don't know if i'm a libertarian socialist like you.

[Crux]

I simply don't see why the burden of proof is on me to prove that nazi germany was socialist when nazism means national socialism and hitler denounced capitalism and hated the free market. And controlled the economy.
The idea of the "free market" that the miseans espouse is simply pure nonsense. The capitalist market always strive towards monopolies.
As I showed with my example of Sara Palin, *anyone* can *denounce* capitalism. But the fact of the matter is that Hitler had the support of big bussiness.

[PhoenixAsh]

Source all of this.

No I am not going to source that. The fact that you are even asking means you are a troll.

You are going to source that yourself by using: google & a well stocked and non censored university library of at least 100k titles. That is the ONLY way you are going to actually learn stuff.

Now kindly proof EVERYTHING you claimed in this thread or STFU with asking to prove this and proof that. We are entertaining you in your trolling because, personally, I have very little else to do at the moment and there is nothing remotely interesting happening here....but do not push the envelope.

[Seth]

So you can't.

[PhoenixAsh]

Like I said, I don't want to have some well defined ideology so that someone could trick me into supporting them for power.

I'm a Libertarian and a socialist, that's all I'll say. I don't know if i'm a libertarian socialist like you.

you are perhaps libertarian.

you are not a socialist. there is only one form of socialism there are different ideas to reach it. unless you learn the substantial and significant difference between these and actually learn to understand what socialism truely means you are not a socialist.

[PhoenixAsh]

So you can't.

roll eyes

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_07.htm


o look...he sourced them all in one link...lol

[Rusty Shackleford]

Oh so was the soviet union right wing and fascist because of NEP? :rolleyes:

and what about venezuela? is it capitalist because theres still a business somewhere?



Semantics Semantics Semantics.


Read the articles first before commenting on them Mr. "I need proof!" and poster of long ass mises.org articles.


The Soviets weren't bankrolled by anyone. Sure, lenin got a ride from the Germans to Russia but that bit the Germans in the ass pretty hard.


Business in the Soviet Union had NO power to dispute anything the Soviet government said. if there was a labor dispute almost 100% of the time the soviet government sided with the workers. Also,


The same was manifested in the American Civil War, where economic development was thrown back for a decade. In a proletarian revolution the same thing takes place on a much larger scale. During a proletarian revolution we must not only destroy the State machine, but completely reorganize the industrial relations. That is the most important point. There was almost nothing in the Soviet Union. They had to start from scratch which meant allowing capitalism, in a controlled manner, to develop. History has shown though, at a certain point this was ended and industry became socialized and agriculture became collectivized.




Also, venezuela is a mixed economy moving towards socialism. but socialism will not be realized until the current state apparatus is fundamentally replaced by a working class state apparatus.

[Seth]

And like I said, Armand Hammer supported the Soviets and so did the Koch brothers. Does that mean that the soviets had the "support of big business"?

[Agent Equality]

Like I said, I don't want to have some well defined ideology so that someone could trick me into supporting them for power.

I'm a Libertarian and a socialist, that's all I'll say. I don't know if i'm a libertarian socialist like you.

Well the ideology of Libertarian socialism is not that defined except by what it wants and how it wants to get it. Also a real libertarian socialist would not trick you into supporting them for power as they would not desire to have power for themselves, so your argument against the libertarian socialist "ideology" is pretty much null in this case.

I realize that when you say you're a libertarian, you mean that you value individual liberty and freedom etc. but most libertarianism in the classic sense is pretty much flawed. Also I think you completely misunderstand what freedom is or at least have the american bourgeois definition of it. Before you even say you're a libertarian or a socialist or any of that, you have to have a definition of freedom

If you think freedom simply means to be able to do whatever the fuck you want when you want to whoever the fuck you want to, then your version of freedom is not the socialist or even leftist version. We value freedom as being free from oppression in all forms, free from explotiation in all forms.

Our freedom means freedom from negative things, not the freedom to do negative things. The former should be a universal goal for all peoples, while the latter should be a universal enemy for all peoples.

Quite simply put, if you want to be free from the danger of being shot, why would you want the freedom to shoot someone?

