Why Fascism is not Socialism

[spartan]

This link is for the benefit of all the restricted members who try and place Fascism and Socialism in the same basket:Why Fascism is not Socialism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCd8XU-i3fQ)

[lvleph]

And that was a rubuttal of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk9WQaAIbOg).

[spartan]

Thanx for the other link lvleph.

I myself was going to post the same link to that clip but i thought that the one i posted was enough.

Thanx anyway!

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:07 am
Thanx for the other link lvleph.

I myself was going to post the same link to that clip but i thought that the one i posted was enough.

Thanx anyway!
I am not sure if I understand how his argument connects Socialism and Fascism. I see how he is saying both the Soviet and Nazi system were brutal, but how that makes Fascism=Socialism I am unsure. I understand that he claims the means of production were controlled by the State in both systems, but so was the means of production in the USA during World War II. Does that mean the USA was not still capitalist? I think not. Additionally, he never seemed to even touch on the focus of either system. In socialism, the class struggle is the main focus; while fascism's main focus is national identity. Socialism proclaims that class identity transcends national boundaries, and therefore the revolution is not a national movement. However, Fascism emphasizes national identity and suppresses the notion that the individual identifies more readily within there class and therefore a class struggle is not relevant.

[i £ov€ capitali$m]

Fascism and socialism aren't much different. Fascists make businesses produce what they want and the socialists produce what they feel is necessary while barring competition. I don't see a huge difference between a State telling a business how to run itself/produce something and the State actually doing it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by i £ov€ capitali$[email protected] 03, 2007 12:48 am
Fascism and socialism aren't much different.
My spider-sense is tingling, is it possible we have a trol angling for a b& here?


Fascists make businesses produce what they want and the socialists produce what they feel is necessary while barring competition. I don't see a huge difference between a State telling a business how to run itself/produce something and the State actually doing it.

You assume that there is a central government, rather than community decisions. Freedom from the whims of business is the goal of socialism.

[i £ov€ capitali$m]

The "community" = government.

You don't feel that 51% of the community deciding what to do against the wishes of 49% of the others isn't authoriatarian?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by i £ov€ capitali$[email protected] 03, 2007 01:02 am
The "community" = government.
I see you're suffering from "thick as shit" disorder.

A community of workers deciding how they work and what they work on is not the same as a state organ that directs the coercive force of the state.


You don't feel that 51% of the community deciding what to do against the wishes of 49% of the others isn't authoriatarian?

Less os than 49% deciding what 51% do, but that's a strawman and you know it.

[i £ov€ capitali$m]

It would be ideal if no one decided what other people do.

You do not honestly believe that it's OK for a minority of workers to be forced to go along with the majority's wishes?

[Bilan]

Fascism and socialism aren't much different. Fascists make businesses produce what they want and the socialists produce what they feel is necessary

That is the laziest, and worst analysis ever.
Seriously.
Ever.

[i £ov€ capitali$m]

Meh, I don't feel like writing an essay and that sums up how I feel about the subject. Here, I'll re-write it just for you.

The State directly controlling the economy and the State dictating to private individuals on how to run the economy is the same thing - the State is running everything either directly or indirectly.

[spartan]

The State directly controlling the economy and the State dictating to private individuals on how to run the economy is pretty much the same thing.
No it is not as eventually the state dictating to the buisnesses will become subservient to the buisnesses, or Bourgeoisie, because otherwise the buisnesses will simply threaten the Government, who are dictating to them, that they will take their buisness elsewhere thus crippling the economy and the Fascist regime and their hold on power.

When a Government owns all of the means of production it is impossible for a certain sector of a buisness of the Government owned industries to simply go to another country, or threaten to do so, as they are directly under the control of the Government and workers! (Unless of course there is a secret pro Capitalist bloc within the Government who own the MOP and who secretly want the MOP to be privatised like what happened in Gorbachovs USSR).

[Marsella]

State Capitalism and Fascism have much in common.

Stalin had the Five Year Plans and Göring had his Four Year Plans.

But State-Capitalism has nothing to do with Communism.

Sorry for the half-arsed response but your argument gives little in the way of motivation.

[i £ov€ capitali$m]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:26 am

The State directly controlling the economy and the State dictating to private individuals on how to run the economy is pretty much the same thing.
No it is not as eventually the state dictating to the buisnesses will become subservient to the buisnesses, or Bourgeoisie, because otherwise the buisnesses will threaten to take their buisness else where thus crippling the Fascist regime and their hold on power.

When a Government owns all of the means of production it is impossible for a certain sector of the buisness of the Government owned industries to simply go to another country as they are directly under the control of the Government!
This wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, Spain under Franco, nor Fascist Italy. The State retained very tight control on all aspects of the country, including the economy. For the most part the big business leaders and government officials worked together. The government shut out competition and in return big business gave their undying loyalty.

[Jazzratt]

I think someone needs to RTFM (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71964).

[spartan]

This wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, Spain under Franco, nor Fascist Italy. The State remained very tight control on all aspects of the country, including the economy. For the most part the big business leaders and government officials worked together. The government shut out competition and in return big business gave their undying loyalty.
Exactly!

This of course was in the Bourgeoisie's best intrests at the time to allow Fascist intervention and dictation in the economy as the Bourgeoisie were worried about their losing control of the economy to the Socialists, who were a powerful force in these later to become Fascist states, as then they would not have the priviliges and riches that comes with being in ownership and control of a means of production which you dont even operate!

But what if the Fascists had won the war and everything settled down and the buisnesses were sick and tired of state intervention and control over their buisness ventures?

The fact is in a Socialist, not State Capitalist learn the difference between the two, system there is no middle class or Bourgeoisie there to own or control the means of production anymore, and thus be able to bully any threat to its hegemony, as ideally the workers, or workers Government which ever you prefer, own and controls the MOP.

Why cant the workers own and control what they already operate?

[i £ov€ capitali$m]

This of course was in the Bourgeoisie's best intrets at the time

By bourgeoisie I'm taking it you mean the business owners and CEOs. Sure, it helped out a small minority of 'bourgeoisie' and greatly increased their wealth. But it was at the expense of everyone else, including both business owners and workers.


but what if the Fascists had won the war and every thing settled down and the buisnesses were sick and tired of state intervention and control over their buisness ventures?

If the fascists had won all of Europe would have been under the thumb of fascism or the Soviet system. Were they going to relocate to the USSR?


The fact is in a Socialist, not State Capitalist learn the difference between the two, system there is no middle class or Bourgeoisie there to own or control the means of production anymore, and thus be able to bully any threat to its hegemony, as ideally the workers, or workers Government which ever you prefer, own and controls the MOP.

I don't want to come across as facetious but I'm not fully understanding what you're trying say.


Why cant the workers own and control what they already operate?

If your revolution ever comes would you come into my house and take by force my property?

[spartan]

By bourgeoisie I'm taking it you mean the business owners and CEOs. Sure, it helped out a small minority of 'bourgeoisie' and greatly increased their wealth. But it was at the expense of everyone else, including both business owners and workers.
Yes but they only found that out later when it was too late!

The fact is the Bourgeoisie were more than willing to finance the various Fascist movements as they stood for the defence of private property which they wrongly equated with freedom.

Of course another reason for the financing of these Fascist movements was due to the Bourgeoisie fear of the growing popularity of Socialism amongst the working class, who are the operaters of the MOP which are owned and controlled by the Bourgeoisie, which is of course oppossed to the Bourgeoisie ownership and control of the MOP and private property.

This would of course affect the Bourgeoisie more than most if the Socialists ever gained power as the working class themselves would take over the ownership and control of the MOP which they already operate and all private property would become the property of the state to do with it as it wished.

If your revolution ever comes would you come into my house and take by force my property?
It depends what you mean by property as all private property will be at the service of your local commune and its Direct Democratic style elected council.

If you refuse to submit your private property to the services of the commune then the rest of the commune will be forced into taking over, by force if necessary, your private property as you have refused to place it at the disposal of the commune.

Personal property such as cars, mobile phones, etc will be left alone as we our aim is to abolish private property not personal property which is a basic human right.

[i £ov€ capitali$m]

Yes but they only found that out later when it was too late!

