Nazism not a form of socialism - best arguments.

[Oswy]

It's pretty plain to me that Hitler's National Socialism was far from the meaning of socialism as it has been conceived and widely promoted by self-identified supporters. The nationalism and racism of the Nazis strike me as both in direct conflict with the internationalist and egalitarian aims which socialism is centrally associated with.

Still, I meet plenty of people on the right, especially right-libertarians, who want to make a link between Nazism and socialism, mostly on economic grounds. Were the Nazis economically socialist? I don't imagine they were, but does anyone have knock-out facts or arguments which show that the Nazis were far from being socialists, economically or otherwise?

[Yehuda Stern]

The problem with this argument is that it defines socialism as simply a capitalist market with a government that carries out some Keynesian policies and nationalizations. The Nazis never carried out a revolution - they were elected. They did not abolish capitalism, even if their role distorted it somewhat. Surplus value coming from the exploitation of the working class still made its way to the capitalists, even if the Nazis took some of it for themselves. There's absolutely no reason to define Nazism as what it was - a brutal fascist-capitalist dictatorship.

[JazzRemington]

Hitler said somewhere in private (I believe there's a transcript of what he exactly said somewhere) that he didn't like socialism and believed private property rights were correct. I believe it was quoted (with sources) in the Wiki entry on either Hitler himself or National Socialism.

Here's a good blog entry that talks about how Hitler and Nazism aren't socialist.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/31/hitler-socialism.htm

[apathy maybe]

Focusing mainly on the economic aspects (because seriously, racism, nationalism etc. are not in any way shape or form socialist), then no, the Nazis weren't socialist.

I'll use the same arguments I use against the USSR (and which weren't mine originally, however, they work well, so why give them up?).

The differentials in wealth, income, power (including political power) and basic control over resources between the people at the bottom and the people at the top is too great to be called socialist.
Workers didn't have control over what they produced, they were still earning a wage working for capitalists (at least in Nazi Germany, in the USSR they were earning a wage working for the state).

Etc. The arguments go on, socialism is about equality, and Nazi Germany was not equal.

[Incendiarism]

Here's a good article about fascism and its relation against socialism: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_fascism.htm

[Djehuti]

People who claim that nazism is a form of socialism are idiots.

The nazis were pretty much pawns of big german corporations and monopolies, and the laters power increased immensely during the nazi reign. Pretty much everyone else suffered.

The nazis quickly destroyed the entire labour movement, they introduced 12 hour working days and decreased the wages. The wages dropped from 57% of GDP in 1932 to 54% in 1938, while the profits from capital increased from 17% to 27%. They also ordered all small business to close (october 1937) and between 1936 and 1939 no less than 400,000 craftsman businesses ceased to exist. The monopolies benefited twice: Less competitors - more workers.

The nazis built only to satisfy themselves and / or the monopolies, never the common people. They started the biggest war in history so that the german monopolies could get their hands on natural resources, production facilities and slave labourers all over Europe.

Nazi-Germany is perhaps the most right-wing and most capitalist state ever. Hugo Stinnes, Albert Vögler, Karl Friedrich v. Siemens, Felix Deutsch, Hjalmar Schacht, Friedrich Flick, Krupp von Bohlen, George von Schnitzler, Carl Bosch etc. were the true masters of the Third Reich.

Socialists stand for freedom, justice, equality and anti-militarism.
The nazis stood for exactly the opposite.

[Dimentio]

People who claim that nazism is a form of socialism are idiots.

The nazis were pretty much pawns of big german corporations and monopolies, and the laters power increased immensely during the nazi reign. Pretty much everyone else suffered.

The nazis quickly destroyed the entire labour movement, they introduced 12 hour working days and decreased the wages. The wages dropped from 57% of GDP in 1932 to 54% in 1938, while the profits from capital increased from 17% to 27%. They also ordered all small business to close (october 1937) and between 1936 and 1939 no less than 400,000 craftsman businesses ceased to exist. The monopolies benefited twice: Less competitors - more workers.

The nazis built only to satisfy themselves and / or the monopolies, never the common people. They started the biggest war in history so that the german monopolies could get their hands on natural resources, production facilities and slave labourers all over Europe. Nazi-Germany is perhaps the most right-wing and most capitalist state ever. Hugo Stinnes, Albert Vögler, Karl Friedrich v. Siemens, Felix Deutsch, Hjalmar Schacht, Friedrich Flick, Krupp von Bohlen, George von Schnitzler, Carl Bosch etc. were the true masters of the Third Reich.

Socialists stand for freedom, justice, equality and anti-militarism.
The nazis stood for exactly the opposite.

Not entirely true. While the capitalists indeed prospered under the Third Reich, Hitler was not their puppet. They where the pawns of the dictatorial regime, which was driven by pursuit of realisation of Mein Kampf. The regime was primarily insane and secondly capitalist, not the other way around.

[Poum_1936]

From Marxists.org Encyclopedia entry on "Fascism":
http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm#fascism


Thus it is not without irony, that in the name for his party Hitler used “socialist,” (Nazi = National Socialist) conceding to the engrained consciousness the German masses had for leftist ideals. It should be noted that fascism supported the community ideal, but not the grass-roots power of direct community democracy as Socialism demands, but the obideance and unity of the community to vanguard of the Nation.

Also of note, fascism rises out of failed labor movements. Italy, Germany, and Spains fascist governments rose on the ashes of failed workers movements. Hence why Hitler adopted "socialism" to placate the German people.


Fascism championed corporate economics, which operated on an anarcho-syndicalist model in reverse: associations of bosses in particular industries determine working conditions, prices, etc. In this form of corporatism, bosses dictate everything from working hours to minimum wages, without goverment interference. The fascist corporate model differs from the more moderate corporatist model by eradicating all forms of regulatory control that protect workers (so-called "consumers"), the environment, price fixing, insider trading, and destroying all independent workers' organisations. In fascism, the corporate parliament either replaces the representative bodies of government or reduces them to a sham and the state freely intervenes in the activity of companies, either by bestowing favouritism, or handing them over to the control of rivals.

As can be seen, fascism is hardly on par economically with socialism as Marxists or anarchists know it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This was discussed here only a week or so ago:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/need-help-t92044/index.html

[RadioRaheem84]

No, No, No.

This is one matter in which I disagree with a lot of fellow comrades. The Nazis were Socialists, but the again they were nuts and tried to redefine socialism. Hitler wanted to bring Socialism back to its "roots" away from Marxian-Socialism which introduced class struggle and conflict. What Hitler wanted was sort of a "socialistic" community like what former regimes were made of before the Enlightenment period. In a sense he wanted Ancient Sparta. People were basically cogs to serve the machine state.

Of course, this is a very poor definition and even poorer description of Socialism.

I also find it odd as to why so many people in our camp are so adamant about denying that Hitler was a socialist. He never said he wanted Marxian-Socialism. Yet, many scholars (who happen to be Marxist) keep distorting history by claiming that Hitler just lied to win over the populace and was not a true socialist. Well, the only reason why scholars believe that is because they presuppose that Hitler was talking about MARXIAN SOCIALISM.

Fascism and National Socialism were never about class struggle, but class "co-operation". They were never about the FULL redistribution of wealth, but were for capitalism to work for the state. They believed in private property and classes BUT that these things should SERVE the state and the people, not the other way around.

They never spoke of anything Marxist, so I don't understand why you people are judging Nazism based on that concept. Nazism, as defined by some of the Neo-Nazis I've spoken to in the past, is a wholly GUILD SOCIALISM/SYNDICALIST ideology. They wanted a society that pre-dated the Enlightenment like Sparta or the Nordic Tribes where everyone was "united" but classes existed.

And the Nazis were revolutionary. Hitler and the Friedkorps tried a coup (called a Putsch) in the early 30s which sent Hitler to jail where he wrote Mein Kampf.

I get tired of the downplaying of history in here when it comes to the Fascist and Nazi movements. We don't have to agree with them at all, but we can atleast present history in an OBJECTIVE manner.

