Nazi's and Communism???

[Nolan]

Armand Hammer supported Lenin.

He was only sympathetic to the USSR because he was of a Russian background and his father was a socialist. And he didn't fund Lenin as the nazis were funded.

[ComradeOm]

Can't believe I wasted time on this when even a cursory glance at the NSDAP's political programme should suffice

While the Nazis did receive funds, it was never the lion share of the total which was donated.

this of course changed by the early 30s...

You mean by which point the NSDAP had emerged as a major and viable political party?

Nobody here is suggesting that the Nazis were receiving the majority of the available corporate funding when they were a minor fringe party in the mid-20s. That's a ridiculous strawman. What is clear is that the party was availing of sizeable donations, from the likes of Hugenberg, during this period, and this increased significantly from the 1930s (particularly after the infamous Industry Club meeting) as the Nazis became serious contenders for power

Its no coincidence that this was about the same period that the reactionary elements of the German government (ie, the Prussian core around von Hindenburg) began to look to the NSDAP as a convenient source of popular support. Lots of decidedly anti-socialists came to the conclusion that Hitler would be useful to them. Strange sentiment to hold of a supposedly socialist, no?

true- the national socialists were not against "private property" as long as that property was used as directed by the Nazis. In other words, there was no difference.

What are you talking about? The Nazis both upheld and respected the right to own private property. They upheld it in the countryside (where land reform was not even considered) and in industry where the large state-directed conglomerates emerged through a process of perfectly legal mergers. Even during the war individual Nazis did not simply confiscate businesses in occupied lands but were forced to go into partnership with local owners and obtain shares through legal means

Do I really need to compare this with the Soviet Union?

[Kayser_Soso]

ComradeOm already pre-empted what I was going to say about big business and the Nazis. But to answer the OPs point, don't worry too much about the National Bolsheviks. Even their supposed historic ideology isn't much of an issue. Nazbols pretty much spend all their time making up posters with powerful imagery and dreaming about a Eurasian empire with Russia at the head. In other words, they are masturbating.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Didn't the proto-fascist dude say something about 'becoming slaves to the browns'....? Somewhere on page one?

Apart from the utter bullshit he's spreading, should this be at least a redirection towards OI?







FACT
Hitler privatized more companies while Churchill nationalized them. You call him leftist?

Here's the deal.
In Capitalism, Big Business is all powerfull, and government tries to keep out of BB's way as much as possible.

In Socialism, the employees (workers) have taken over controll over both government and economy, which they BOTH manage in a democratic way.

In Fascism, the BB no longer tolerates government, most often because it's about to crumble. Therefor Big Business isn't just all powerfull, BB cuts with the charade and directly takes over government.

[Kayser_Soso]

He was only sympathetic to the USSR because he was of a Russian background and his father was a socialist. And he didn't fund Lenin as the nazis were funded.

]

You might want to check up on this claim. Anti-Semites often say that Lenin was bankrolled by "Jewish bankers" such as Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., or Jacob Schiff. Actually what these bankers supported was the February Revolution and the provisional government. They withdrew support when the October Revolution took place.


As for National Socialism, my 2 kopeks(based on a lot of study of National Socialist literature I might add)- Government regulation of business does not equal nationalization much less socialism. People who believe in a separation between state and the private sector under capitalism are ignoring reality. In a situation of crisis, big business is willing to forego some rights on paper so long as they are assured of huge profits and protection from unions. This is precisely what the Nazis did. Sure the state had final word but when you think about it, this is true of nearly all capitalist nations. American arms manufactures for example, are not allowed to do business with North Korea or Iran.

One can talk about the Nazi policy of re-armament or public works but the fact is that the private industries were more than happy to carry out these projects for the Nazis because it proved beneficial to them.

Here is a good example of Nazi views on socialism:

“Do not let yourself be confused by the text of our posters … Of course there are catchwords like ‘Down with Capitalism!’, etc.; but these are unquestionably necessary, for under the flag of ‘German national’, or ‘national’ alone, you must know, we should never reach our goal, we should have no future. We must talk the language of the embittered socialist workmen. … or else they wouldn’t feel at home with us. We don’t come out with a direct programme for reasons of diplomacy” (Letter of Dresden Nazi Party leader to the industrialist Fritsche in Weimar, reprinted in Mowrer, Germany puts the clock back, p.150, cited in R Palme Dutt, op.cit. p.191).

[Bilan]

Can a mod move this to opposing ideologies, as one of the main posters has been restricted.

[Sasha]

moved to oi learning

[Nolan]

yes. Its not on point.

What I'm really trying to say is that the relationship between industry and the NSDAP was symbiotic, not "big government taking enterprise over against its will" as your ilk likes to pretend.