The fact is the Bourgeoisie were more than willing to finance the various Fascist movements as they stood for the defence of private property which they wrongly equated with freedom.

Of course another reason for the financing of these Fascist movements was due to the Bourgeoisie fear of the growing popularity of Socialism amongst the working class, who are the operaters of the MOP which are owned and controlled by the Bourgeoisie, which is of course oppossed to the Bourgeoisie ownership and control of the MOP and private property.

But the fascists weren't supportive of private property rights at all. They confiscated mass amounts of private property and deported hundreds of thousands of people out of Germany to be slaughtered in concentration camps.

A select few so-called bourgeoisie were willing to finance fascist movements because they would gain much at the expense of all other business owners and leaders.

I think the problem is you equate the business leaders that supported fascism with some sort of free market ideology which is far from the truth.


It depends what you mean by property as all private property will be at the service of your local commune and its Direct Democratic style elected council.

If you refuse to submit your private property to the commune then the rest of the commune will have to take over, by force if necessary, your private property as you have refused to place at the disposal of the commune.

Personal property such as cars, mobile phones, etc will be left alone as we aim to abolish private property not personal property.

'Personal' property is private property. They are owned by a private individual.

So, in effect, the commune would steal everything I own against my wishes?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by i £ov€ capitali$[email protected] 03, 2007 02:11 am
'Personal' property is private property. They are owned by a private individual.

So, in effect, the commune would steal everything I own against my wishes?
That depends what you class as private property. There is a confusion between private and personal property. Things like your home and your car will remain your in your possession because they do not exploit the labour of other people. On the other hand, If you happen to own a factory, office, school or some other instrument of capital then that would be seized during a communist revolution and would belong to the community as a whole.

From the FAQ (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71964)

[i £ov€ capitali$m]

Our definitions of private property differ apparently. Thank you for clearing that up.

[Orange Juche]

When people compare me to a Nazi for believing in socialism, I really don't know what to do. I mean, thats so entirely fucking ignorant, I don't even know what to say.

[synthesis]

Well, how specifically do they compare Nazism with socialism? If it is totally absurd on the surface then people will generally not believe it. You must make your arguments at least appear to be basic truths or you will wind up on the other side of people's natural "us versus them" mentality.

[Nusocialist]

One of the golden rules of political debate is that someone who calls Nazism and fascism socialist should be considered a complete crank and idiot. The only way such arguments are made is using strawmen like "socialism means gov't control".

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by i £ov€ capitali$[email protected] 03, 2007 02:11 am
But the fascists weren't supportive of private property rights at all. They confiscated mass amounts of private property and deported hundreds of thousands of people out of Germany to be slaughtered in concentration camps.

A select few so-called bourgeoisie were willing to finance fascist movements because they would gain much at the expense of all other business owners and leaders.

I think the problem is you equate the business leaders that supported fascism with some sort of free market ideology which is far from the truth.

Real capitalists are have no really been supportive of their ideological property rights. There is a big difference between free market ideology and real capitalism. Real capitalism has always had a fascist edge.

[Invader Zim]

A degree of cartelization put in place by the Nazi regime does not make it either socialist, nor even collectivist. The Nazi's placed such strigent controls on industry for two reasons, to stop buisness dictating to the Nazi state and secondly in order to manage a war-time economy. You may note that the western democracies did the exact same thing as well; commission factories and buisnesses to produce goods for the war. It is a typical aspect of total war, regardless of the ideology of the state fighting it. Other points to note are that the profits of this system still went to the industry and buisness owners; it did not come into the possession of the state or any form of national collective.

So the argument that the Nazi economy was a socialist based on the criteria the von Mises institute provided is a clearly a weak one even by their own low standards. A second point, which the von Mises institute left out, is that small buisness unrelated to the war effort was largely left 'untouched' by the Nazi's. Bakers, millers, etc, etc, of small towns provided for the local population still operated exactly as they had done before the rise of the Nazis. Their profits were not collectivised, nor were their buisnesses and the state did not dictate to them their prices, their production or any other part of their buisness. This of coure is further evidence that the Nazi's did not introduce a socialist state, by the standard set by the von Mises institute spokes person. Of course socialism is different in reality to that which the von Mises institute, incorrectly, proclaims it to be. but as they cannot prove their case appling their own inept definition of socialism, without being forced to ignore these salient points; they have not chanse of proving that nazi Germany had anything to do with actual socialism.

Any questions?

[bluescouse]

In 1933 the nazi party won only one third of the vote. Hindenberg, representing the German ruling class, invited Hitler to form a government. If the bourgiousie considered the nazis to be Socialist they would never have put them in power.

[spartan]

In 1933 the nazi party won only one third of the vote. Hindenberg, representing the German ruling class, invited Hitler to form a government. If the bourgiousie considered the nazis to be Socialist they would never have put them in power.
Exactly!

Hindenberg was a Consevative old fucker, he wanted the monarchy back after he died!, and the Socialist part of NSDAP was merely to draw racist workers in of which there were unfortunately many back then.

[Zurdito]

fascism is the last defence against revolution. it superficially apes aspects of revolutionary rhetoric because it must provide a viable alternative at a time of upheaval and economic crisis where most people have lost faith in the status quo. In such a situation, where the aparatus of the state can no longer control the populace, it needs to use pure demagogy to incite the petty bourgeois masses themselves (with the help of some lumpens and even some underdeveloped workers) to tear down the workers movements. To do this it must also give them anti-capitalist rhetoric and make them believe they are taking part in a "revolution" of their own, and in a sense this is true, because power is uniquely under capitalism, being taken directly out of the hands of the bourgeoisie. However it is then taken back as quickly as possible once communism has been defeated. I very much recommend this link:

http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/fascism.html

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:56 am

By bourgeoisie I'm taking it you mean the business owners and CEOs. Sure, it helped out a small minority of 'bourgeoisie' and greatly increased their wealth. But it was at the expense of everyone else, including both business owners and workers.
Yes but they only found that out later when it was too late!

The fact is the Bourgeoisie were more than willing to finance the various Fascist movements as they stood for the defence of private property which they wrongly equated with freedom.

Of course another reason for the financing of these Fascist movements was due to the Bourgeoisie fear of the growing popularity of Socialism amongst the working class, who are the operaters of the MOP which are owned and controlled by the Bourgeoisie, which is of course oppossed to the Bourgeoisie ownership and control of the MOP and private property.

This would of course affect the Bourgeoisie more than most if the Socialists ever gained power as the working class themselves would take over the ownership and control of the MOP which they already operate and all private property would become the property of the state to do with it as it wished.

If your revolution ever comes would you come into my house and take by force my property?
It depends what you mean by property as all private property will be at the service of your local commune and its Direct Democratic style elected council.

If you refuse to submit your private property to the services of the commune then the rest of the commune will be forced into taking over, by force if necessary, your private property as you have refused to place it at the disposal of the commune.

Personal property such as cars, mobile phones, etc will be left alone as we our aim is to abolish private property not personal property which is a basic human right.
Well, the National Socilaists certainly seized the private proerty of many of the bourgeoise, since they argued that their owners were not directing that industry in the best interest of the commune. I of course refer to seizure of Jewish property so as to benefit the German "community."

While the "bourgeoise" gave money to the National Socialists, they gave money to all the parties as well (including the Social Democrats, but excluding the Communists). Not until the bitter end, though, were the nazis the main beneficiary of that largesse.

Socialists seem to like to draw that distinction between personal and private property. But they always seem to refer to it at the moment of revolution, not say ten years down the line. It would seem though, that since the workers control the MOP, they will decide what "personal" property a given individual will be allowed to have, since there will still need to be ways for the community to effectively and fairly allocate its resources.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 04, 2007 04:24 pm
A degree of cartelization put in place by the Nazi regime does not make it either socialist, nor even collectivist. The Nazi's placed such strigent controls on industry for two reasons, to stop buisness dictating to the Nazi state and secondly in order to manage a war-time economy. You may note that the western democracies did the exact same thing as well; commission factories and buisnesses to produce goods for the war. It is a typical aspect of total war, regardless of the ideology of the state fighting it. Other points to note are that the profits of this system still went to the industry and buisness owners; it did not come into the possession of the state or any form of national collective.