[Crux]

Oh so was the soviet union right wing and fascist because of NEP? :rolleyes:

and what about venezuela? is it capitalist because theres still a business somewhere?
No. You need to learn to walk before you run. or attempt to ride that high horse you're apparently sitting on.

Yes the venezuelan economy is in the main capitalist. Nobody is denying that and that is common knowledge. There is however also campaign of nationalization, there have been attempts at cooperatives and there have been moves the introduce more worker's control. But for the most part the Venezuelan economy is capitalist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

And like I said, Armand Hammer supported the Soviets and so did the Koch brothers. Does that mean that the soviets had the "support of big business"?


"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"

does that sound pro-business?


Seriously. I pointed out that early in Soviet history the economy was essentially mixed and partially open to foreign investment in a very controlled manner ro rebuild and reindustrialize. Am i denying that the Kochs and others had any economic interaction with the soviet union? no.

[Seth]

roll eyes

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_07.htm


o look...he sourced them all in one link...lol

lol


We do know that prominent European and American industrialists were sponsoring all manner of totalitarian political groups at that time, including Communists

[Crux]

Source all of this.
Seeing as it's all true does that put hole in your nazism is socialism theory? If you are actually interested in socialism you need to move beyond right-wing libertarian clichés.

[Seth]

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"

does that sound pro-business?


Seriously. I pointed out that early in Soviet history the economy was essentially mixed and partially open to foreign investment in a very controlled manner ro rebuild and reindustrialize. Am i denying that the Kochs and others had any economic interaction with the soviet union? no.

How do you know the nazis weren't doing the same thing? We know that Mussolini was.

[PhoenixAsh]

And like I said, Armand Hammer supported the Soviets and so did the Koch brothers. Does that mean that the soviets had the "support of big business"?

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/armand_hammer.htm

The guy was seen as a tool. So no...that is different.


Source on the Koch brothers support for Bolshevism

[Rusty Shackleford]

How do you know the nazis weren't doing the same thing? We know that Mussolini was.
Sure they may have done similar things but with different motives and outcomes.

The essential difference is class.


Bukharin wrote:

If the proletariat wins in this long and arduous battle, the most capable groups of capitalists will have served during the period of incubation of the new economic system as capitalist experts and thus, against their will, they will have labored for the benefit of the working classes.


Basically, in laymans terms " you can go about and be a capitalist, but if were still around in a few years were going to expropriate everything you accumulated and everything that was built under your watch because fuck you this is a proletarian society, fuck you"

[Seth]

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/armand_hammer.htm

The guy was seen as a tool. So no...that is different.


Source on the Koch brothers support for Bolshevism


http://www.alternet.org/economy/146504/the_roots_of_stalin_in_the_tea_party_movement?page =entire Not them personally but their ancestors obviously.

The nazis saw the capitalists as tools too, because they were socialists. Because of the war they had to leave things technically in private hands, but even then they were centrally planning the economy.

[Red Commissar]

Source on the Koch brothers support for Bolshevism

He's misstated facts. The Koch Brothers' father, Fred Koch, was part of a team that was contracted by the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and early 1930s for oil exploration and drilling. This gave him start up funds to work else where in the oil industry, but he became a firm anti-Communist after 'seeing' the Soviet Union.

It's more brought up as a bit of irony considering that the Koch Brothers obviously inherited from that fortune, and went on to red bait the hell out of anyone with the remotest connection to socialist ideology or governments.

How that translates into support of 'big business' in the way the Ford Motor Company and other industrialists saw Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as 'resolving' the class issue or companies like Krupp or FIAT benefiting in their respective countries, I do not know.

[Seth]

Also Ford supported the Soviets, but I forget the source.

edit: this came out of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAZ

[PhoenixAsh]

lol

You can laugh. But you fail to understand the fundamental difference here. Their support for the KPD was because of fear and an attempt to control the KPD in which they failed. The KPD was one of the largest parties in Germany. With massive worker support....and was hell bend on abolishing private property completely and in the mean time supported and organised many strikes. As soon as 1920 the funding of the KPD and other socialist movements by industry stopped.

But that is niether here nor there...I sourced it and proved you wrong. Ergo...your whole idea was wrong.

