[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


>In Rainer Zitelmann’s book, "Hitler’s National Socialism", Zitelmann explains that Hitler's economic concepts regarding the relationship between markets and planned economies are controversial.
>Before 1933, Hitler's true position was kept secret. >He emphasized the need for secrecy in his economic plans for the pragmatic purpose of maximizing the possibility of gaining political power. >Thus, he presented himself as a supporter of private ownership in some speeches, while attacking capitalism in others, depending on his audience.
>His main aim was to reconcile the principles of competition and selection with a state-controlled economy.
>Hitler believed that the common good should determine individual benefit, rather than the other way around.
>Once he came to power, he diligently studied Stalin's government.
>His view of the Soviet economic system shifted from skepticism to admiration.
>He defended the Soviet system and even praised Stalin's economic planning.
>Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is confirmed by Wilhelm Scheidt's notes, where Hitler recognized the inner relationship between his own system and Bolshevism, considering it more developed and straightforward.
>By 1939, Hitler's intention was to expand state control of the economy, not reduce it, even after the war.
>Hitler believed that capitalism had run its course and predicted the survival of Fascism, National Socialism, and possibly Bolshevism in the East.
>In his last radio address, he stated that unrestricted economic liberalism had become obsolete.



Anon, how do you square that with the fact that the early NSDAP had within it a faction that was in favor of more state-run things and that the people of that faction were purged and murdered by the Hitlerists?


Fascists cared more about nation-as-species (darwinistically) than any economic consideration. I don't see why comparing and contrasting the largely pragmatic, unideological economic policies of such a party and the state it ran is particularly relevant, especially when their ideology is now, in the real sense at least, dead.
It'd be much more interesting to see how Darwin influenced fascists vs how he influenced Stalin (which he did, by Stalin's own admission), but for some reason nobody actually cares enough about analysis to look into that.
Were they purged for being too socialist, or for being pro 'nationalism for everyone' instead of imperial domination? I've heard conflicting views, and I think the distinction is important


>Rainer Zitelmann
this guy is prime gulag material. absolutely disgusting creature. he's literally making a living of bootlicking the upper class. also, he's full of shit on par with Failinger if not worse


It's literally just pure lies or lying through omission in an effort to make it look like:
fascism = communism.

Fucking Hitler was so big into privatization he literally coined the term; killed millions of communist in the Holocaust (like the ones in the government); and any nationalism was that of ᴉuᴉlossnW type, that being the state has the power to influence the company, so the state can maximize it's constant war approach, and any other operation of the company is headed by the original ceo that was given power despite being kicked out.

The most perfect example being the last text:
>his last radio address, he stated that unrestricted economic liberalism had become obsolete.
Nazi germany was pro capitalist, and pro profit motive – adding restrictions doesn't make it comparable to the communists motives – which being the end of commodity production; the end of the production of goods in the interest of capital.


File: 1694639760247.png (11.72 MB, 3780x4803, ClipboardImage.png)


guaranteed replies


If one considers Nazi Germany socialist for using dirigisme during a war, then one must consider the Allied powers just as if not more so; therefore, the word "socialism" loses all practical meaning.


File: 1694640564561.jpg (78.1 KB, 792x768, 7nvy7ozt0o161.jpg)

I remember hearing once that Hitler supposedly claimed in a dinner that the result of the five year plans Stalin introduced created an industrial goliath "greater than even the Reichswerke Hermann Göring."

Now, presuming this is real it's not entirely out of the ordinary and reflects the frankly bizarre relationship Fascism had with the USSR; it was equal parts realpolitik and also the arbitrary whims of the various Fascist dictators. ᴉuᴉlossnW, for example, claimed that Stalin had essentially created "Russian Fascism" or "National Bolshevism" during their initial years trading with one another. Funny enough I think ᴉuᴉlossnW even claimed that Stalin's own purge of his political enemies was not all that different from his, the difference was that Stalin being the Russian "Leader" was thus influenced by some "Mongol Spirit" and was reflected in him ordering mass executions, whereas Italians used the more "refined" and "civilized" method of forcing individuals to drink castor oil and shit out their innards in order to publicly humiliate them.

It should be noted that Fascists tried to apply at least some kind of bizarre "Fascist Analysis" to Stalin. For example, I believe it was Ribbentrop who excitedly claimed that, in fact, Stalin was a nationalist who was going to build a "Great Russia" of sorts. He elaborated (or maybe it was Hitler himself) that there was in fact a wedge within the Communist movement that on one side had Stalin as some sort of "modern day Genghis Khan" (the context in which it was in implied that was a positive thing) who would expand Russia's power and territory, versus Trotskyist "Internationalists" who sought to ferment global revolution and were part of some international Jewish Conspiracy. Essentially they saw "Socialism in One Country" as not altogether contradictory with what Fascists wanted, and Fascists themselves liked to think they were "pragmatists" who could take bits and pieces from liberalism or socialism to "make it work."

Hitler's own opinion on Stalin, while colored by the fact that he was on meth and would vasscillate wildly between one statement or another, was that himself, ᴉuᴉlossnW, and Stalin were the three most historically significant figures of the 20th century. Which, I mean, given the level of power Stalin was perceived as having within the USSR, makes sense from a Fascist perspective. "The Leader" figure in Fascism isn't just supposed to be a man, but the living embodiment of the Nation itself. While figures like Roosevelt were sneered at by some Fascists for having his power limited by democratic institutions, Stalin was seen as the "embodiment of the Great Russian Nation" who, victory or defeat, would still be known as a "Great Man" of history.

Finally, reading Molotov Remembers you'd get an interesting insight into the Third Reich's diplomacy. There were talks of a supposed alliance that the Bolsheviks hoped would buy them time to prepare for war. You'd have Hitler himself excitedly talk about how the USSR could have India (might be because of some weird "Eurasian Horde" ideas he had) as long as it let the Germans incorporate Romania into its sphere. A more clever man than me could probably draw a neat metaphor about Russia's place as either European or Asian from these frustrating debates over who gets what; Germany seeing Russia as a fundamentally "Eastern" Nation whereas Russia tried to orient itself towards the West.

The Third Reich's own diplomatic corps was desperate to avoid war, even at the cost of going behind Hitler's back. In the leadup to Operation Barbarossa, you had German diplomats desperately hoping if they could bring the USSR into the Axis Powers they could prevent a war Germany would lose. Ultimately the scheme failed, because Hitler saw Stalin as a titanic rival to be defeated, and any deal with the Reich wasn't worth the ink.


>Stalin and Hitler were the same
We’ve known this


Hitler praised everything from Islam to the British Empire to the America's westward expansion. He was, like many modern fascists, a fanboy for everything perceived to be strong/masculine with no regard for ideological consistency or coherence.


Stalin was BASED. Stalin's "dictatorship" was exaggerated by CIA. Stalin rejected his own cult of personality and viewed it as a relic of Russian peasant backwardness, but the party forced it on him anyways. Stalin wanted to form an anti-fascist alliance with the capitalist states of Europe, but they rejected his olive branch, because they were thirsty for the genocide of slavs, jews, roma, and the death of socialism in general. They allowed hitler to commit the holocaust to own stalin, and then at the last minute, when stalin bought time with the M-R pact, while fighting fascist Finland, those same capitalist states created a myth that Stalin and Hitler were best friends. Nothing is more devious, more reactionary, than the myth that Stalin and Hitler are twin dictators. You might as well be a holocaust denier and a nazi if you suggest this, so blind do you have to be to history.

Unique IPs: 12

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]