So the argument that the Nazi economy was a socialist based on the criteria the von Mises institute provided is a clearly a weak one even by their own low standards. A second point, which the von Mises institute left out, is that small buisness unrelated to the war effort was largely left 'untouched' by the Nazi's. Bakers, millers, etc, etc, of small towns provided for the local population still operated exactly as they had done before the rise of the Nazis. Their profits were not collectivised, nor were their buisnesses and the state did not dictate to them their prices, their production or any other part of their buisness. This of coure is further evidence that the Nazi's did not introduce a socialist state, by the standard set by the von Mises institute spokes person. Of course socialism is different in reality to that which the von Mises institute, incorrectly, proclaims it to be. but as they cannot prove their case appling their own inept definition of socialism, without being forced to ignore these salient points; they have not chanse of proving that nazi Germany had anything to do with actual socialism.

Any questions?
Sure:

1. This assumes that there is always profit in a productive activity. But of course this is not so. The National Socialists were quite clear that profit was irrelevent in terms of making production decisions.
Does that refusal to consider profit making for production as opposed to what is needed by the German people, an attribute of socialism or capitalism?

2. It is not so the small businesses did not have to deal with fixed wages and prices. But even if it was; Does not socialism say that the big industrialists are the ones who control the country? Are not these small guys small potatoes in the big scheme of things?

[Tungsten]

Invader Zim

Of course socialism is different in reality to that which the von Mises institute, incorrectly, proclaims it to be.
Yeah, because real communism has never really been "tried", right?

[spartan]

Yeah, because real communism has never really been "tried", right?
No, real Communism has never been implemented in any country.

Disastrous attempts at Socialism have tried to be implemented by various states but those same states usually just end up adopting an un-Democratic Bureaucratic form of State Capitalism which has nothing to do with real Socialism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Marx made it clear when he told the working class to "inscribe on its banner the revolutionary watchword, abolition of the wages system!" He reaffirmed that socialism is the unification of the worker with the instrument of production. Hitler said this about Marxism:


Scarcely anything else can be so depressing as to watch this process in sober reality and to be the eyewitness of this repeatedly recurring fraud. On a spiritual training ground of that kind it is not possible for the bourgeois forces to develop the strength which is necessary to carry on the fight against the organized might of Marxism.


The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day. [note - regardless of what Hitler says here, Marx and Engles did pioneer scientific socialism; Hitler is probably refering to the difference between Social Democracy and Marxism - Joe] The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words 'Fellow-countrymen and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' and addressed each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.


We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.

[Invader Zim]

Yeah, because real communism has never really been "tried", right?

Actually socialism, in a far more realistic form, has been implimented on numerous occassions.

The Paris commune, the Spanish collectives, New Lanark, Kibbutzs, etc. They of course share very little, if anything, in common with the Nazi regime.



1. This assumes that there is always profit in a productive activity.

For the buisness owners there was of course profit in it.



2. It is not so the small businesses did not have to deal with fixed wages and prices.

Wrong. Prices were not fixed for the majority of small buisnesses, except on rare occassions such as the 1936 price freezes on items such as bread, eggs, etc. This was a result of the prices escalating as agricultural workers moved to the cities. If this is not evidence that the Nazi's did not control prices, except in the most dire of circumstanses then i don't know what is. Small buisnesses were largely left to get on with it.


Does not socialism say that the big industrialists are the ones who control the country?

Socialism is the means of production in the hands of society as a whole; that includes small buisnesses.

[Green Dragon]

hello baby

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 06, 2007 10:36 pm

Actually socialism, in a far more realistic form, has been implimented on numerous occassions.

The Paris commune, the Spanish collectives, New Lanark, Kibbutzs, etc. They of course share very little, if anything, in common with the Nazi regime.



1. This assumes that there is always profit in a productive activity.

For the buisness owners there was of course profit in it.



2. It is not so the small businesses did not have to deal with fixed wages and prices.

Wrong. Prices were not fixed for the majority of small buisnesses, except on rare occassions such as the 1936 price freezes on items such as bread, eggs, etc. This was a result of the prices escalating as agricultural workers moved to the cities. If this is not evidence that the Nazi's did not control prices, except in the most dire of circumstanses then i don't know what is. Small buisnesses were largely left to get on with it.


Does not socialism say that the big industrialists are the ones who control the country?

Socialism is the means of production in the hands of society as a whole; that includes small buisnesses.
1. What school of socialism says all capitalist enterprises are profitable?

2.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by i £ov€ capitali$[email protected] 03, 2007 03:22 am
Meh, I don't feel like writing an essay and that sums up how I feel about the subject. Here, I'll re-write it just for you.

The State directly controlling the economy and the State dictating to private individuals on how to run the economy is the same thing - the State is running everything either directly or indirectly.
There are two fundamental problems with arguments of that nature:

1. They are empirically false. Fascist states such as Nazi Germany never controlled - in fact, they never even attempted to control - the economic activity of all private businesses. It is true that they controlled the activity of some businesses, but that is no different from modern liberal democracies such as Britain or the United States. And if you're going to argue that modern liberal democracies are "socialist" too, then your definition of "socialism" is so broad as to be meaningless.

2. The state is a tool, a means to a purpose, not a purpose in its own right. To say that the state controls the economy is to describe the methods of an economic system, not the goals of that system. If the economy is controlled by a dictatorial state operated by a tiny minority of wealthy individuals interested in enforcing economic inequality, you are going to get a very different kind of economic system than if the economy is controlled by a democratic state that promotes economic equality.

[Tungsten]

There are two fundamental problems with arguments of that nature:

1. They are empirically false. Fascist states such as Nazi Germany never controlled - in fact, they never even attempted to control - the economic activity of all private businesses. It is true that they controlled the activity of some businesses,
This is a bit weasley. NG was a dictatorship. Everyone towed the line because they knew the score- obey or die.

but that is no different from modern liberal democracies such as Britain or the United States.
True, NG was relatively liberal in comparison to, say, Russia, but Adolf still held total power over the economy and everything else.

Don't try to make out that he was some paragon of economic liberalism and that it was that that made NG an awful place to live. It wasn't. There were many factors, and the so-called liberalisation of the economy was the least of anyone's worries.

And if you're going to argue that modern liberal democracies are "socialist" too, then your definition of "socialism" is so broad as to be meaningless.
They are in comparison to what they were 100 years ago.

[spartan]

The only reason the Nazis took control of the economy was to help build up Germany into an economic powerhouse and rebuild the German war machine ready for the coming of war.

Another reason was to get any anti-Nazi and non-Aryan presence out of the economic system of Germany for obvious reasons such as fear of sabotage by these specific people and the Nazi belief in non-Aryans being inferior.

Whilst state control of the economy in the Socialist states was for the benefit of everyone of it's citizens not just an elite or superior race or the armed forces etc.

Most of the nations involved in WW2, such as the UK and the USA, exerted state control over their economies and yet no one here regards these countries at that time as Fascist or Socialist states?

And yet the arguement by some people on here is that any state, regardless of their expressed ideology, is a Socialist state if they exert state control over their economies! :huh:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Tungsten+November 07, 2007 09:06 pm--> (Tungsten @ November 07, 2007 09:06 pm)
There are two fundamental problems with arguments of that nature:

1. They are empirically false. Fascist states such as Nazi Germany never controlled - in fact, they never even attempted to control - the economic activity of all private businesses. It is true that they controlled the activity of some businesses,
This is a bit weasley. NG was a dictatorship. Everyone towed the line because they knew the score- obey or die.
True, NG was relatively liberal in comparison to, say, Russia, but Adolf still held total power over the economy and everything else. [/b]
Yes, Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, so presumably Hitler could have enforced a state-run economy had he wanted to. But the point is that he didn't. You may not define a socialist country as "any country that might possibly go socialist under its current regime." (not to mention that a state-run economy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for socialism)


Originally posted by [email protected]
Don't try to make out that he was some paragon of economic liberalism and that it was that that made NG an awful place to live. It wasn't. There were many factors, and the so-called liberalisation of the economy was the least of anyone's worries.
Hitler was neither a socialist nor an economic liberal. One recurring problem with you libertarians is that you tend to define "socialism" as "anything that is not economic liberalism" and deny the existence of other possible economic systems.