As your previously claimed:

Proof Hitler said they weren't socialist...we did
Proof there was private property ....we did
Proof the indutrials helped Hitler....we did
Proof they helped him get power....we did
Proof Bolshevism was in position to gain power ....we did
Proof Germany wasn't centrally planned....we did


So far we have disproved everything you claimed. We have proven everything you wanted to be proven.

Now fez up and do what you claimed: admit you were wrong.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Am i supporting capitalism by working for a wage and buying commodities?

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/146504/the_roots_of_stalin_in_the_tea_party_movement?page =entire Not them personally but their ancestors obviously.

The nazis saw the capitalists as tools too, because they were socialists. Because of the war they had to leave things technically in private hands, but even then they were centrally planning the economy.

Again...they were not socialist. We already covered this. Second the Nazis did not see the capitalists as tools....the Nazis saw the capitalists and industrialists as essential to their effort of a class collaborating hierarchical system based on private property and a mixed economy....all reasons why they were not socialist.

Again...socialism is an economic system based on the abolition of private property and a non hierarchical system of worker owned and managed means of production and based on social cooperation. Nazism...the word NATIONAL can not be seen seperately from socialism at all making it an entirely different concept...advocated a hierarchical stratisfied system based on private ownership and social collaboration and freedom of contract.


There was no central planning of the economy. There was a mixed system. industry and the NSDAP worked together as early as the late 1920's in setting up a mutual beneficiary economic system which was in part regulated and was based on private ownership, freedom of investment and freedom of operational control.

[PhoenixAsh]

Also Ford supported the Soviets, but I forget the source.

edit: this came out of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAZ

You are mistaking bussiness deals with support. There is a substantial and very significant difference.

The support we cited by German industruials for the NSDAP was NOT a bussiness deal. It was millions invested in the NSDAP to influence the party.

Ford, Hammer and the Kochs made bussiness deals. In other words...they got an order to manifacture or produce something. That is not the same as givng the Bolsheviks money...like the German industrials did with the NSDAP.

[Seth]

Alright, I guess you're right. I'll look into it more later.

[PhoenixAsh]

Am i supporting capitalism by working for a wage and buying commodities?

No...tell me you are kidding!!! You are not working for a wage are you?? You...you...you...you are a closet cappie!!!! And buying things???? SAY IT AINT SO RUSTY!!! They should send you off immediately to the Gulag!!! Foul devil!!!

:laugh::laugh:

[Rusty Shackleford]

No...tell me you are kidding!!! You are not working for a wage are you?? You...you...you...you are a closet cappie!!!! And buying things???? SAY IT AINT SO RUSTY!!! They should send you off immediately to the Gulag!!! Foul devil!!!

:laugh::laugh:

Well, when i say buying commodities, im actually trading billions of dolloars worth of copper and agricultural products. My portfolio is geared towards basic commodities. When i say wage, i mean my returns and dividends on my investments.

:p


Alright, I guess you're right. I'll look into it more later.

THANK YOU!!!

I now have a modicum of respect for you. Seriously though the hostility you faced was only because you were rather defensive instead of open to learning in a learning sub-forum. I dont think any of this will get you restricted yet. Maybe i'm just naiive though :lol:

[Agent Equality]

Alright, I guess you're right. I'll look into it more later.

see?! I knew there was some good in him afterall! :D
I am glad to see my traditional optimistic approach towards people payed off this time.

[GPDP]

I'm gonna start with saying I sympathize with the OP somewhat. He admitted to being a right-wing libertarian as recently as a month ago, so naturally, despite now considering himself a socialist, he is still very much seeing the world through the ideological prism of libertarianism. It's understandable for him to grasp the concepts we are throwing at him through that lens, hence why he's struggling to see anything that isn't the mythical free market paradise that misesians and randroids beat off to as "socialism." That's the framework he's used to employing to decipher concepts, so naturally I can see why he would consider the Nazis to be socialists at this point.

That said, his attitude really left a lot to be desired. Even if some posters jumped the gun and were quick to call him a troll or Nazi-sympathizer, getting on a high horse doesn't help matters in the slightest, nor does not conceding to points and then repeating the same debunked points ad nauseum.