Fascists, National-Syndicalists, Nazis and Flangists were ideologically driven, they were leftist heretics, they were revolutionary (THEY STARTED THE FRICKIN' CIVIL WAR IN SPAIN) and their ranks were FILLED with working class people.


In a nutshell. Fascism/Nazism is basically a racist, nationalistic form of Social Democracy. Same economics. Picture a really racist nationalist Sweden and you have National Socialism.

[Djehuti]

First we must define socialism. I pretty much agree with what wikipedia say: "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism) society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) political movement."

By these standards national socialism was not socialism in any way.




Fascism and National Socialism were never about class struggle, but class "co-operation".

In words, not in practise. In reality national socialism meant the brutal and complete destruction of the working class and a golden age for the big national corporations. That's not "co-operation", unless you mean the forcing of workers to "co-operate" with the capitalists on the capitalist's terms only.



And the Nazis were revolutionary. Hitler and the Friedkorps tried a coup (called a Putsch) in the early 30s which sent Hitler to jail where he wrote Mein Kampf.

Early 20ies that is. I can't see what was revolutionary about it.




Fascists, National-Syndicalists, Nazis and Flangists were ideologically driven, they were leftist heretics, they were revolutionary (THEY STARTED THE FRICKIN' CIVIL WAR IN SPAIN) and their ranks were FILLED with working class people.

Fascism and national socialism has never been working class movements. The working class areas in germany (Ruhr, Hamburg, Bremen, Berlin etc.) remained clearly red in the last free election. The nazis had a mass base however, but they concisted primarily of petit bourgeoisie elements (threatened by the economic crisis) but these were later betrayed. The nazis also had support from traditional conservative elements within the peasantry and the junkers. Their greatest support however came from the big corporations.

I can't see whats revolutionary about counter-revolutions, is every coup revolutionary? :/





In a nutshell. Fascism/Nazism is basically a racist, nationalistic form of Social Democracy. Same economics. Picture a really racist nationalist Sweden and you have National Socialism.

There's some similarities, but it's an very unfair comparison. Social democracy is a (somewhat) left-wing working class movement. Also it's democratic.

[PRC-UTE]

No, No, No.

This is one matter in which I disagree with a lot of fellow comrades. The Nazis were Socialists, but the again they were nuts and tried to redefine socialism. Hitler wanted to bring Socialism back to its "roots" away from Marxian-Socialism which introduced class struggle and conflict. What Hitler wanted was sort of a "socialistic" community like what former regimes were made of before the Enlightenment period. In a sense he wanted Ancient Sparta. People were basically cogs to serve the machine state.

Nazism, as defined by some of the Neo-Nazis I've spoken to in the past, is a wholly GUILD SOCIALISM/SYNDICALIST ideology. They wanted a society that pre-dated the Enlightenment like Sparta or the Nordic Tribes where everyone was "united" but classes existed.

this is true, they looked back to a pre modern mythical volk people as an inspiration. However, the politics of national socialism were that of the petit bourgeoisie in decay. Primarly they would be antimodern because modernity threatened their existence as a class. The early Nazi party before Hitler's ascension was a kind of petit bourgeois socialism. However, that doesn't make them revolutionary, or genuinely socialist at all. To put it crudely, their version of "middle class socialism" was never possible.



And the Nazis were revolutionary. Hitler and the Friedkorps tried a coup (called a Putsch) in the early 30s which sent Hitler to jail where he wrote Mein Kampf.

That's not revolutionary, unless you define any act of mutiny, violence or rebellion as revolutionary. Well then in that sense even the KKK firebombing someone's house cos they're a Jew or are friendly with black people is a revolutionary. You could probably get some ultraleft types, who cheered on the racist opposition in Venezuala to agree with you, but you're still incorrect. Social and political demands matter.



I get tired of the downplaying of history in here when it comes to the Fascist and Nazi movements. We don't have to agree with them at all, but we can atleast present history in an OBJECTIVE manner.

I think the important point is that class content and programme matter more than self-identified labels. studing history objectively doesn't mean accepting whatever propaganda a party spews out.



Fascists, National-Syndicalists, Nazis and Flangists were ideologically driven, they were leftist heretics, they were revolutionary (THEY STARTED THE FRICKIN' CIVIL WAR IN SPAIN) and their ranks were FILLED with working class people.

In a nutshell. Fascism/Nazism is basically a racist, nationalistic form of Social Democracy. Same economics. Picture a really racist nationalist Sweden and you have National Socialism.

Hitler was most like the social democrats in oratory and propaganda. He himself admitted that he copied their style.

However the core of fascist ideology revolves around social darwinism, power of the will- exactly the opposite of socialist doctrines.

[Djehuti]

Primarly they would be antimodern because modernity threatened their existence as a class.

That's an interesting paradox on nazism: They were outspoken anti-modernists, still nazi Germany was the nation that went furthest into modernity.

[Oswy]

No, No, No.

This is one matter in which I disagree with a lot of fellow comrades. The Nazis were Socialists, but the again they were nuts and tried to redefine socialism. Hitler wanted to bring Socialism back to its "roots" away from Marxian-Socialism which introduced class struggle and conflict. What Hitler wanted was sort of a "socialistic" community like what former regimes were made of before the Enlightenment period. In a sense he wanted Ancient Sparta. People were basically cogs to serve the machine state.

Of course, this is a very poor definition and even poorer description of Socialism.

I also find it odd as to why so many people in our camp are so adamant about denying that Hitler was a socialist. He never said he wanted Marxian-Socialism. Yet, many scholars (who happen to be Marxist) keep distorting history by claiming that Hitler just lied to win over the populace and was not a true socialist. Well, the only reason why scholars believe that is because they presuppose that Hitler was talking about MARXIAN SOCIALISM.

Fascism and National Socialism were never about class struggle, but class "co-operation". They were never about the FULL redistribution of wealth, but were for capitalism to work for the state. They believed in private property and classes BUT that these things should SERVE the state and the people, not the other way around.

They never spoke of anything Marxist, so I don't understand why you people are judging Nazism based on that concept. Nazism, as defined by some of the Neo-Nazis I've spoken to in the past, is a wholly GUILD SOCIALISM/SYNDICALIST ideology. They wanted a society that pre-dated the Enlightenment like Sparta or the Nordic Tribes where everyone was "united" but classes existed.

And the Nazis were revolutionary. Hitler and the Friedkorps tried a coup (called a Putsch) in the early 30s which sent Hitler to jail where he wrote Mein Kampf.

I get tired of the downplaying of history in here when it comes to the Fascist and Nazi movements. We don't have to agree with them at all, but we can atleast present history in an OBJECTIVE manner.

Fascists, National-Syndicalists, Nazis and Flangists were ideologically driven, they were leftist heretics, they were revolutionary (THEY STARTED THE FRICKIN' CIVIL WAR IN SPAIN) and their ranks were FILLED with working class people.


In a nutshell. Fascism/Nazism is basically a racist, nationalistic form of Social Democracy. Same economics. Picture a really racist nationalist Sweden and you have National Socialism.

But I don't think this ever was socialism. The self-conscious use of socialism does pre-date Marxism, that's true, but as far as I'm aware it was based on the idea of egalitarianism and the principle that the state should operate in the interests of the people. Hitler's 'socialism' can't easily be defended as egalitarian (it was racist, sexist and homophobic) and nothing in the way Hitler organised the economy (or rather had it organised for him) was directed at making the state the instrument of the people.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The fundamental problem with every argument about the Nazis being socialists is always the same: A very, very faulty definition of "socialism."

The only thing the Nazis had in common with socialists was that they opposed an unregulated, laissez-faire market economy. But it's ridiculous to define a socialist as "anyone who wants the state to intervene in the economy." By that definition, socialism includes not only the Nazis, but also every Western government since World War 2, many Western governments before and during WW2 (including all the Allies), and arguably every state in world history before the 19th century.