For the record, Hitler was an economic corporatist. You would oppose his economic policies because they were statist; we oppose them because they were designed to enforce inequality and a strict class division of society.

Don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you must necessarily be in our camp. There are more than two camps.


Tungsten

And if you're going to argue that modern liberal democracies are "socialist" too, then your definition of "socialism" is so broad as to be meaningless.
They are in comparison to what they were 100 years ago.
Yes, but that's like saying that 99% of countries today are more liberal than Stalin's Soviet Union - strictly speaking true, but utterly useless because of the outlandish frame of reference you are using. "Socialism" is not defined as "anything less capitalist than 19th century Europe," just like "liberalism" is not defined as "anything less totalitarian than Stalin."

* * *

To make a long story short, the basic problem is that your definitions of "socialism" are too broad - far broader than any socialist would accept.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:06 pm

There are two fundamental problems with arguments of that nature:

1. They are empirically false. Fascist states such as Nazi Germany never controlled - in fact, they never even attempted to control - the economic activity of all private businesses. It is true that they controlled the activity of some businesses,
This is a bit weasley. NG was a dictatorship. Everyone towed the line because they knew the score- obey or die.


Don't try to make out that he was some paragon of economic liberalism and that it was that that made NG an awful place to live. It wasn't. There were many factors, and the so-called liberalisation of the economy was the least of anyone's worries.

This is really awful Tungsten.

1.) NG was a dictatorship - yes - but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The German ruling class. Capitalists. Toe their line, or die. it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

2.) Adolf did not have full control of the economy and everything else. This is ludicrous. What the fuck was he, a sorcerer? How did he manage to hold god knows how many millions of people and the nations entire capitalist class in his palm, against their wishes? A dictator is backed up by a social base, by a material base to provide for his supporters. who gave adolf this base?

3.) it's not about a "paradigm of liberalism". Capitalism is not about liberalism and competition, it's about the constant drive to establish monopoly.Also, "the least of everyone's worries" is pretty moronic, because surely the economic reality is at the core of all other problems. Genocide doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's carried out in a contet determined, like all other contexts, by economics.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:05 am

1.) NG was a dictatorship - yes - but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The German ruling class. Capitalists. Toe their line, or die. it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

2.) Adolf did not have full control of the economy and everything else. This is ludicrous. What the fuck was he, a sorcerer? How did he manage to hold god knows how many millions of people and the nations entire capitalist class in his palm, against their wishes? A dictator is backed up by a social base, by a material base to provide for his supporters. who gave adolf this base?

3.) it's not about a "paradigm of liberalism". Capitalism is not about liberalism and competition, it's about the constant drive to establish monopoly.Also, "the least of everyone's worries" is pretty moronic, because surely the economic reality is at the core of all other problems. Genocide doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's carried out in a contet determined, like all other contexts, by economics.
1. Wrong. The bougeoise were under the thumb like everyone else.

2. The nazis controlled and directed the German economy. They told industry what to produce, how much to produce, how much to pay the workers, how much to charge for the item. It was difficult for the capitalists to go against this because:
A. Capitalists are the worst defenders of capitalism. They will always try to work within the constraints of whatever the regime imposes, in which it exists. They are not out to risk their position, fortune, ect. for political reasons
B. The "social base" which backed the nazis was the German people. Hitler was the most popular German chancellor of all time. Given this, it remained tough when thei customers were sympathetic to the cause (the nazis always browbeated business on the local level).

3. The National Socilaists determined Germany, and indeed all of Europe, did not need the Jews. Such people harmed the Germans, thwarted their desires, were dirty ectect ect. Get rid of them, and the german people will prosper.
Well, other socialists say the same regarding the capitalist: The pig harms the people, is undeeded, and his removal will make the people wealthier for all (as an aside, it ought to be pointed out that the Jews of Europe were,for the most part, destined to be targeted under any socialist regime, however structured, for ECONOMIC reasons as well (there were many who were capitalists, and their property would have been seized with the same eagerness by the International Socialists as was actually seized by the National Socialists)).

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 08, 2007 02:01 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 08, 2007 02:01 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 01:05 am

1.) NG was a dictatorship - yes - but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The German ruling class. Capitalists. Toe their line, or die. it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

2.) Adolf did not have full control of the economy and everything else. This is ludicrous. What the fuck was he, a sorcerer? How did he manage to hold god knows how many millions of people and the nations entire capitalist class in his palm, against their wishes? A dictator is backed up by a social base, by a material base to provide for his supporters. who gave adolf this base?

3.) it's not about a "paradigm of liberalism". Capitalism is not about liberalism and competition, it's about the constant drive to establish monopoly.Also, "the least of everyone's worries" is pretty moronic, because surely the economic reality is at the core of all other problems. Genocide doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's carried out in a contet determined, like all other contexts, by economics.
1. Wrong. The bougeoise were under the thumb like everyone else.

2. The nazis controlled and directed the German economy. They told industry what to produce, how much to produce, how much to pay the workers, how much to charge for the item. It was difficult for the capitalists to go against this because:
A. Capitalists are the worst defenders of capitalism. They will always try to work within the constraints of whatever the regime imposes, in which it exists. They are not out to risk their position, fortune, ect. for political reasons
B. The "social base" which backed the nazis was the German people. Hitler was the most popular German chancellor of all time. Given this, it remained tough when thei customers were sympathetic to the cause (the nazis always browbeated business on the local level).

3. The National Socilaists determined Germany, and indeed all of Europe, did not need the Jews. Such people harmed the Germans, thwarted their desires, were dirty ectect ect. Get rid of them, and the german people will prosper.
Well, other socialists say the same regarding the capitalist: The pig harms the people, is undeeded, and his removal will make the people wealthier for all (as an aside, it ought to be pointed out that the Jews of Europe were,for the most part, destined to be targeted under any socialist regime, however structured, for ECONOMIC reasons as well (there were many who were capitalists, and their property would have been seized with the same eagerness by the International Socialists as was actually seized by the National Socialists)). [/b]
You're problem is that you're assuming that someone can genuinely "rise above" the classes and represent "the people". But there is no "people", only different classes.

Ultimately, any conciliation with the classes along national or ethnic lines is pro-bourgeoisie, because it defends their right to exploit the proletariate.

I recommend you read the post and Trotsky link I posted higher up this page. In a crisis of capitalism, the bourgeoisie and its tool the state have become too deligitimised and too small in comparison to the uppsurge of revolutionary fervour, that they can no longer rule by themselves. In order to stay onto power the, they must go to their last resort - fascism. This mass movement, the frenzied mobilisation of anyone who is anti-revolution, is employed to defeat the working class. This includes lumpens, petty-brougeois types, and even some of the less advanced workers. Because capitalism has so clearly failed, this mass movement has to denounce it superficially, and justify opposing the revolution and defending private property by using racial/religious/tradition/national based arguments. A lot of the bourgeoise will be sacrificied by their own class in order for some of the bourgeoisie to retain power.

But whilst communism is the enemy of all the bourgeoisie, fascism becomes the friend of those bourgeoisie who can use it to save themselves -and the rest will be thrown to the wolves, victims of the crisis - nothing unprecedented there, think Maggie Thatcher saying "let them go to the wall", even hard-line neo-liberals manage to use populist anti-corporate language, so why suddenly that when a fascist does it makes them a commie?

Anyway, back to the point - fascism only resembles communism in the mind of an idealist, who sees material reality as the result of ideals. Therefore, to such idealists, fascists are like communsits because they seize property. Without fascists, no property would have been seized, they conclude. Without fascists and communsits, liberalism would have triumphed. But this is back to front. Liberalism is possible only in certain economic situations. When it fails, the people who promoted it must turn to something new. That is repression. Therefore repression , and outright opression, are not the opposite of liberalism, but the continuation.

A rational person - a marxist - sees the ideal as the product of material reality. So it's not that without fascists or communsits there'd have been no property seizures, rather that private property itself is an artificial construct upheld by an equally artificial state, and that in a crisis of the economic system and therefore of society in general, neither is particularly viable, so inevitably will need to be heavily modified to offset the threats to it, or be replaced by a new system altogether. The lesser evil for the property holders, then, is the one they will back.

Therefore the dominant ideology is the product of the economic situation, as the tool which the highest proportion of bourgeois resources will be dedicated to because it offers the best prospects for overall profit or damage limitation.