[Nolan]

]

You might want to check up on this claim. Anti-Semites often say that Lenin was bankrolled by "Jewish bankers" such as Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., or Jacob Schiff. Actually what these bankers supported was the February Revolution and the provisional government. They withdrew support when the October Revolution took place.

And what of Armand Hammer? He had no real reason for his cooperation with the Bolsheviks other than his background and some apparent interest in their social experiment.

Also the USSR had other deals, such as this one with Ford - but like I said, they were limited and the USSR was never joined at the hip with the west like the nazis were. And of course Lenin never had a portrait of Henry Ford on his wall like Hitler did.

[ComradeOm]

Also the USSR had other deals, such as this one with Ford - but like I said, they were limited and the USSR was never joined at the hip with the west like the nazis were. And of course Lenin never had a portrait of Henry Ford on his wall like Hitler did.

You may, or may not, be interested in Building Lenin's Russia which provides an interesting first-hand account of [edit:early] Soviet trade relations with the West

[Kayser_Soso]

And what of Armand Hammer? He had no real reason for his cooperation with the Bolsheviks other than his background and some apparent interest in their social experiment.

.

When I have free time I will check, because I have a suspicion he might have been supporting the February Revolution just like Jacob Schiff. Of course the Kaiser also supported Lenin with the hopes of knocking Russia out of the war.

[Bud Struggle]

You have to remember that in the beginning Fascism was some sort of experiment--and lots of investigated it never suspected that atrocity that it would later turned into. Now Armand Hammer's father was a first rate Russian socialist and he was named after the symbol of the Socialist party. Hammer just happened into making a lot of money and buying Occidental Petroleum by selling "medicinal" alcohol during Prohibition.

He was a staunch supporter of Richard Nixon as well as Lenin. In sum he was a one in a million American wildcard.

[Bilan]

You have to remember that in the beginning Fascism was some sort of experiment--and lots of investigated it never suspected that atrocity that it would later turned into.

Who exactly?
Being an experiment doesn't make it excusable, and doesn't change anything about those who support it.

Suppose that events such as the Holocaust never had happened.
That wouldn't change anything. It would not remove the responsibility of those who supported fascist movements, and funded them, bear.

As, even prior to the Holocaust, political intimidation through extreme violence was wide spread (e.g. Mussolini's Black Shirts); the destruction of the organs of democratic power were destroyed or subverted by the state (trade unions, parliaments, etc) and society was organised in an overt, violent manner to support the interests of the wealthy.
Had it not occurred, the naked, brutal form of this system would still be apparent and those who funded and supported it (Without being forced to) would still, and should still, be held accountable.

[RGacky3]

As, even prior to the Holocaust, political intimidation through extreme violence was wide spread (e.g. Mussolini's Black Shirts); the destruction of the organs of democratic power were destroyed or subverted by the state (trade unions, parliaments, etc) and society was organised in an overt, violent manner to support the interests of the wealthy.
Had it not occurred, the naked, brutal form of this system would still be apparent and those who funded and supported it (Without being forced to) would still, and should still, be held accountable.

Why is it personal resposibility and systemic failure for fascism, but just material conditions for Lenin and Stalin?

[Nolan]

Why is it personal resposibility and systemic failure for fascism, but just material conditions for Lenin and Stalin?

And the anarchists get to scream backstab.

[#FF0000]

Why is it personal resposibility and systemic failure for fascism, but just material conditions for Lenin and Stalin?

1) lol you're asking a left communist this
2) Italy and Germany were v. different from the USSR
3) Who said the USSR didn't suffer from sytemic failure? That's actually exactly what happened?
4) the difference was that destruction of democratic institutions was sort of the point of Fascism and the situation in the USSR was a result of a really shoddy and very chaotic state and tough choices being made in desperate times.

[Baseball]

What I'm really trying to say is that the relationship between industry and the NSDAP was symbiotic, not "big government taking enterprise over against its will" as your ilk likes to pretend.

But it was a takeover. Maybe there was not a formal legal takeover, but are you really going to demand that standard of Nazi Germany?

[Bud Struggle]

In both economic and political theory they were quite different, but in the real world the Totalitarianism practiced by Nazis and the Totalitarinasism practied by the Stalinists was indistinguishable.

[#FF0000]

In both economic and political theory they were quite different, but in the real world the Totalitarianism practiced by Nazis and the Totalitarinasism practied by the Stalinists was indistinguishable.

We had a massive thread where I explained why this just isn't true.

Also define Totalitarianism for us just to get that out of the way

[ComradeOm]

We had a massive thread where I explained why this just isn't true

There have been many threads on this topic (the latest one you refer to, and links to others, being here) but few of them are as baldly stupid as Bud Struggle's statement. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of either regime should know that they were far from "indistinguishable"