OP, if you want to have a decent discussion, I would suggest dropping the condescending attitude, and opening yourself up to criticism. You've been demonstrated as being remarkably unknowledgeable on certain points, and there's nothing wrong with that. Keep an open mind. Always maintain a self-critical attitude, and don't close yourself off to criticism from others. Chances are you don't have all the answers or know all there is to know. Even if in the end you disagree, at least you'll come out knowing more about the concepts and ideas you currently hold.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm gonna start with saying I sympathize with the OP somewhat. He admitted to being a right-wing libertarian as recently as a month ago, so naturally, despite now considering himself a socialist, he is still very much seeing the world through the ideological prism of libertarianism. It's understandable for him to grasp the concepts we are throwing at him through that lens, hence why he's struggling to see anything that isn't the mythical free market paradise that misesians and randroids beat off to as "socialism." That's the framework he's used to employing to decipher concepts, so naturally I can see why he would consider the Nazis to be socialists at this point.

That said, his attitude really left a lot to be desired. Even if some posters jumped the gun and were quick to call him a troll or Nazi-sympathizer, getting on a high horse doesn't help matters in the slightest, nor does not conceding to points and then repeating the same debunked points ad nauseum.

OP, if you want to have a decent discussion, I would suggest dropping the condescending attitude, and opening yourself up to criticism. You've been demonstrated as being remarkably unknowledgeable on certain points, and there's nothing wrong with that. Keep an open mind. Always maintain a self-critical attitude, and don't close yourself off to criticism from others. Chances are you don't have all the answers or know all there is to know. Even if in the end you disagree, at least you'll come out knowing more about the concepts and ideas you currently hold.
Prove it.
































im only kidding. :lol: oh man this is such a nice end to a somewhat annoying thread.

[Seth]

What about Mussolini and the Italian Social Republic? Mussolini said he was going to fight the bourgeoisie and nationalize things. So was he a socialist even if, his government wasn't?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party back before 1916 or 17 or whatever. But, he stopped advocating socialism, whatever decrepit form it was in the ISP and instead advocated "an end to the class war" by making the state the mediator between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, to solve issues in a collaborative way in order to strengthen the nation. Also, like Majakovskij pointed out, Palin said she was against "crony capitalism" but that doesn't mean shit. The republican party claims its for working people but it obviously isn't.

And, as it has been stated before in this thread, nationalization by a capitalist government doesn't make the government socialist and does not bring the working class into political power and replace the old state institutions with new ones.

Socialism is more than just being "for the workers." Socialism is about being "for the workers" in a way that is in the working class' interest historically, in the long term. Simply saying "workers today are for immigration control" doesnt mean that that is the need of the working class. Millions of workers vote every 2 years in the United states to vote in new rulers in congress and the white house. it doesnt make the US socialist. It doesnt represent the interests of the working class in a historical manner.


also, when did Mussolini say he was going to fight the bourgeoisie? source?

[Dumb]

That said, his attitude really left a lot to be desired. Even if some posters jumped the gun and were quick to call him a troll or Nazi-sympathizer, getting on a high horse doesn't help matters in the slightest, nor does not conceding to points and then repeating the same debunked points ad nauseum.

The OP basically admitted he was wrong. That's more than what 95% of people are capable of, based on my rigorous scientific analysis. No matter what was said between the start and the end, the fact that he's going to go back and re-evaluate his opinion at all says a lot of good about the OP.

And, let's be honest...condescension and high horses are par for the course around here.

This isn't to defend what was said, but let's not miss the forest for the trees. (Ugh, I hate cliches...)

[Tim Cornelis]

What about Mussolini and the Italian Social Republic? Mussolini said he was going to fight the bourgeoisie and nationalize things. So was he a socialist even if, his government wasn't?

No. He said exactly the opposite:


"The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy."

--Mussolini

(source: wikipedia -> "The corporate state in action; Italy under fascism", Oxford University Press, 1939. pp. 115).


the Fascist state did not nationalize any company.[4].

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_Big_Business

EDIT: Also, Mussolini explicitly advocated class collaboration, whilst "fighting the bourgeoisie" is the opposite of this.

[Nox]

National Socialism, from an economic perspective, is left-wing (similar to the economics of Social Democracy), but it certainly isn't Socialist.