So it's not true to say that the "German people" chose nazism and ruled through it. Rather, the German ruling class was on its knees, and much of the German population was ready to deal them their death blow through communism. But the ruling class still had one last resort to salvage something - a fascist demagogue who they'd never have tolerated in any other circumstances. So he was presented ot the German workers as the man of the "German nation" - anything so long as it's not class! - and backed by the elites who now needed this last bulwark against communism. The Nazis were utilised by the ruling class and given the backing to do whatever it took to avoid reovlution. The bourgeoisie in turn had to make many concessions to them, even giving up political power, but that's the nature of a crisis. Capitalism was slavaged by Hitler, and he didn't modify it as opposed to capitalist opponents who would have rather had a perfect libertarian telly-tubby land market, rather, he was employed to modify it by capitalists who knew it was that or a revolution.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:05 pm
In 1933 the nazi party won only one third of the vote. Hindenberg, representing the German ruling class, invited Hitler to form a government. If the bourgiousie considered the nazis to be Socialist they would never have put them in power.
Also Ludendorff took part in their Beer hall putsch, many freikorp troops joined it etc etc

Basically what Mises and the like are saying is that any regime that isn't their kind of rightwing "libertarianism" is leftwing and socialist particularly if it has a kind of "collectivist" ideology. One can only assume he thought feudal lords were commies.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 08, 2007 02:01 am
[QUOTE=Zurdito,November 08, 2007 01:05 am]

2. The nazis controlled and directed the German economy. They told industry what to produce, how much to produce, how much to pay the workers, how much to charge for the item. It was difficult for the capitalists to go against this because:
A. Capitalists are the worst defenders of capitalism. They will always try to work within the constraints of whatever the regime imposes, in which it exists. They are not out to risk their position, fortune, ect. for political reasons
B. The "social base" which backed the nazis was the German people. Hitler was the most popular German chancellor of all time. Given this, it remained tough when thei customers were sympathetic to the cause (the nazis always browbeated business on the local level).

Actually many capitalists were not under strict state control and when they were they were quite happy just as they had been under in Imperial Germany and as they are in Japan today.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 08, 2007 04:01 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 08, 2007 04:01 am) 1. Wrong. The bougeoise were under the thumb like everyone else. [/b]
Bullshit. As Zurdito pointed out, there is no such thing as a dictator oppressing everyone in a country. Every dictator needs some power base - a group of people who have a lot to gain from his rule and therefore serve to enforce his regime.

Besides, you've contradicted yourself in the same post. First you say that "everyone" in Germany was under Hitler's thumb, then you say that his power base was the "German people." So his greatest supporters were the people under his thumb?

Well, if indeed it is possible for a dictator's power base to consist of the same people that are being oppressed by the dictator in question, then it is possible for the bourgeoisie to have been oppressed by Hitler and supportive of Hitler at the same time.


Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)2. The nazis controlled and directed the German economy. They told industry what to produce, how much to produce, how much to pay the workers, how much to charge for the item.[/b]
Really? Proof?

Remember, no one is denying that the Nazis dictated terms to SOME businesses. But what you're saying is that the Nazis dictated terms to ALL businesses - to a significantly greater extent than your average Western democracy at the time. I'd like to see some proof of this extreme assertion.


Originally posted by Green Dragon
A. Capitalists are the worst defenders of capitalism. They will always try to work within the constraints of whatever the regime imposes, in which it exists. They are not out to risk their position, fortune, ect. for political reasons.
Oh, I see. Nazism is socialism supported by capitalists! Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Green Dragon
B. The "social base" which backed the nazis was the German people. Hitler was the most popular German chancellor of all time.
O RLY? How exactly do you know that? I wasn't aware that Nazi Germany held opinion polls and regularly measured Hitler's approval ratings.

Every dictatorship claims to have the complete support of its people. We usually assume they're lying. What makes Hitler so different?


Green [email protected]
3. The National Socilaists determined Germany, and indeed all of Europe, did not need the Jews. Such people harmed the Germans, thwarted their desires, were dirty ectect ect. Get rid of them, and the german people will prosper.
Well, other socialists say the same regarding the capitalist: The pig harms the people, is undeeded, and his removal will make the people wealthier for all
And capitalists say the same things regarding government bureaucrats, and the Greens say the same things regarding polluters, and religious conservatives say the same things regarding gays, and so on and so forth.

Obviously there are problems in the world. Every ideology blames those problems on someone - I'm not aware of any person who thinks that the world is entirely made up of good people. The thing that makes Nazis different is not that they blamed the world's problems on someone - we all do that - but the fact that they blamed the world's problems on an ethnic group and proceeded to commit genocide against that group.

Socialists do not blame the world's problems on an ethnic group, and we do not wish to commit genocide.


Green Dragon
as an aside, it ought to be pointed out that the Jews of Europe were,for the most part, destined to be targeted under any socialist regime, however structured, for ECONOMIC reasons as well (there were many who were capitalists, and their property would have been seized with the same eagerness by the International Socialists as was actually seized by the National Socialists)
Hitler is generally considered a monster not so much for confiscating Jewish businesses as for brutally torturing and killing six million Jews. Yes, it is of course true that Jewish-owned businesses - like all businesses - would be nationalized under a socialist economic system, but there is a HUGE difference between confiscating someone's business and breaking into his house, beating his family and dragging him off to a concentration camp.

[Demogorgon]

On a slightly different note, but well worth pointing out, i you compare the economy of the United States under Roosevelt and Germnay under Hitler, the economy closer to what the Von Mises loons want certainly wasn't in the good old land of the free.

From memory America was running an upper income tax rate of around 70% compared to Germany's 15% for a start.

[spartan]

Class divisions still existed in Nazi Germany whilst in a Socialist state there is no such thing as class anymore as the workers, or representatives of the workers, own and control the MOP which they already operate.

In NG the Bourgeoisie, under the dictation of the Nazis, still owned the MOP but Nazi appointed Bureaucrats controlled the MOP for the Nazi regime whilst the workers only operated the MOP which is what they do under a Capitalist system anyway.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:52 pm
On a slightly different note, but well worth pointing out, i you compare the economy of the United States under Roosevelt and Germnay under Hitler, the economy closer to what the Von Mises loons want certainly wasn't in the good old land of the free.

From memory America was running an upper income tax rate of around 70% compared to Germany's 15% for a start.
Nice one, I'd never thought of putting it like that.

Also, it's funny how the pro-Nazi "socialists" in the US were people like Henry Ford who were backing the Republican party.

[hajduk]

my answer on this thread is this song
listen carefuly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqp1v1HutQk

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:07 pm
my answer on this thread is this song
listen carefuly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqp1v1HutQk
This is my answer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCx3qzMcFl0

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Dean+November 08, 2007 04:33 pm--> (Dean @ November 08, 2007 04:33 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:07 pm
my answer on this thread is this song
listen carefuly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqp1v1HutQk
This is my answer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCx3qzMcFl0 [/b]
coll and this is my reply
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bCjpyPqwXNA

[Dean]

Originally posted by hajduk+November 08, 2007 04:55 pm--> (hajduk @ November 08, 2007 04:55 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:33 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 04:07 pm
my answer on this thread is this song
listen carefuly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqp1v1HutQk
This is my answer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCx3qzMcFl0
coll and this is my reply
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bCjpyPqwXNA [/b]
Incidentally, I love clawfinger and used to like NIN a good deal. My ""political statement on the user page is from a clawfinger lyric.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Dean+November 08, 2007 06:12 pm--> (Dean @ November 08, 2007 06:12 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:55 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:33 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 04:07 pm
my answer on this thread is this song
listen carefuly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqp1v1HutQk
This is my answer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCx3qzMcFl0
coll and this is my reply
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bCjpyPqwXNA
Incidentally, I love clawfinger and used to like NIN a good deal. My ""political statement on the user page is from a clawfinger lyric. [/b]
and how about this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DGiv2NvlvpU

[Tungsten]

Whoever

1.) NG was a dictatorship - yes - but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The German ruling class. Capitalists.
What a simple mind you have. Just because you happen to rule a country does not make you a capitalist. This is whole point of the discussion.