You can only make the Nazis socialists by defining "socialism" so broadly that just about everyone is a socialist.

Also, the nationalist and racist aspects cannot be ignored. When someone tries to say that the racism of the Nazis wasn't important, ask him the following: "Suppose you met someone who agreed with you on every single political issue, except for one difference - he thought all Jews should be killed. Would this be a minor, insignificant difference? Would you want to be associated with that person?"

[Lenin's Law]

Socialism means the workers control the means of production. If it doesn't mean that, or at least include that, then it doesn't mean anything. The workers of Germany clearly did not control the means of production; it was not egalitarian in any sense, it was virulently anti-labour, anti socialist, and its rhetoric about being "the third way" between capitalist and socialism is quite simply 'nice sounding' political BS.

[Yehuda Stern]

Not to be petty, but socialism means giving the producers control of the MoP. When there's no capitalism, there can be no workers.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Nazism is not Socialism. Here's why:
-Along with Jews, Gypsies, etc. Hitler also killed Communists and Socialists.
-The "National Socialism" part of the party's name was added as a way to get support from the working class
-Hitler wiped out the socialism supporting members of his party
-Hitler banned political parties, beginning with Socialist and Communist parties

[RadioRaheem84]

First off, the whole reason as to why people even started Fascist parties was because Marxism was in crisis at the beginning of the 20th century. The Crisis of Marxism spawned a whole lot of Marxist heresies like Social Democracy, Fascism and Syndicalism. Many intellectuals were thinking that Marx's idea of history and the downfall of capitalism was wrong. A whole bunch of groups came out of the woodwork claiming to be the rightful successor to Socialism.






this is true, they looked back to a pre modern mythical volk people as an inspiration. However, the politics of national socialism were that of the petit bourgeoisie in decay. Primarly they would be antimodern because modernity threatened their existence as a class. The early Nazi party before Hitler's ascension was a kind of petit bourgeois socialism. However, that doesn't make them revolutionary, or genuinely socialist at all. To put it crudely, their version of "middle class socialism" was never possible.

Again, you're presupposing that Socialism is this fixed idea that cannot be molded. I am not trying to say that National Socialism WAS socialism, but that if they believed theirs to be a true socialism, then technically THEY WERE socialists.



That's not revolutionary, unless you define any act of mutiny, violence or rebellion as revolutionary....Social and political demands matter

That's ridiculous. You cannot just label a revolt a revolution or not based on a fixed definition. Putsch in German means COUP. They tried to oust the Liberal Government of the Wiemar Republic. In Spain, the Civil War was also called the Spanish Revolutionary War because the Fascists/Flangists started a coup against the Liberal Spanish Republic.



I think the important point is that class content and programme matter more than self-identified labels. studing history objectively doesn't mean accepting whatever propaganda a party spews out.

I don't understand why it had to be propaganda? Hitler never said he was for egalitarianism or workers rights. He was for the worker to be a cog in the machine state and stated this explicitly. He, like all other fascists, said that even though there would be no class conflict, there would be class co-operation and a workers union of the nation.

To their credit, while corporations flourished under Hitler, they were very much at the whim of the state. Something that hasn't been seen in the West for a very long time.

[RadioRaheem84]

In words, not in practise. In reality national socialism meant the brutal and complete destruction of the working class and a golden age for the big national corporations. That's not "co-operation", unless you mean the forcing of workers to "co-operate" with the capitalists on the capitalist's terms only.

Your presuppositions are ASTOUNDING. You keep thinking that class co-operation is supposed to have a Marxist tinge to it. NOTHING in Nazi ideology is remotely democratic, Marxist or egalitarian. Do not think Marx, think SPARTA. And not the crappy movie 300 version of Sparta but real ancient Sparta, where class co-operation meant that everyone was valued in service to the STATE or this the case the Party.
And while corporations flourished under Hitler, they were still very much under the thumb of the Party. Nothing moved unless directed by the Party.


Early 20ies that is. I can't see what was revolutionary about it.

That's because you think that revolutions are only supposed to have democratic, socialist or egalitarian outcomes led by working class people.



Fascism and national socialism has never been working class movements. The working class areas in germany (Ruhr, Hamburg, Bremen, Berlin etc.) remained clearly red in the last free election. The nazis had a mass base however, but they concisted primarily of petit bourgeoisie elements (threatened by the economic crisis) but these were later betrayed. The nazis also had support from traditional conservative elements within the peasantry and the junkers. Their greatest support however came from the big corporations.

I can't see whats revolutionary about counter-revolutions, is every coup revolutionary? :/

Not true. While a huge chunk were petit-middle class shop owners, there was another half that were working class. The corporate class only joined in because it was a better option than Communism and free market liberal parties were in shambles. Do not credit them so much with Hitler.

[jamesied]

Is this an important argument? Stalin's government was worse than Hitler's for state repression and mass extermination. I wouldn't hinge any important arguments on whether or not Hitler was a socialist, because you'll get knocked sideways when the other party points out that Stalin undoubtedly was and more brutally so.

[RadioRaheem84]

To make this simpler. What if you met a modern day neo- Nazi in the street. Instead of punching him in the face or screaming out fascist like a common Marxist reactionary, you sat down with him to actually listen to his ideology:

He would tell you that the "awful Jew Marx" distorted true Socialism into some weak system to undermine nations. Along with international finance capitalism, Jews were controlling the schemes at both ends and would eventually internationalize the world, ending national soverignty altogether.

He would tell you that true Socialism is a really a system based on total submission to the nation or party. Like the Ancient regimes of Sparta and the Viking Tribes, communal tribes were strong with national pride and looked out for one and another like Brothers. While there were classes, these were meant to be in order to keep the nation alive. But they were all equal in the eyes of the Nation.


Ofcourse, his ramblings are a bit nutty, but in a nutshell they believe themselves to be the true inheritors of socialism/syndicalism. They despise any left-wing interpretations of socialism. So all in all, we sound like dogmatic figures preaching the RIGHT version of Christianity (Socialism) to a bunch of Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons who preach heretical Christian teachings (Nazism, Fascism).

[PRC-UTE]

That's an interesting paradox on nazism: They were outspoken anti-modernists, still nazi Germany was the nation that went furthest into modernity.

good point. And a violently anti worker movement within the European nation with the largest workers movement...

[PRC-UTE]

To make this simpler. What if you met a modern day neo- Nazi in the street. Instead of punching him in the face or screaming out fascist like a common Marxist reactionary, you sat down with him to actually listen to his ideology:

We don't need to hear his ideology. I've seen their handiwork in person.

Now please explain what you mean by: 'Instead of punching him in the face or screaming out fascist like a common Marxist reactionary'

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ He's a "social-democrat." Nevertheless, maybe he's arguing from a devil's advocate perspective. Chapter 3 of the Communist Manifesto covered various reactionary "socialisms," which was why Marx and Engels emphasized the communist label in the first place. Only when Marxist-inspired Social Democracy became the dominant "socialist" tendency did Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, etc. loosen up.

[RadioRaheem84]

Now please explain what you mean by: 'Instead of punching him in the face or screaming out fascist like a common Marxist reactionary'

I am little more to the left than a Social Democrat, but what I meant by this statement was that I dislike the outright reactionary sentiments against people with opposing views, especially fascists. It's almost as if they cannot have their own ideology without someone from the left totally denouncing it as incomprehensible. I mean it seems like we can objectively understand capitalists, Islamists, Social Democrats, etc. but when it comes to Fascists, it's cover your ears take out the pitchfork time.

[RadioRaheem84]

We don't need to hear his ideology. I've seen their handiwork in person. By handiwork I am sure you mean some punk skinheads smashing up a Korean owned shop? Ok, that's not understanding their ideology, that is just straight up dismissing them as hoods.

With all of the apologizing and understanding that's done in here for street gangs and the socio-political economic injustice that makes them join gangs, I am surprised that the same sympathy cannot be given to poor white kids who join racist skinhead gangs.