[danyboy27]

Its all about the redistribution of power.

a socialist regime redistribute it to the workers, a fascist regime keep the inequality gap but try to fool everyone that they are all equal beccause they belong to x nation or beccause they have all the same race, religion etc etc.

I am not a big fan of soviet russia, but lets try to use that has a comparative with nazi germany.

The main efforts of the soviet governement was aimed at modernisation and the creation of various infrasctructures and land redistrubion, nationalisation of all the industries, effectively stripping away from their ''rights'' most of the rich folks in russia.

In germany, the main efforts where aimed at suppressing worker control of the workplace by replacing unions with a state run union controlled by the state, giving more power to industrialists by giving them overpriced contract, and the implementation of various programs to make them think they where all the same class for exemple the free cruise program, free theater programs, nursing aids for the poor, strong propaganda etc etc.

fascist are verry good con artists.

[Ballyfornia]

Apparently it's lost on you that Mussolini's fascism came from syndicalism and the Nazis were the National socialist German Worker's Party.


This is what was called the "Third way" a supposed hybrid of communism and capitalism. That supposedly allows workers rights and private property rights. Although time after time its the unions that are shut down and the bourgeois are still kept going. The original German Worker's party was xenophobic and racist.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

If national socialism was socialism about half of the world would support socialism.

[Ballyfornia]

I refuse to believe that Nazi germany had a free market.

Capitalism is when the bourgeois are in control of the means of production and exploit labour from markets, This does not necessarily have to be a so cold "free market" which doesn't exist

[danyboy27]

Fascism dosnt create free market but monopoly and cartel in the hand of a verry fews number of elite capitalist.

Unlike what the adam smith fanboy want us to believe, capitalism isnt really about competition, its about exploitation of the workers to generate wealth.

[Commissar Rykov]

This thread is like reading a giant Glenn Beck rant.:rolleyes:

[Rusty Shackleford]

If national socialism was socialism about half of the world would support socialism.
...i don't follow.

[Stork]

In practice, no. But it's no secret Hitler used socialist rhetoric and he part-way narrowed class barriers. All of this is semantics though because he has absolutely nothing to do with the modern schools of socialism.
Also Italian Fascism and many of the later fascist movements have nothing to do with Socialism at all, it's anti-laisez faire capitalism, but, as Lenin said "Fascism is capitalism in decay", it's all about getting everyone to get their war-boots on and go and die for Mussolini. Corporatism is just state-controlled closed-market capitalism.

[cynicles]

Weren't Ernst Rohm, Joseph Goebbels and Gottfried Feder pro-worker(albeit still racist bastards) and actually did want these workers to begin controlling the economy but were either killed or marginalized within the party politically in decision making and ultimately lost out to the capitalist half of the party(surprise surprise)?

[Commissar Rykov]

Weren't Ernst Rohm, Joseph Goebbels and Gottfried Feder pro-worker(albeit still racist bastards) and actually did want these workers to begin controlling the economy but were either killed or marginalized within the party politically in decision making and ultimately lost out to the capitalist half of the party(surprise surprise)?
There were elements though still extremely racialist and as you stated they were slaughtered well except for Goebbels because he got wind of the changing of the guard and began chewing on Addie's jock so he wouldn't catch a bullet in some prison cell by some dipshit SS man.

[Seth]

When Mussolini was made Hitler's puppet after he had already been overthrown once he changed his tune quite a bit back to a more populist, pro-labor politics.

It's interesting that Ernst Rohm was gay, showing there was a big gap in nazi ideology. What we call nazism wasn't mature and fully formed until night of the long knives I suppose.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Being wrong isn't warnable or infractable
We restrict Capitalists for being wrong. We ban fascists for being wrong.

I really don't understand where this guy has been considered not a troll, or not a fascist sympathizer. He sounds like he's fresh from Socialist Phalanx.

[Rusty Shackleford]

just keep an eye on his posts. i mean, if hes willing to learn though, then just give him the benefit of the doubt. and if he turns out to be a troll or a fascist/fascist sympathizer then well ban him. easy as that. revleft will live either way.

[Commissar Rykov]

just keep an eye on his posts. i mean, if hes willing to learn though, then just give him the benefit of the doubt. and if he turns out to be a troll or a fascist/fascist sympathizer then well ban him. easy as that. revleft will live either way.
Or we could create a Revleft Inquisition that no one ever suspects.