Toe their line, or die. it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Inferring, of course that a dictatorship of the proletariat has a radically different policy of obedience, which has been false historically and is likely to remain so.

2.) Adolf did not have full control of the economy and everything else. This is ludicrous. What the fuck was he, a sorcerer?
He was a totalitarian dictator. What do you think that means? He commanded, everyone else obeyed.

How did he manage to hold god knows how many millions of people and the nations entire capitalist class in his palm, against their wishes?
The Nazis enjoyed popular support until the end of their regime. I doubt it was against the wishes of as many people as we are lead to believe. There wouldn't have been enough stormtroopers to enforce it.

A dictator is backed up by a social base, by a material base to provide for his supporters. who gave adolf this base?
The German people, by popular vote.

Capitalism is not about liberalism and competition, it's about the constant drive to establish monopoly.
My ideology is about liberalism, not monopolisation.

Also, "the least of everyone's worries" is pretty moronic, because surely the economic reality is at the core of all other problems. Genocide doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's carried out in a contet determined, like all other contexts, by economics.
None of which have any links to reality. The KKK would commit genocide tomorrow if they had the opportunity and I don't think they'd do it for economic reasons.

Fuck the rest of this thread, it's already gone to pot.

[Zurdito]

My ideology is about liberalism, not monopolisation.

Your ideology is an apology for a system which is about monopoly.





None of which have any links to reality. The KKK would commit genocide tomorrow if they had the opportunity and I don't think they'd do it for economic reasons.

They'd only get in power if they had the material basis to provide for their support base. In practice this means they'd only get any level of power when the material conditions forced the bourgeoisie to support them - ie a crisis of capitalism in which the state could no longer opress the working class on it's own. That's the subtelty your idealist mind can't grasp. The dominant ideology in a society does not come before the objective material reality, it is determined by it.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by i £ov€ capitali$[email protected] 03, 2007 12:48 am
Fascism and socialism aren't much different. Fascists make businesses produce what they want and the socialists produce what they feel is necessary while barring competition. I don't see a huge difference between a State telling a business how to run itself/produce something and the State actually doing it.
:cool:

This is a smart man.

[spartan]

No he is'nt smart because if he was he would have quickly realised that when the state owns the MOP, as in a Socialist state, there is no Bourgeoisie or any other class to dictate to as the workers, or workers representatives, own and control the MOP which they already operate.

Whilst when a Bourgeoisie backed Government tells them, the owners and controllers of the MOP, what to do, as is the case in a Fascist state, they usually do it willingly due to fear of them having no ownership or control of the MOP and dying off as a class which is what would happen in a Socialist system.

Remeber that Fascism will only come about when the Bourgeoisie feel threatened and helpless enough to temporarily give up some of their powers to a "strong" Government who are vehemently anti-Socialist.

There is a reason why people say that Fascism is Capitalism in it's most extreme form.

Fascism's sole purpose is to help Capitalism survive from popular revolutionary left wing politics.

That is why, when they are in trouble, the Bourgeoisie always fund Fascist parties and movements (Prime examples being Hitler and NSDAP in Germany, Mussolini and his Fascist black shirts in Italy and Franco and the Falangists in Spain).

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:07 pm
my answer on this thread is this song
listen carefuly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqp1v1HutQk
Dude, that song is shit. When I said shit, I mean that it totally sucks, and it will totally disconnect us from the working class to play shitty music.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:31 am
State Capitalism and Fascism have much in common.

Stalin had the Five Year Plans and Göring had his Four Year Plans.

But State-Capitalism has nothing to do with Communism.

Sorry for the half-arsed response but your argument gives little in the way of motivation.
this is a joke right?? Because economic programs take place within a certain amount of years, socialism is fascism?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+November 11, 2007 08:15 pm--> (Labor Shall Rule @ November 11, 2007 08:15 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:07 pm
my answer on this thread is this song
listen carefuly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqp1v1HutQk
Dude, that song is shit. When I said shit, I mean that it totally sucks, and it will totally disconnect us from the working class to play shitty music. [/b]
then what do you think about this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xHGlGWEKkhI

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Zurdito+November 08, 2007 02:31 am--> (Zurdito @ November 08, 2007 02:31 am)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 08, 2007 02:01 am

[email protected] 08, 2007 01:05 am

1.) NG was a dictatorship - yes - but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The German ruling class. Capitalists. Toe their line, or die. it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

2.) Adolf did not have full control of the economy and everything else. This is ludicrous. What the fuck was he, a sorcerer? How did he manage to hold god knows how many millions of people and the nations entire capitalist class in his palm, against their wishes? A dictator is backed up by a social base, by a material base to provide for his supporters. who gave adolf this base?

3.) it's not about a "paradigm of liberalism". Capitalism is not about liberalism and competition, it's about the constant drive to establish monopoly.Also, "the least of everyone's worries" is pretty moronic, because surely the economic reality is at the core of all other problems. Genocide doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's carried out in a contet determined, like all other contexts, by economics.
1. Wrong. The bougeoise were under the thumb like everyone else.

2. The nazis controlled and directed the German economy. They told industry what to produce, how much to produce, how much to pay the workers, how much to charge for the item. It was difficult for the capitalists to go against this because:
A. Capitalists are the worst defenders of capitalism. They will always try to work within the constraints of whatever the regime imposes, in which it exists. They are not out to risk their position, fortune, ect. for political reasons
B. The "social base" which backed the nazis was the German people. Hitler was the most popular German chancellor of all time. Given this, it remained tough when thei customers were sympathetic to the cause (the nazis always browbeated business on the local level).

3. The National Socilaists determined Germany, and indeed all of Europe, did not need the Jews. Such people harmed the Germans, thwarted their desires, were dirty ectect ect. Get rid of them, and the german people will prosper.
Well, other socialists say the same regarding the capitalist: The pig harms the people, is undeeded, and his removal will make the people wealthier for all (as an aside, it ought to be pointed out that the Jews of Europe were,for the most part, destined to be targeted under any socialist regime, however structured, for ECONOMIC reasons as well (there were many who were capitalists, and their property would have been seized with the same eagerness by the International Socialists as was actually seized by the National Socialists)).
You're problem is that you're assuming that someone can genuinely "rise above" the classes and represent "the people". But there is no "people", only different classes.

Ultimately, any conciliation with the classes along national or ethnic lines is pro-bourgeoisie, because it defends their right to exploit the proletariate.

I recommend you read the post and Trotsky link I posted higher up this page. In a crisis of capitalism, the bourgeoisie and its tool the state have become too deligitimised and too small in comparison to the uppsurge of revolutionary fervour, that they can no longer rule by themselves. In order to stay onto power the, they must go to their last resort - fascism. This mass movement, the frenzied mobilisation of anyone who is anti-revolution, is employed to defeat the working class. This includes lumpens, petty-brougeois types, and even some of the less advanced workers. Because capitalism has so clearly failed, this mass movement has to denounce it superficially, and justify opposing the revolution and defending private property by using racial/religious/tradition/national based arguments. A lot of the bourgeoise will be sacrificied by their own class in order for some of the bourgeoisie to retain power.

But whilst communism is the enemy of all the bourgeoisie, fascism becomes the friend of those bourgeoisie who can use it to save themselves -and the rest will be thrown to the wolves, victims of the crisis - nothing unprecedented there, think Maggie Thatcher saying "let them go to the wall", even hard-line neo-liberals manage to use populist anti-corporate language, so why suddenly that when a fascist does it makes them a commie?

Anyway, back to the point - fascism only resembles communism in the mind of an idealist, who sees material reality as the result of ideals. Therefore, to such idealists, fascists are like communsits because they seize property. Without fascists, no property would have been seized, they conclude. Without fascists and communsits, liberalism would have triumphed. But this is back to front. Liberalism is possible only in certain economic situations. When it fails, the people who promoted it must turn to something new. That is repression. Therefore repression , and outright opression, are not the opposite of liberalism, but the continuation.

A rational person - a marxist - sees the ideal as the product of material reality. So it's not that without fascists or communsits there'd have been no property seizures, rather that private property itself is an artificial construct upheld by an equally artificial state, and that in a crisis of the economic system and therefore of society in general, neither is particularly viable, so inevitably will need to be heavily modified to offset the threats to it, or be replaced by a new system altogether. The lesser evil for the property holders, then, is the one they will back.