[Djehuti]

I mean it seems like we can objectively understand capitalists, Islamists, Social Democrats, etc. but when it comes to Fascists, it's cover your ears take out the pitchfork time.

The nazis of today are very different from the nazis back then.

And the nazi back then were not all the same either, Hitler was not the same as (Gregor and Otto) Strasser or the SA for example.

Most of todays nazis have more in common with Strasser and the SA than they have with Hitler. Nazis of today generally stand more to the left than Hitler did (Hitler was extreme right-wing, Strasser and most of the SA were not), they are in to "mob politics", street fighting etc. just like the SA. The difference is that there were like a million of SA (and the goverment pretty much supported them) while there's just a few hundred or a few thousand nazis in most countries today (there's much more of them in Russia for example, but still "only" 40,000 or something). Also the SA held support from large parts of the bourgeoisie (for taking care of the commies) while todays neo-nazis only have the support of a few rich anti-semitic individuals.

[GPDP]

they believe themselves to be the true inheritors of socialism/syndicalism.

Proof?

[RadioRaheem84]

Proof?


There was also guild socialism. Mosley wrote in his auto biography, My Life: "My inclination in British politics was always towards the guild socialists -- then represented by such thinkers and writers as [G.D.H.] Cole, [J.A.] Hobson and [A.R.] Orage -- rather than to state socialism, whose exponents were the Webbs and the Fabians. The tradition of the mediaeval guilds in England, of the Hanseatic League and the syndicalism of the Latin countries was much nearer to my thinking." At the same time he could appreciate the power of the Federal Reserve System and what he saw of American mass production methods during his visit to the United States in the twenties, reaching yet another synthesis for Britain by combining what he learned in America, the most advanced capitalist state, and the thinking of British guild socialists and European syndicalists.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p139_Row.html


No need to prove it, but for the most part, Fascists supported Guild Socialism, Syndicalist, Corporatist structures.

Read Oswald Mosley, leader the British Union of Fascists.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/syndicalism.htm

[Yehuda Stern]

I've had a good number of relatives brutally murdered by these 'socialists' whose opinions you defend so much - this is their 'handiwork.' Most of it is because social-democrats like you tolerated them and refused to do what was necessary - break their bones. So fuck listening to them and fuck their 'socialism.'

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as emotional, but people being soft on Nazism, that sorta thing just kinda gets to me.

[PRC-UTE]

I've had a good number of relatives brutally murdered by these 'socialists' whose opinions you defend so much - this is their 'handiwork.' Most of it is because social-democrats like you tolerated them and refused to do what was necessary - break their bones. So fuck listening to them and fuck their 'socialism.'

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as emotional, but people being soft on Nazism, that sorta thing just kinda gets to me.

Same here, comrade.

I think this social democrat needs to visit some of the former death camps before he shoots his mouth off

[PRC-UTE]

By handiwork I am sure you mean some punk skinheads smashing up a Korean owned shop? Ok, that's not understanding their ideology, that is just straight up dismissing them as hoods.

With all of the apologizing and understanding that's done in here for street gangs and the socio-political economic injustice that makes them join gangs, I am surprised that the same sympathy cannot be given to poor white kids who join racist skinhead gangs.

Yes, how strange to dismiss violent drug dealing racist murdering scum as hoods. You think we should try to 'understand' them, as if their violence is an aberration and not a direct manifestation of their politics??

to quote the great film Austin Powers II: "I know guys on crack that makes more sense than you do"

[black magick hustla]

Nazism was brutal and certainly it wasn't communist. Certainly, it was one of the peaks of capitalist savagery. However, the "left", like the stalinists, certainly did their fare share of butchering. While the stalinists did not systematically cleanse a population in the name of racial purity, they did murder a lot of people for political and ideological reasons. So perhaps, at least in an appeal to my emotions, the stalinists were better because their slogans weren't as disgusting, and admittedly, the whole industrial process of the holocaust, was horrible to a degree never seen to humanity.

However, looking beyond emotional appeal, were the stalinists better? What made them better, the fact that they did not use racist slogans and systematically murder populations for their race, but rather, they murdered millions in political witch-hunts? Or the fact that they were part of the "antifascist" side of the most barbaric capitalist war in the entire history, even when both sides were responsable for collectively perpetuating a war that led to the death of dozens of millions of young workers? Subjectively, I guess I consider stalinists (at least back then) better, but looking at the objective aspects, both had to be opposed relentlessly.

[RadioRaheem84]

I've had a good number of relatives brutally murdered by these 'socialists' whose opinions you defend so much - this is their 'handiwork.' Most of it is because social-democrats like you tolerated them and refused to do what was necessary - break their bones. So fuck listening to them and fuck their 'socialism.'

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as emotional, but people being soft on Nazism, that sorta thing just kinda gets to me.


Dude, this is about understanding history, not about apologizing or defending them. Do not throw your dead relatives in this as an argument for why you don't understand Nazism. All in all, you're trying to say that you don't get it and never want to. Brilliant retort, just brilliant. :rolleyes:




I think this social democrat needs to visit some of the former death camps before he shoots his mouth off Fuck You. I know what they stood for and what they stand for now. I don't condone it and am not just shooting my mouth when it comes to this. You know you could've just admitted that you don't know shit instead of telling me to visit Auschwitz.



Yes, how strange to dismiss violent drug dealing racist murdering scum as hoods. You think we should try to 'understand' them, as if their violence is an aberration and not a direct manifestation of their politics??

to quote the great film Austin Powers II: "I know guys on crack that makes more sense than you do" The point is that I at least make the effort to understand the ideology, while reactionaries like you dismiss them as people in need of a shotgun to the mouth.

How does it not make sense to understand the history of an ideology that impacted so many people? Do you people not give a shit about history or are you too busy making reactionary statements about fascism devoid of any historical fact?

Piss off with the emotional rants and get to the nitty gritty.

[Yehuda Stern]

Not getting Nazism? To hell with you. I get Nazism just fine. You just want me to play nice with neo-Nazis because they're actually just poor white kids who are really socialists and just looking for a home? Fuck that. It's that kind of attitude that got Nazism in power in the first place. The only way to treat a fascist over is, to quote a great anti-fascist, to "acquaint his head with the sidewalk."

And this "don't bring in your dead relatives" attitude, it fits you fake leftists so well. Who cares about the millions who died because of your political ancestors? Who cares about the terrible regimes they are responsible for? All that matters is that you can attack Marxists as "reactionaries" and say that neo-Nazis are "socialists." So, tell me, what does that make you?

Edit: Marmot, you are correct. Stalinism was also brutal and wasn't communist - it was a fascist dictatorship laying (unjustified) claim to Leninism and Bolshevism. Both regimes, it should be noted, came to being as a result of the failure of a proletarian revolution, although at different stages. Neither regime's horrors need be justified by revolutionaries. Also, as (three cubes with numbers) posted after me before this edit, the Stalinists did in fact use nationalist anti-German slogans, so yes, they were also quite disgusting.

[Junius]

What made them better, the fact that they did not use racist slogans and systematically murder populations for their race, but rather, they murdered millions in political witch-hunts? Or the fact that they were part of the "antifascist" side of the most barbaric capitalist war in the entire history, even when both sides were responsable for collectively perpetuating a war that led to the death of dozens of millions of young workers? Subjectively, I guess I consider stalinists (at least back then) better, but looking at the objective aspects, both had to be opposed relentlessly.

We know all. We remember all. We understood: Germans are not humans. From now on word "German" for us is the worst curse. From now on word "German" fires a rifle. Lets not talk. Lets not complain. Lets kill. If you have not killed at least one German - your day was a waste. If you think your neighbor will kill a German today instead of you, then you have not understood the danger. If you did not kill a German, he will kill you. He will take your dear ones and will hurt them in his terrible Germany. If you can not kill a German with a bullet, kill him with a bayonet. If there is no fighting going on on you stretch of the front line, if you are waiting for a fight, then kill a German before the fighting starts. If you spare life of a German he will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you have killed one German, then kill another one - there is nothing funnier for us then German corpses. Do not count days. Do not count miles. Count one thing: Germans killed by you. Kill a German! - your old mother begs you for it. Kill a German! - babies beg you for that. Kill a German! - your mother land calls you. Do not miss. Kill!