[Seth]

We restrict Capitalists for being wrong. We ban fascists for being wrong.

I really don't understand where this guy has been considered not a troll, or not a fascist sympathizer. He sounds like he's fresh from Socialist Phalanx.

Oops, is it really that obvious? :rolleyes:

Why are you so convinced I'm a fascist?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Oops, is it really that obvious? :rolleyes:

Why are you so convinced I'm a fascist?
Read what posted.

[Seth]

Well im not a fascist. There.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well im not a fascist. There.
The word "sympathizer"...look it up.

[Seth]

The word "sympathizer"...look it up.

I'm not a fascist sympathizer.

[Seth]

He sounds like he's fresh from Socialist Phalanx. What's that, and why do so many fascists call themselves socialists?

yay 100 posts

[Pretty Flaco]

We restrict Capitalists for being wrong. We ban fascists for being wrong.

I really don't understand where this guy has been considered not a troll, or not a fascist sympathizer. He sounds like he's fresh from Socialist Phalanx.

This is the learning section. Maybe his questions should just be answered maturely and accurately.

[Dumb]

National Socialism, from an economic perspective, is left-wing (similar to the economics of Social Democracy), but it certainly isn't Socialist.

There's something to what you say here. In fact, part of the reason why we argue so much about the nature of fascism is that fascism has historically been all over the map economically; the main thrust of the ideology is the nation above all else, and the fascism's proponents have been nothing if not ideologically opportunistic when it comes to economic policy. Mussolini went back and forth between Thatcher and pseudo-Keynes, Franco supported a sort of welfare state before going all in for the start of the neoliberal era, and we all know how muddled economic policy was in Nazi Germany. One need only look at the shift in economic policy for, say, the British National Party to see that fascists will say and do anything re: the economy in order to attain power and implement the nationalist/racist policies they actually do care about.

[Seth]

This is the learning section. Maybe his questions should just be answered maturely and accurately.

Thank you, friend. I wish more people here were like you instead of Der Rote Fahne.

[Die Rote Fahne]

This is the learning section. Maybe his questions should just be answered maturely and accurately.
You mean like they were?

Until he refused to accept any argument and proof that his belief, that Nazism was socialism, was wrong.

Thank you, friend. I wish more people here were like you instead of Der Rat Fahne.
Cute, he called me a rat. Where's Broshevik when you need him to call for maturity...:rolleyes:

[Seth]

I did! look before you spill your fingers on the keyboard.

[Seth]

You mean like they were?

Until he refused to accept any argument and proof that his belief, that Nazism was socialism, was wrong.

Cute, he called me a rat.

misspelling sorry.

[Pretty Flaco]

Thank you, friend. I wish more people here were like you instead of Der Rat Fahne.

The world would be better with more people like me. :rolleyes:

"Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs." (Wikipedia)

Using this broad description of socialism, "national socialism" is socialist at all.

"Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right and racist German völkisch nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany. The ideology was developed by Anton Drexler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis, focus was shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes. Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies, though a majority of scholars identify it as a far right form of politics....

The Nazis promoted a right-wing socialist economy. The economic system rejected egalitarianism and instead supported a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class distinction. This socialism promoted the creation of a community of common interest between managers and employees in industry where a factory leader would be selected to act in coordination with a council of factory members, though these members would have to obey the Führerprincip of the factory leader. The economy was to be subordinate to the goals of the political leadership of the state." (Wikipedia)

So nazi "socialism" in the workplace was elected managers, although this isn't actually socialism as defined. Their social policies were racist and nationalistic, which contrasts starkly to our anti-racism and internationalism.

sorry for my crappy argument, I'm tired. :closedeyes:
i hope wikipedia is valid enough

PS
you guys are both immature

[Die Rote Fahne]

This is the learning section. Maybe his questions should just be answered maturely and accurately.
When someone thinks that Nazism is socialism, and after arguments that prove him wrong, still argues it, then continues to say that Mussolini was a socialist, no.

When he's banned in a month for trolling or being a fash, I'll gladly say "I told you so".

[Seth]

How can you still think I'm a fascist? this escapes me

[thesadmafioso]

misspelling sorry.