Therefore the dominant ideology is the product of the economic situation, as the tool which the highest proportion of bourgeois resources will be dedicated to because it offers the best prospects for overall profit or damage limitation.

So it's not true to say that the "German people" chose nazism and ruled through it. Rather, the German ruling class was on its knees, and much of the German population was ready to deal them their death blow through communism. But the ruling class still had one last resort to salvage something - a fascist demagogue who they'd never have tolerated in any other circumstances. So he was presented ot the German workers as the man of the "German nation" - anything so long as it's not class! - and backed by the elites who now needed this last bulwark against communism. The Nazis were utilised by the ruling class and given the backing to do whatever it took to avoid reovlution. The bourgeoisie in turn had to make many concessions to them, even giving up political power, but that's the nature of a crisis. Capitalism was slavaged by Hitler, and he didn't modify it as opposed to capitalist opponents who would have rather had a perfect libertarian telly-tubby land market, rather, he was employed to modify it by capitalists who knew it was that or a revolution. [/b]

That is the usual theory and explanation as to the development of fascism, by the socialists. I would tend to dissagree and note that its growth tends to coincide with the growth of socilaism in general. Not as a reaction to it, but as part and parcel of the divisions and conflicts within the socialist orbit as to how to go about building socialism.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Edric O+November 08, 2007 04:28 am--> (Edric O @ November 08, 2007 04:28 am)
Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 08, 2007 04:01 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 08, 2007 04:01 am) 1. Wrong. The bougeoise were under the thumb like everyone else. [/b]
Bullshit. As Zurdito pointed out, there is no such thing as a dictator oppressing everyone in a country. Every dictator needs some power base - a group of people who have a lot to gain from his rule and therefore serve to enforce his regime.

Besides, you've contradicted yourself in the same post. First you say that "everyone" in Germany was under Hitler's thumb, then you say that his power base was the "German people." So his greatest supporters were the people under his thumb?

Well, if indeed it is possible for a dictator's power base to consist of the same people that are being oppressed by the dictator in question, then it is possible for the bourgeoisie to have been oppressed by Hitler and supportive of Hitler at the same time.


Originally posted by Green Dragon
2. The nazis controlled and directed the German economy. They told industry what to produce, how much to produce, how much to pay the workers, how much to charge for the item.
Really? Proof?

Remember, no one is denying that the Nazis dictated terms to SOME businesses. But what you're saying is that the Nazis dictated terms to ALL businesses - to a significantly greater extent than your average Western democracy at the time. I'd like to see some proof of this extreme assertion.


Originally posted by Green Dragon
A. Capitalists are the worst defenders of capitalism. They will always try to work within the constraints of whatever the regime imposes, in which it exists. They are not out to risk their position, fortune, ect. for political reasons.
Oh, I see. Nazism is socialism supported by capitalists! Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Green Dragon
B. The "social base" which backed the nazis was the German people. Hitler was the most popular German chancellor of all time.
O RLY? How exactly do you know that? I wasn't aware that Nazi Germany held opinion polls and regularly measured Hitler's approval ratings.

Every dictatorship claims to have the complete support of its people. We usually assume they're lying. What makes Hitler so different?


Green [email protected]
3. The National Socilaists determined Germany, and indeed all of Europe, did not need the Jews. Such people harmed the Germans, thwarted their desires, were dirty ectect ect. Get rid of them, and the german people will prosper.
Well, other socialists say the same regarding the capitalist: The pig harms the people, is undeeded, and his removal will make the people wealthier for all
And capitalists say the same things regarding government bureaucrats, and the Greens say the same things regarding polluters, and religious conservatives say the same things regarding gays, and so on and so forth.

Obviously there are problems in the world. Every ideology blames those problems on someone - I'm not aware of any person who thinks that the world is entirely made up of good people. The thing that makes Nazis different is not that they blamed the world's problems on someone - we all do that - but the fact that they blamed the world's problems on an ethnic group and proceeded to commit genocide against that group.

Socialists do not blame the world's problems on an ethnic group, and we do not wish to commit genocide.


Green Dragon
as an aside, it ought to be pointed out that the Jews of Europe were,for the most part, destined to be targeted under any socialist regime, however structured, for ECONOMIC reasons as well (there were many who were capitalists, and their property would have been seized with the same eagerness by the International Socialists as was actually seized by the National Socialists)
Hitler is generally considered a monster not so much for confiscating Jewish businesses as for brutally torturing and killing six million Jews. Yes, it is of course true that Jewish-owned businesses - like all businesses - would be nationalized under a socialist economic system, but there is a HUGE difference between confiscating someone's business and breaking into his house, beating his family and dragging him off to a concentration camp. [/b]
1. True. There is always a base of support within a dictatorship. In nazi Germany, that base of support was the "people" the workers if you will.
When the majority rules, it means everyone else is under their "thumb." I am not sure why this is so shocking. I have to believe it has to do with the socilaist error in assuming that majority rule AUTOMATICALLY means freedom and liberty for people.

2. Nazi economic policy can be found in the works of Shirer, Turner, Bullock and Kershaw.

3. I said that capitalists are the worse defenders of capitalism. They are not interested in making some academic point. They are interested in making a profit. To that end, they will work, or try to work, within the confines and structure of the community. The nazis propsed to the capitalists that they be slaves to them, but they could live. The communists proposed that they be killed. The decision made is not too hard to understand.

4. True. The International Socialists have carried the day against the National Socialists. But it is not true to say therefore the latter were never socialists.

5. There is indeed a huge difference between simply nationalising inmdustry, and dragging their owners off to camps, or killing them in the street. However these scruples of yours are not at all shared by ALL people on this website.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:52 pm
On a slightly different note, but well worth pointing out, i you compare the economy of the United States under Roosevelt and Germnay under Hitler, the economy closer to what the Von Mises loons want certainly wasn't in the good old land of the free.

From memory America was running an upper income tax rate of around 70% compared to Germany's 15% for a start.
The von Mises "loons" argued that the economies of nazi Germany and Roosevelt USA was closer to each other than what Austrians preferred.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:57 pm
Class divisions still existed in Nazi Germany whilst in a Socialist state there is no such thing as class anymore as the workers, or representatives of the workers, own and control the MOP which they already operate.

In NG the Bourgeoisie, under the dictation of the Nazis, still owned the MOP but Nazi appointed Bureaucrats controlled the MOP for the Nazi regime whilst the workers only operated the MOP which is what they do under a Capitalist system anyway.
True enough. The government beauracrats issued its demands to the capitalists based upon the "needs" of the people, as opposed to the capitalist needs of personal profit.

A communist is not a nazi, a socialist is not a nazi, and a revlefter is not a nazi.

But the nazis themselves were socialists.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 13, 2007 08:07 pm--> (Green Dragon @ November 13, 2007 08:07 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 01:57 pm
Class divisions still existed in Nazi Germany whilst in a Socialist state there is no such thing as class anymore as the workers, or representatives of the workers, own and control the MOP which they already operate.

In NG the Bourgeoisie, under the dictation of the Nazis, still owned the MOP but Nazi appointed Bureaucrats controlled the MOP for the Nazi regime whilst the workers only operated the MOP which is what they do under a Capitalist system anyway.
True enough. The government beauracrats issued its demands to the capitalists based upon the "needs" of the people, as opposed to the capitalist needs of personal profit.

A communist is not a nazi, a socialist is not a nazi, and a revlefter is not a nazi.

But the nazis themselves were socialists. [/b]
All governments regulate their econmy. what does that prove. was Roosevelt a socialist? Maybe Churchill was one too, given his record during WW2.

[Dr Mindbender]

can the OI'ers explain then if communism and fascism have so much in common then why did the US (the most ardent anti-communist country) have such an amicable relationship with Nazi Germany prior to their involvement in WW2?

Anyone who doubts this should watch the Mark Thomas documentary on Coca cola. I've posted the relevant link in films and literature.

[Robert]

I'm a capitalist but don't claim that communism and fascism have many common elements. I suppose the point has been made that state capitalism and fascism do have much in common.

But I never knew the U.S. government was cozy with Hitler before the war. Or are you talking about American corporations supplying Nazi Germany before the war?