The article "Kill!" by Ilya Ehrenburg, Jewish Anti-Fascist, printed in the Red Star newspaper, July 1942.

[Djehuti]

Your presuppositions are ASTOUNDING. You keep thinking that class co-operation is supposed to have a Marxist tinge to it. NOTHING in Nazi ideology is remotely democratic, Marxist or egalitarian.

I've never said that. All I say is that the fascist idea of class co-operation is in reality built upon force and violence. Sure the fascists wished that the workers and the capitalists would willingly work together for the nation, but in practise the workers were forced to "co-operate" with the capitalists on the capitalists terms only.



Do not think Marx, think SPARTA. And not the crappy movie 300 version of Sparta but real ancient Sparta, where class co-operation meant that everyone was valued in service to the STATE or this the case the Party.

I still can't see what this has to do with socialism. Was Preussia a socialist state as well? How do you actually define socialism? I don't believe that you have answered that question yet.



And while corporations flourished under Hitler, they were still very much under the thumb of the Party. Nothing moved unless directed by the Party.

They were not just pawns, the big bourgeoisie (Stinnes, Vögler, Siemens, Deutsch, Schacht, Flick, v. Bohlen, v. Schnitzler, Bosch etc.) held much influence and much of Hitlers politics were aimed directly to satisfy them (and in return, they satisfied him).




That's because you think that revolutions are only supposed to have democratic, socialist or egalitarian outcomes led by working class people.

A revolution in a capitalist society, yes.

Please explain how Hitler can be seen as a revolutionary.
Define revolution.




Not true. While a huge chunk were petit-middle class shop owners, there was another half that were working class.

Of cource there were workers who supported Hitler, but the working class was not his base. The large majority of the workers supported either KPD or SPD.

Also in 1932 KPD was gaining on Hitler, only between 31th of July and 6th of November KPD increased with almost a million votes from 14.34% to 16.86% while NSDAP decreased from 37.27% to 33.09%. SPD lost one percent and landed on 20.43%. The Reichtag Fire came very timely for the nazis and KPD was banned, soon thereafter Hitler was appointed as chancellor.

Hitler lost a lot of support a few years in to his regin when it was clear that he prefered the interests of the monopolies over those who constituted his mass base. He also sided with the pressian generals over the SA and killed the SA:s leadership.




The corporate class only joined in because it was a better option than Communism and free market liberal parties were in shambles. Do not credit them so much with Hitler.

The liberal Deutsche Volkspartei and the liberalconservative Deutschnationale Volkspartei did in a very short time (between 1928 and 1930) on lose pretty much all their support to NSDAP, and through this NSDAP became a major power. It's clear that it was the middle class and bourgeoisie voters who most enthusiasticly joined up behind Hitler.

The big corporations and monopolies were an important factor as well, they provided Hitler and NSDAP with a lot of money, enabling them to efficiently spread their propaganda all over Germany and practicly buy a lot of voters (clothing, shelter, uniforms...), through this large parts of the lumpen proletarians fell to the NSDAP.

First on the big corporations and monopolies supported Hitler because he would deal with the communist threat, his SA-oxes would vipe them of the streets. Thats fantastic! But later on they realised that Hitler was more than an useful idiot. Hitler was more useful to them than any free-market party could ever be, he got rid of all opposition, he made sure that the workers worked long and hard and never interfered with the production. He also gave them a lot of huge and very profitable orders (preparing Germany for the biggest war in history) and through the war he gave them access to production and resources all over Europe.

They helped him and he helped them. A happy relationship.

[PRC-UTE]

Dude, this is about understanding history, not about apologizing or defending them. Do not throw your dead relatives in this as an argument for why you don't understand Nazism. All in all, you're trying to say that you don't get it and never want to. Brilliant retort, just brilliant. :rolleyes:

Yeah, how dare he let his family's real actual experiences get in the way of how you want to view the Nazis. catch yourself on.



Fuck You. I know what they stood for and what they stand for now. I don't condone it and am not just shooting my mouth when it comes to this. You know you could've just admitted that you don't know shit instead of telling me to visit Auschwitz.

Yeah, I don't know anything. all those previous posts by me were obviously unfounded speculation, this is something I don't know anything about.

attacking my supposed lack of knowledge on fascism is going to get you anywhere here, and anyone can see that.



The point is that I at least make the effort to understand the ideology, while reactionaries like you dismiss them as people in need of a shotgun to the mouth.

How does it not make sense to understand the history of an ideology that impacted so many people? Do you people not give a shit about history or are you too busy making reactionary statements about fascism devoid of any historical fact?

Piss off with the emotional rants and get to the nitty gritty.

I replied to you in several posts analysing fascism, not being emotive, but you kept on with 'but they're really a kind of socialist, blah blah blah'

[RadioRaheem84]

First off, Yehuda, trying to understand Nazi ideology is not the same as condoning it. I don't where you and some others in here get that notion from my posts. And Yes I feel sorry for poor white kids who get duped into joining skinhead gangs. Is there something wrong with that?


I've never said that. All I say is that the fascist idea of class co-operation is in reality built upon force and violence. Sure the fascists wished that the workers and the capitalists would willingly work together for the nation, but in practise the workers were forced to "co-operate" with the capitalists on the capitalists terms only.

Of course its built upon force and violence. They state that in their texts. Well its built more on cohersion that turned into force and violence.

You see this is where the problem lies. I keep reiterating Nazi and Fascist ideology as it is on paper and what people deeply believe it is and you guys keep spouting back what they did in practice. I know that in practice they lost all ideals and went for the most practical (in a capitalist sense) measure of repressing workers. I am not disputing that. Nazism and Fascism cannot work anyways. It is a fundamentally flawed and loony ideology, of course it was going to be calamitous in practice.


I still can't see what this has to do with socialism. Was Preussia a socialist state as well? How do you actually define socialism? I don't believe that you have answered that question yet.

Nor should you see what this has to do with Socialism. Again I AM NOT CONDONING NAZISM. I am merely telling you what they believe in and what their ideology stood for. That's it. How the hell am I supposed to know what ancient regimes had to do with Socialism? The Nazis believed that that socialism pre-dated the Enlightenment, Modernity and Marx. They were going for a communal tribalism that they believed was "true socialism".


They were not just pawns, the big bourgeoisie (Stinnes, Vögler, Siemens, Deutsch, Schacht, Flick, v. Bohlen, v. Schnitzler, Bosch etc.) held much influence and much of Hitlers politics were aimed directly to satisfy them (and in return, they satisfied him).

They did sway politics but they were never in full control like today where corporations could flush a nations economy down the toilet at the drop of a pin. The Nazi Party pumped a lot of money into the economy and the corporations were indebeted to the Party. Hitler had more control than you give him credit for.


A revolution in a capitalist society, yes.

Please explain how Hitler can be seen as a revolutionary.
Define revolution.

He was a political prisoner, an avid spokesman for his party and the people of Germany (no matter how distorted) and he tried to push out the government along with the Friedkoprs in a putsch, which in German means Coup. He wasn't just another right wing involved with the military like Pinochet or Suharto, he was a bottom feeder, a man who did rise up from lowly ranks. In a sense he was revolutionary, but for all the wrong reasons.


Of cource there were workers who supported Hitler, but the working class was not his base. The large majority of the workers supported either KPD or SPD.

Also in 1932 KPD was gaining on Hitler, only between 31th of July and 6th of November KPD increased with almost a million votes from 14.34% to 16.86% while NSDAP decreased from 37.27% to 33.09%. SPD lost one percent and landed on 20.43%. The Reichtag Fire came very timely for the nazis and KPD was banned, soon thereafter Hitler was appointed as chancellor.