I'm calling bullshit on this one.

Look at your keyboard. The 'A' and the 'O' keys are most completely separate from each other.

[Seth]

I didn't pay attention to how it was spelled?

[thesadmafioso]

How can you still think I'm a fascist? this escapes me

We already know your lines, no need to run through the motions here.

'I'm not a fascist, but [insert poorly disguised fascist comments here]'

Your part is well understood and we don't need to see yet another tired performance of it.

[Seth]

I never said anything to hint i was a fascist. I don't want private property, class collaboration, racism, or anything like that.

Why the stalinism?

[Seth]

You tell me.

[thesadmafioso]

I never said anything to hint i was a fascist. I don't want private property, class collaboration, racism, or anything like that.

Why the stalinism?

Most clever.

I'm a Trotskyist, thus you crudely compare my ideology to the deformed wreck of Stalinism to ferment an agitated response. Because that's what trolls do.

Can we get a ban on this troll already?

[Seth]

Im comparing your behavior to stalinsm, and believe me, you deserve it. all of you trying to bait me by calling me a hitler sympathizer.

[thesadmafioso]

Im comparing your behavior to stalinsm, and believe me, you deserve it. all of you trying to bait me by calling me a hitler sympathizer.

Oh the wonders of irony!

Speaking of baiting while making a baseless assertion of a Trotskyist acting in a Stalinist manner in an attempt to generate an impassioned response for the sake of your own personal amusement.

[Pretty Flaco]

all you guys shut the fuck up. now everyone is just flaming and throwing fingers.

[Seth]

Oh the wonders of irony!

Speaking of baiting while making a baseless assertion of a Trotskyist acting in a Stalinist manner in an attempt to generate an impassioned response for the sake of your own personal amusement.

Um youre trying to ban me for trying to learn and not being born thinking like you. then you call me a fascist. if stalin was on revleft thats what he would do. when I said why the stalinism i wasn't thinking of you specifically. then der rote fahne was like what's wrong with stalinism? then he/she erased that post.

[thesadmafioso]

all you guys shut the fuck up. now everyone is just flaming and throwing fingers.

Flaming at people for flaming?

This topic is just a marvelous orchard of irony! I wish I had a basket on me, as I would love to pick some of the delicious irony here and bring it home. There I would proceed to make a lovely batch of irony jam, which I would spread over the irony bread made out of the irony wheat cultivated in the fields of this topic.

[Pretty Flaco]

Flaming at people for flaming?

This topic is just a marvelous orchard of irony! I wish I had a basket on me, as I would love to pick some of the delicious irony here and bring it home. There I would proceed to make a lovely batch of irony jam, which I would spread over the irony bread made out of the irony wheat cultivated in the fields of this topic.

Well I didn't see who started it... but I'm just saying the flaming should stop.

[Seth]

i never flamed anyone at most i just pointed out their behavior.

[thesadmafioso]

Well I didn't see who started it... but I'm just saying the flaming should stop.

Er, we seem to be dealing with a pseudo fascist in all likelihood. One who also seems quite intent on making overtly fraudulent statements which display not even a shred of truth or sense to them.

At the absolute least, we are dealing with a troll of sorts here. So if anyone has been a bit harsh on him, I really don't think they were too far in any sort of wrong here.

[Seth]

im not a fucking fascist so can we just drop it alredy? geezus

[danyboy27]

im not a fucking fascist so can we just drop it alredy? geezus


why do you think mussolini or hitler buddies where socialists?

[Seth]

i don't think they were socialists. I see what you guys are saying.

[danyboy27]

i don't think they were socialists. I see what you guys are saying.


so, now that we demonstrated that the whole socialist thing was just a PR operation by hitler and his pals, what more do you have to say?

[Dumb]

Bleh. I misread. Thought he said they weren't fascists.

[Seth]

so, now that we demonstrated that the whole socialist thing was just a PR operation by hitler and his pals, what more do you have to say?

like i said, i think youre right. i was just wondering about italy and mussolini too and you answered that.

thesadmafioso and der rote fahne are trolls.

[Seth]

Bleh. I misread. Thought he said they weren't fascists.

i did at first and i caught it haha