Whoops. Disregard that. I'll check your link to the coca cola company.

p.s. Ulster, I love Coca Cola. Don't go breaking my heart here. I'm dead serious.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by robert the great

I'm a capitalist but don't claim that communism and fascism have many common elements. I suppose the point has been made that state capitalism and fascism do have much in common.

But I never knew the U.S. government was cozy with Hitler before the war. Or are you talking about American corporations supplying Nazi Germany before the war?

Both. If you want proof without compromising your ignorance about coca cola watch this instead- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRM0DH3-FA

[Robert]

your ignorance about coca cola

Ulser, you're the best. Here I am promising to look at your link and consider your point of view and now this?

Goodbye, dear boor.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 22, 2007 12:54 am

your ignorance about coca cola

Ulser, you're the best. Here I am promising to look at your link and consider your point of view and now this?

Goodbye, dear boor.
I think he was being friendly...you need more induction into marxist humour I feel. ;)

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 21, 2007 11:57 pm
can the OI'ers explain then if communism and fascism have so much in common then why did the US (the most ardent anti-communist country) have such an amicable relationship with Nazi Germany prior to their involvement in WW2?

Anyone who doubts this should watch the Mark Thomas documentary on Coca cola. I've posted the relevant link in films and literature.
Ulster, The Soviet Union and Germany were allies in the early days of WW II. They both went to war against Poland, and divied up the country amongst themselves. Who did the US and nazi Germany fight against side by side?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 22, 2007 12:44 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 22, 2007 12:44 am)
robert the great

I'm a capitalist but don't claim that communism and fascism have many common elements. I suppose the point has been made that state capitalism and fascism do have much in common.

But I never knew the U.S. government was cozy with Hitler before the war. Or are you talking about American corporations supplying Nazi Germany before the war?

Both. If you want proof without compromising your ignorance about coca cola watch this instead- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRM0DH3-FA [/b]
Ulster, I'm trying to put this delicately here: Hitler never went to the USA. The video was a fake. I really hope you were not being serious.

[Robert]

The video was a fake. I really hope you were not being serious.

Oh, sweet jumping mother of Jesus, I am laughing so god damned hard at that video and simultaneously crying for my poor friend Ulster. I would never have clicked on the link if Dragon hadn't said it was fake.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that there is nothing but a brief, insignificant frame showing a Pepsi Cola sign in Times Square, not a picture of Coca Cola, much less any claim of collaboration between the Nazis and either company.

[hajduk]

and here is another clip to discuse comraders Ulster, Dragon and Roby

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 22, 2007 04:45 am

The video was a fake. I really hope you were not being serious.

Oh, sweet jumping mother of Jesus, I am laughing so god damned hard at that video and simultaneously crying for my poor friend Ulster. I would never have clicked on the link if Dragon hadn't said it was fake.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that there is nothing but a brief, insignificant frame showing a Pepsi Cola sign in Times Square, not a picture of Coca Cola, much less any claim of collaboration between the Nazis and either company.
i dont care anymore. Believe what you like. If you dare, watch the Mark Thomas documentary. Thats not faked.

I know for a fact though that nazi diplomats did visit america pre-ww2 cause I saw an interview on the history channel a lot of years back. I cant for the life of me find the sources though, fecking US state mustve removed them out of shame!

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 22, 2007 04:45 am

The video was a fake. I really hope you were not being serious.

Oh, sweet jumping mother of Jesus, I am laughing so god damned hard at that video and simultaneously crying for my poor friend Ulster. I would never have clicked on the link if Dragon hadn't said it was fake.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that there is nothing but a brief, insignificant frame showing a Pepsi Cola sign in Times Square, not a picture of Coca Cola, much less any claim of collaboration between the Nazis and either company.
I didn't watch that youtube video so I've no idea what the convo is about, and quite possibly Ulster made a mistake, but could I point out to you that he specifically gave you that link alongisde the assurance that it contained nothing about coca-cola.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by zurdito
quite possibly Ulster made a mistake, but could I point out to you that he specifically gave you that link alongisde the assurance that it contained nothing about coca-cola.

Exactly. So in the context of trying to construe me as stupid on that account, YOU FAIL in block capitals.
:lol:

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:24 am
and here is another clip to discuse comraders Ulster, Dragon and Roby

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY
Rammstein kicks ass!

[Robert]

Ulster, I don't think you are stupid. I apologize for the coca-cola/pepsi jab, as I was wrong on that. You did think that video of Hitler over Times Square was for real, and only a person who knows zero about the history of U.S. - German relations could fall for it. It's no big deal. Well, actually it is a huge deal, but no worries. We all fuck up, right?

Post some more funny videos for us.

Cordially,

Rob

[Robert]

deleted ... duplicate post

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How the two can even be compared is a matter of conservative distortion.

Fascism is an ideology where the individual is subservient to the State. The economic justifications have ranged from socialism to capitalism to agrian feudalism.

Socialism is an ideology where the people [more precisely, the workers] seize the state, and thereby work to destroy it.

That simple.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 23, 2007 12:15 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 23, 2007 12:15 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:24 am
and here is another clip to discuse comraders Ulster, Dragon and Roby

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY
Rammstein kicks ass! [/b]
and did you see this?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fba9Nllm9x0

[bluescouse]

Sorry about the cut and paste nature of this post, It is because of my bone idle scouse nature. However anyone who cannot believe the involvement of big business in the growth of nazism, and Fascism, should go to this site.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=4607 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAU20070127&articleId=4607)



The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funnelled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business. 6 American overseas ventures fared poorly in the early 1930s, as the Great Depression hit Germany particularly hard. Production and profits dropped precipitously, the political situation was extremely unstable, there were constant strikes and street battles between Nazis and Communists, and many feared that the country was ripe for a "red" revolution like the one that had brought the Bolsheviks to power in Russia in 1917.

However, backed by the power and money of German industrialists and bankers such as Thyssen, Krupp, and Schacht, Hitler came to power in January 1933, and not only the political but also the socio-economic situation changed drastically.

[bluescouse]

here is another quote from the same sight;

The Führer's Teutonic brand of fascism, like every other variety of fascism, was reactionary in nature, and extremely useful for capitalists' purposes. Brought to power by Germany's leading businessmen and bankers, Hitler served the interests of his "enablers." His first major initiative was to dissolve the labour unions and to throw the Communists, and many militant Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps, which were specifically set up to accommodate the overabundance of left-wing political prisoners.

This ruthless measure not only removed the threat of revolutionary change — embodied by Germany's Communists — but also emasculated the German working class and transformed it into a powerless "mass of followers" (Gefolgschaft), to use Nazi terminology, which was unconditionally put at the disposal of their employers, the Thyssens and Krupps. Most, if not all firms in Germany, including American branch plants, eagerly took advantage of this situation and cut labour costs drastically. The Ford-Werke, for example, reduced labour costs from fifteen per cent of business volume in 1933 to only eleven per cent in 1938. (Research Findings, 135–6)

Coca-Cola's bottling plant in Essen increased its profitability considerably because, in Hitler's state, workers "were little more than serfs forbidden not only to strike, but to change jobs," driven "to work harder [and] faster" while their wages "were deliberately set quite low." 7

In Nazi Germany, real wages indeed declined rapidly, while profits increased correspondingly, but there were no labour problems worth mentioning, for any attempt to organize a strike immediately triggered an armed response by the Gestapo, resulting in arrests and dismissals. This was the case in GM's Opel factory in Rüsselsheim in June 1936. (Billstein et al., 25) As the Thuringian teacher and anti-fascist resistance member Otto Jenssen wrote after the war, Germany's corporate leaders were happy "that fear for the concentration camp made the German workers as meek as lapdogs." 8 The owners and managers of American corporations with investments in Germany were no less enchanted, and if they openly expressed their admiration or Hitler — as did the chairman of General Motors, William Knudsen, and ITT-boss Sosthenes Behn — it was undoubtedly because he had resolved Germany's social problems in a manner that benefited their interests. 9

[bluescouse]

Were these people Socialists? I don't think so.
Hitler personally showed his appreciation by awarding prestigious decorations to the likes of Henry Ford, IBM's Thomas Watson, and GM's export director, James D. Mooney.

[bluescouse]

Whoops, sorry.