Hitler lost a lot of support a few years in to his regin when it was clear that he prefered the interests of the monopolies over those who constituted his mass base. He also sided with the pressian generals over the SA and killed the SA:s leadership.

I am not talking about Hitler but Nazism and Fascism as a whole, which did have a solid working class base even if it was not in the majority.


First on the big corporations and monopolies supported Hitler because he would deal with the communist threat, his SA-oxes would vipe them of the streets. Thats fantastic! But later on they realised that Hitler was more than an useful idiot. Hitler was more useful to them than any free-market party could ever be, he got rid of all opposition, he made sure that the workers worked long and hard and never interfered with the production. He also gave them a lot of huge and very profitable orders (preparing Germany for the biggest war in history) and through the war he gave them access to production and resources all over Europe.

They helped him and he helped them. A happy relationship.

I don't doubt any of this. But you really can't believe that they really called the shots and Hitler was just a pawn of big business?

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah, how dare he let his family's real actual experiences get in the way of how you want to view the Nazis. catch yourself on.

Well hold on. I am not saying that he should see them as innocent victims of Hitlers propaganda. The point was to understand your enemy better than just sheer hatred. That to me is just as reactionary as fascistic thinking.


...but you kept on with 'but they're really a kind of socialist, blah blah blah' .

:lol: I never said they WERE an actual kind of socialist. I said they BELIEVED themselves to be an actual kind of socialism. The argument I was trying to have was that its pointless to try and dismantle their ideology as not being socialist by presupposing Marxist ideals. You can't do it. It's impossible because they never began from that approach anyways.

Theirs is a very strange and twisted ideology with no logical or historical basis whatsoever. It is like they just invented a new ideology from scratch and distorted history in the process. They're like the Mormons of the politically ideological world.

[Yehuda Stern]

You have misinterpreted 'handiwork' as 'just' punks smashing up Korean shops. Decades earlier, Nazis were 'just' smashing up Jewish shops and synagogues (and, well, Jews). Your 'just' is offensive enough - as if racist attacks on immigrants are just a trifle. More offensive than that is that you don't even seem to remember that there was a holocaust. It didn't even enter your mind that when people speak of fascists' handiwork, they are referring to that.

To me and others in this thread who are repulsed by your sympathy to these fascists, you refer to as "Marxist reactionaries" whose thinking is "just as reactionary as fascistic thinking." To our reactionary thinking, you counterpose "poor white kids" who consider themselves to be socialists.

You then proceeded to speak of Hitler as a "a political prisoner, an avid spokesman for his party and the people of Germany." To this you had added that he did this in a 'distorted' way, which means as much as supporting Poland's crushing of the working class in 1981 despite seeing the regime as 'distorted.' You referred to him as a "revolutionary, but for all the wrong reasons" (whatever that means). You then say that neo-Nazi ideology is "a new ideology [invented] from scratch."

So, to sum it up:

1. You consider Marxist anti-fascists to be reactionaries, but you think neo-Nazis are socialists, are at least have some socialist thinking. Hitler himself you glorify with the title of 'revolutionary.'

2. I don't think you're a holocaust denier, as you did accept that my relatives are dead. However, you really do prefer to ignore that there ever was a holocaust. You don't accept that I have any right to bring them up in a debate on the regime responsible for their murder. You also don't conceive of the holocaust as the handiwork of the Nazis, and you believe neo-Nazism started from scratch and thus presumably has nothing to do with the holocaust.

Now - why, indeed, would any of us believe you are condoning Nazism?

[PRC-UTE]

Well hold on. I am not saying that he should see them as innocent victims of Hitlers propaganda. The point was to understand your enemy better than just sheer hatred. That to me is just as reactionary as fascistic thinking.

These two statements that you have to understand the fascists objectively (I agree and do so) and one shouldn't hate them because that's reactionary(!?) do not logically follow.

I both hate the fash and understand them. I understand for instance that prior to their seizure of power the Nazis did not have much support within the working class. I also understand that they did not have to even campaign in regions such as Saxony to increase their vote there amongst the rabidly conservative protestant peasantry. I understand that the program of fascists, as Mussolini put it, is to break the bones of democrats.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

It's pretty plain to me that Hitler's National Socialism was far from the meaning of socialism as it has been conceived and widely promoted by self-identified supporters. The nationalism and racism of the Nazis strike me as both in direct conflict with the internationalist and egalitarian aims which socialism is centrally associated with.

Still, I meet plenty of people on the right, especially right-libertarians, who want to make a link between Nazism and socialism, mostly on economic grounds. Were the Nazis economically socialist? I don't imagine they were, but does anyone have knock-out facts or arguments which show that the Nazis were far from being socialists, economically or otherwise?

I hate to simplify the complex arguments about Socialism, but I use these two criteria when dealing with identifying political systems.

Is the system primarily market or planned? Most economies are mixed, but lean heavily in one direction. If they are primarily planned, then they are socialist. If they are not primarily planned then they are market economies. This could mean capitalist, but it also could mean syndicalist. When all things are tallied, the majority of the Nazi economy was control, even if indirectly. This would mean they are Socialist

The second criteria, do they view the site of social conflict as internal or external? Marxists, anarchists, and communists of all stripes see the problems of society as internal to the society itself. These systemic problems must be over come for progress to occur. However, reactionaries tend to see problems as externalized. For them, the problems come Jews, communists, and foreigners. For them, these external enemies must be overcome before progress can be made. Clearly, the Nazis were of this second variety. Hence the term Nationalist.

Using this criteria we can see that National Socialism is truth in advertising. It exists as an abomination undesirable to nearly everyone. Even so, we should recognize it is socialist in the barest sense.

[RadioRaheem84]

So, to sum it up:


1. You consider Marxist anti-fascists to be reactionaries, but you think neo-Nazis are socialists, are at least have some socialist thinking. Hitler himself you glorify with the title of 'revolutionary.'Neo-Nazis are not socialists. I was just saying that they believe themselves to be socialists and I didn't know that 'revolutionary' was a glorious title.
I don't mind you hating them for their beliefs if you understand them. But it seems like you don't understand them and even your petty attempts to weren't enough. You just want to plain out hate.


2. I don't think you're a holocaust denier, as you did accept that my relatives are dead. However, you really do prefer to ignore that there ever was a holocaust. You don't accept that I have any right to bring them up in a debate on the regime responsible for their murder. You also don't conceive of the holocaust as the handiwork of the Nazis, and you believe neo-Nazism started from scratch and thus presumably has nothing to do with the holocaust.What the fuck are you saying? You're delusional and a piece of shit for insinuating that I believe any of the trash you just posted. I said that it was not cool to bring up your dead relatives as a way to say that I should see their handiwork. I know what they've done. My point was to look at their ideology from a rhetorical perspective.



Now - why, indeed, would any of us believe you are condoning Nazism?Piss off. You're just an emotionally unstable tool. Seriously, you added nothing to this debate.

[RadioRaheem84]

These two statements that you have to understand the fascists objectively (I agree and do so) and one shouldn't hate them because that's reactionary(!?) do not logically follow.No. Again more misrepresentation of what I said. I am not big on hating for hating sake, and I believe that if you want to hate the Nazis, you should really understand what they're all about. What I am really referring to is more Neo-Nazi then the historical Nazis of the early twentieth century.

I really don't think that you get Fascism and offer more of the same stuff I hear from many people on the left; presupposed ideas of Marxist ideology and comparing that with Nazi practices. I go with what they hoodwinked the people with, their rhetoric, the stuff they put on pamphlets. But all you guys seem to do is dismiss that as nothing but propaganda, and that in practice they were the total opposite. I don't see it that way, and that is a very Marxist historians way of seeing it. I believe that they believed their rhetoric (that they were socialists), and that in practice they had to succumb to practical measures of repression because their ideology wasn't practical.


I both hate the fash and understand them. I understand for instance that prior to their seizure of power the Nazis did not have much support within the working class. I also understand that they did not have to even campaign in regions such as Saxony to increase their vote there amongst the rabidly conservative protestant peasantry. I understand that the program of fascists, as Mussolini put it, is to break the bones of democrats.And the point of that is what? That just because they were anti-democratic, they were hostile to some elements of the working class that they didn't toot the Fascist horn, that then that makes them less socialist/syndicalist in their eyes? They reconciled the two ideas of repression and socialism/syndicalism (corporatism). I know that may be a big no-no for you but then again I take you for a sane person, and you have to understand that Fascism caters to emotion over reason and is pretty illogical.

[RadioRaheem84]

You have misinterpreted 'handiwork' as 'just' punks smashing up Korean shops....Your 'just' is offensive enough - as if racist attacks on immigrants are just a trifle.

Well I was referring to Neo-Nazis. And no I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I meant that the violence of Neo-Nazi skinhead gangs should not cloud your mind into understanding their overall ideology. They have a method to their madness. I wouldn't stop trying to objectively understand Islamic extremists just because they commit horrible acts.


To me and others in this thread who are repulsed by your sympathy to these fascists, you refer to as "Marxist reactionaries" whose thinking is "just as reactionary as fascistic thinking." To our reactionary thinking, you counterpose "poor white kids" who consider themselves to be socialists.

I don't appologize for feeling sorry for poor white kids duped into racist gangs. I am sorry but they need outreach too. And you are a fucking reactionary! Look at how you lunged your javelin at me because I attempted to explain facscist ideology. I was just reiterating what a Neo-Nazi told me and the stuff I've researched and you're going ape shit!


You then proceeded to speak of Hitler as a "a political prisoner, an avid spokesman for his party and the people of Germany."

He was arrested for attempting to overthrow the government and establish a right wing one. He was arrested for this attempt. He was a political prisoner. I think that you're mistaking my use of the term 'political prisoner' as something grandiose and only bestowed upon good people.


To this you had added that he did this in a 'distorted' way, which means as much as supporting Poland's crushing of the working class in 1981 despite seeing the regime as 'distorted.'

You're fucked up in the head. I never mentioned this and I don't know how you connected what I said with this. I don't support the crushing of any working class populace. Secondly, by distorted, I meant that he could've made his party non-nationalist and non-racist and nixed the right wing elements in favor of democratic socialism. He had a chance to join other parties and be a "true" revolutionary but chose a horrid path.


You referred to him as a "revolutionary, but for all the wrong reasons" (whatever that means).

A right wing revolutionary. Similar to the Islamic Revolution in Iran. NOT A GOOD REVOLUTION.


You then say that neo-Nazi ideology is "a new ideology [invented] from scratch."

No idiot. I meant Fascist and Nazi ideology altogether is a hodge podge of different ideas mixed together and thrown into a pot. From its birth it was devoid of good historical perspective, full of illogical emotional ramblings, and strong national creed. It took some syndacalist ideas and stretched them to a nonsensical screed. That's why its so hard to pin it down.

Yeshuda, seriously. You're out of your league here. Do you have anything relevant to add or are you just going to shit bricks everytime I state a fact?

[Oswy]

I hate to simplify the complex arguments about Socialism, but I use these two criteria when dealing with identifying political systems.

Is the system primarily market or planned? Most economies are mixed, but lean heavily in one direction. If they are primarily planned, then they are socialist. If they are not primarily planned then they are market economies. This could mean capitalist, but it also could mean syndicalist. When all things are tallied, the majority of the Nazi economy was control, even if indirectly. This would mean they are Socialist

The second criteria, do they view the site of social conflict as internal or external? Marxists, anarchists, and communists of all stripes see the problems of society as internal to the society itself. These systemic problems must be over come for progress to occur. However, reactionaries tend to see problems as externalized. For them, the problems come Jews, communists, and foreigners. For them, these external enemies must be overcome before progress can be made. Clearly, the Nazis were of this second variety. Hence the term Nationalist.

Using this criteria we can see that National Socialism is truth in advertising. It exists as an abomination undesirable to nearly everyone. Even so, we should recognize it is socialist in the barest sense.

I disagree. Socialism, in narrowly economic terms, is focused on the means of production, distribution and exchange being in the hands of the community, or at least operating in their interests. I don't think that Nazi Germany was in any sense pursuing economic policy which was aimed at the community's best interests at all. Indeed the Nazis were bent on marginalising and attacking certain sections of the community - such as Jews, Gypsies, the disabled, homosexuals, socialists and so on. This is why I think seeing Nazi economics as socialist is an error. We might suggest that the Nazis pursued 'statist' economics, but that's not the same as socialist economics.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, maybe everyone is misinterpreting you. Maybe everyone else is wrong. Or maybe really I'm not emotionally unstable and no one here is distorting anything you say - maybe we understand exactly what you say, and you should change your fucking attitude.

[RadioRaheem84]

As I remember correctly, Yeshuda, I was a bit more defensive of Israel than you were last time we debated. I am no Nazi sympathsizer and I resent that you would even consider that I am.

[Yehuda Stern]

So, wait, are you trying to make me take your pro-Zionism as a sign of you being progressive in any way? It just shows that you are a reactionary. Many ex-fascists and ex-Nazis, and not exs as well, support Israel. Again - what does that make you?

[RadioRaheem84]

Lord, you can sure stretch something I say into anything you want. I am not a Zionist. Our discussion was based on Zionist-socialism which I didn't totally disparage. I am for the Israeli people's right to exist, just not in th way of displacing or oppressing the Palestinians.

What is with you? You've totally taken everything Ive said and turned into something negative.

[Yehuda Stern]

There's not really much stretching done here. You support the self-determination of Israel -> you are pro-Zionist, and I have already shown that you are very soft on neo-Nazis.

[RadioRaheem84]

A Pro-Zionist that's soft on Neo-Nazis? :rolleyes:

You've shown nothing, Yeshuda.

[PRC-UTE]

A Pro-Zionist that's soft on Neo-Nazis? :rolleyes:

You've shown nothing, Yeshuda.

it's not a logical contradiction at all. Many Loyalists in the six counties of "northern" Ireland are both rabidly pro-Israel and well friendly with neo nazis. the BNP even has Jewish membership now because they're opportunistically jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon.

________

back to the issue of the nazis not being socialist: they want to portray themselves as socialist to attract some workers who are alienated from capitalism. that's why it's an especially important myth to dispel.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh lord. You guys are fucking with me right? You actually believe that I am soft on Neo-Nazism and am lock step all for the state of Israel? :rolleyes:

[PRC-UTE]

Oh lord. You guys are fucking with me right? You actually believe that I am soft on Neo-Nazism and am lock step all for the state of Israel? :rolleyes:

We're not saying your pro-Nazi. We're asking you to consider how your arguments come across.

[RadioRaheem84]

I will consider them but at the same time I was just reiterating what I was told by one of them. Anyways, I will learn next time to use the terms 'revolutionary' and 'political prisoner' as positive connotations instead of neutral ones.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Still, I meet plenty of people on the right, especially right-libertarians, who want to make a link between Nazism and socialism


To a right lib nazism was a totalitarian state based ideology that viewed the state as the centre of the universe and subordinated all economic activity to the states aims.

To them the only difference between communism and nazism was that communism nationalised everything, whilst nazism only nationalised a few things, used the state as a whip to steer the economy and had racist aspects.

Since both put the state above the market and said that the state was synonomous with the people {in one way or another} they should be considered the same.

I dont agree with their view, but I have to say, I wouldnt like to go back in time and live under Stalin, Hitler would have been worse, but not by much.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I disagree. Socialism, in narrowly economic terms, is focused on the means of production, distribution and exchange being in the hands of the community, or at least operating in their interests. I don't think that Nazi Germany was in any sense pursuing economic policy which was aimed at the community's best interests at all. Indeed the Nazis were bent on marginalising and attacking certain sections of the community - such as Jews, Gypsies, the disabled, homosexuals, socialists and so on. This is why I think seeing Nazi economics as socialist is an error. We might suggest that the Nazis pursued 'statist' economics, but that's not the same as socialist economics.

I'd ask you to consider my two claims more carefully in conjunction. You'll notice you said that Socialism focuses on
the means of production, distribution and exchange being in the hands of the community, or at least operating in their interests.

That roughly fits my definition of socialism if you understand my second claim. That is to say, the only "community" was that of the Aryan Brotherhood. So with in that internal community, there was socialism. However, Nazism remains a perversion of society because they externalized the contradictions of society. A society is attempting capitalism without capitalism when it has internalized socialism with externalized contradictions. It universally leads to grossest and most brutal forms of imperialism.

[Oswy]

I'd ask you to consider my two claims more carefully in conjunction. You'll notice you said that Socialism focuses on

That roughly fits my definition of socialism if you understand my second claim. That is to say, the only "community" was that of the Aryan Brotherhood. So with in that internal community, there was socialism. However, Nazism remains a perversion of society because they externalized the contradictions of society. A society is attempting capitalism without capitalism when it has internalized socialism with externalized contradictions. It universally leads to grossest and most brutal forms of imperialism.

But reducing your argument to an 'internal community' both negates the ethos of socialism - which has as its aim the proving for the whole of a society - and also means that any sub-group in a society could be prioritised and still be evidence of 'socialism' in your logic. Under your reasoning a government which sought only to cater for the aristocracy could be socialism if it were defended as the 'true community'. You're not convincing me here. I think it's fair to identify Nazism as being 'statist' but not 'socialist'.

[Yehuda Stern]

You have been answered already. Not only are many pro-Zionists today are allied with neo-Nazis or are neo-Nazis themselves, but historically Zionists have collaborated with all the worst anti-Semitic fascists and pogromists, and carry a great deal of responsibility for the extent to which the holocaust was able to annihilate European Jewry.

Again, I'm not saying you're Nazi or a fascist. I'm saying you're very soft on Nazis and apparently on Zionists as well, an attitude which contrasts sharply with your condemnations of Marxists and anti-fascists.

[Glenn Beck]

RadioRaheem84, don't blame others for your own obtuse attitude and inability to express yourself properly. You've done nothing but come off as an asshole with your unnecessarily abusive manner of addressing other people. You have the balls to dismiss other people's arguments as emotive when practically every post you've made has a "Fuck you" "You're fucked" "What the fuck" "You idiot" etc. You really overdo it, you can't just bandy about insults both profane and political and especially call people "reactionaries" and not expect a strong reaction and a disinclination to listen to your arguments. When you call someone a reactionary you are saying that they are a backward counter-revolutionary element that is entirely ideologically in the wrong. When you equate Marxism with being reactionary, as you did, you are making a pretty weighty statement. If that's what you really mean, then back it up, otherwise you are just being inflammatory. It's a great way to have yourself no longer be taken seriously. Even if you do really mean that the way Marxists and other anti-fascists deal with fascists is reactionary, you're breaking the cardinal rule of constructive criticism with the whole "you ARE..." as opposed to "what you DID is...".

Also on a semi-off topic note I'm really interested in what Yehuda said about Zionist collaborating with Fascists, anti-semites, and pogromists. Seeing as you reside in Israel and are presumably of Jewish descent when you say that Zionists were complicit in the Holocaust I'm sure as hell interested, can you provide any links elaborating on these claims or maybe yourself do so?

[Yehuda Stern]

The Zionists were most definitely complicit in the holocaust. The main responsibility naturally lies with the Nazis, but in many cases where Zionists could choose whether to lead uprisings against the Nazis, or alternatively make deals with the Nazis to strengthen their position in Palestine, they always chose the latter, most notoriously in Hungary.

As for sources, try taking a trip to the history section of the Neturei Karta website. They're orthodox Jews who take the traditional religious Jewish position that Zionism is heresy and is counter to all the traditions of Judaism. They publish many intimate details on the role of the Zionist leaders in collaborating with many anti-Semitic movements.

Even better is the book Zionism In the Age of Dictators by Lenni Brenner, an anti-Zionist classic. A google search will get you to that and later on, to another interesting book, the Iron Wall.

The ISL also has a long document on the question called Marxism Against Zionism, but it has yet to be translated into English.

For more information, feel free to PM me.

[PRC-UTE]

The Zionists were most definitely complicit in the holocaust. The main responsibility naturally lies with the Nazis, but in many cases where Zionists could choose whether to lead uprisings against the Nazis, or alternatively make deals with the Nazis to strengthen their position in Palestine, they always chose the latter, most notoriously in Hungary.

As for sources, try taking a trip to the history section of the Neturei Karta website. They're orthodox Jews who take the traditional religious Jewish position that Zionism is heresy and is counter to all the traditions of Judaism. They publish many intimate details on the role of the Zionist leaders in collaborating with many anti-Semitic movements.

Even better is the book Zionism In the Age of Dictators by Lenni Brenner, an anti-Zionist classic. A google search will get you to that and later on, to another interesting book, the Iron Wall.

The ISL also has a long document on the question called Marxism Against Zionism, but it has yet to be translated into English.

For more information, feel free to PM me.

that's invaluable info. thanks mate

[Djehuti]

Myth: Hitler was a leftist.
Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's 'socialist' (to them) because of state intervention.

I'd dissect how the capitalist state always encourages a favorable environment for the exploitation of labor, and how socialists wish to abolish these relations in production by putting the people that work those tools in a position of political power. The Nazi's greatest threat WAS the KPD - which is why they annihilated them first. They had a correct understanding of the nature of fascism, which made them their worst enemy.

Of course, the "Nazism is socialism" argument is shared by a cabal of petit-bourgeois basement-dwellers that write on their blogs about how butthurt they are on Ron Paul not getting elected. I don't think most people (especially workers) think ideologically - on the contrary, they think on the basis of their immediate class interests.

[Wanted Man]

When you equate Marxism with being reactionary, as you did, you are making a pretty weighty statement. If that's what you really mean, then back it up, otherwise you are just being inflammatory. It's a great way to have yourself no longer be taken seriously. Even if you do really mean that the way Marxists and other anti-fascists deal with fascists is reactionary, you're breaking the cardinal rule of constructive criticism with the whole "you ARE..." as opposed to "what you DID is...".
Exactly. This guy is asking for these responses himself. What's interesting is that the SA themselves also claimed to fight against red "reaction". And hey, they were also "revolutionaries" who really believed in socialism, right? Their ramblings were a little nutty, but they support a wholly syndicalist ideology... :rolleyes:

[Reclaimed Dasein]

But reducing your argument to an 'internal community' both negates the ethos of socialism - which has as its aim the proving for the whole of a society - and also means that any sub-group in a society could be prioritised and still be evidence of 'socialism' in your logic. Under your reasoning a government which sought only to cater for the aristocracy could be socialism if it were defended as the 'true community'. You're not convincing me here. I think it's fair to identify Nazism as being 'statist' but not 'socialist'.

Ok, let's try this a different way.You can't stop people from self-identifying. For better or worse (it's worse), the Nazi identified themselves as National Socialists. Rather than engage in difficult and some what obscure ideological struggles, let's just concede they're shitty fucked up version of socialism is something no good socialists, anarchists, Marxists, or communist want. Even supporters of capitalism have to certain capitalists are fucked up and shitty, like Pinochet. Let's just build the ideological apparatus to distinguish between what's good and bad and leave it at that. Nazi's fail because they externalized the contradictions of society. I think that's sufficient to condemn them and ensure they bare no relation to communists, anarchists, and good socialists.

[Valeofruin]

The Nazis were metaphysical theists, Socialists are materialists.

To nazi's having a 'scientific' view of the world was 'Jewish Materialism', and threatens the 'purity of the German race'.

If you believed in Marx you were a Jew and got sent to a camp, no questions asked.

if thats not anti-Socialist i don't know what is.

they 'socialised' the means of production amongst the german race, not the working class. This puts them on the opposite end of the table as anyone who calls themself a genuine Socialist.