They ran roughshod over communist movements and anyone remotely resembling them, not to mention they allied exclusively with anticommunists
>What are the biggest divides that separate Nazis/fascist from socialist.
Nazis privatized industries, shrank welfare protections, smashed the German labour movement, enjoyed the support of Germany's largest corporations, and sent communists, social democrats, and trade unionists to concentration camps.
a planned or dirigsme economy is not socialist
what seperates right wing economies from leftwing is who in control
if companies and the state are managed by petit borg or porkie than its capitalism
if its managed by a group of workers then its socialism
Nazism is a capitalist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie where porkies own society while socialism is a dictatorship of the proletariat where the workers own society. Nazism is arbitrarily violent against workers while socialism is violent against the old repressive order of society.
Before people go into China comparisons, China isn’t fascist per se because it’s not the absolute tyranny of reactionary finance capital. That’s not to say their revisionism and class collaborationist tendencies are good by any stretch of the word, but the equivalency is a false one
didn't mean to sage
>>1070118>but the equivalency is a false one
Good thing I never drew an equivalency then.
Very good. I would also add that Nazis believe that history and politics are primarily motivated by a struggle between "races" or ethnicities, whereas socialists believe it is the struggle between classes.
I don’t believe you have, but this is something that I’ve seen before by other posters
meanwhile in japanese fascism where fascism was associated with militaristic developmental state or even in italian fascism where fascism is associated with muh development of productive forceshttps://www.amazon.com/Place-Sun-Marxism-Fascism-Revolution/dp/0813337828
like i dont believe china is fascist but this seperation is easily countered by other faces of fascism.
the actual thing that makes china not fascist is that china follows the marxist lenin gov science/ideology, and politics. also the traditional petit and porkie got eliminated and massacred
Yeah the Nazis were actually Socialist that's why they murdered Socialist and Communist in droves it was because they weren't Socialist enough. Great bait post.
I'm not baiting. I'm asking for feedback on how to explain this in laymans terms to people. Of course I know they are 100% not socialist or leftist but im not good at articulating that to a person when discussing it with them in political discourse
I've appreciated the replies I've gotten so far giving explanations
I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.
In the first place economically state capitalism is immeasurably superior to our present economic system.
In the second place there is nothing terrible in it for the Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and thc poor is assured. . . .
To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.
Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).
At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state. This also is ABC. And history (which nobody, except Menshevik blockheads of the first order, ever expected to bring about “complete” socialism smoothly, gently, easily and simply) has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism. In 1918, Germany and Russia had become the most striking embodiment of the material realisation of the economic, the productive and the socio-economic conditions for socialism, on the one hand, and the political conditions, on the other.
Literally, the only people who pull that shit out are lolberts. They aren't arguing in good faith and you probably wont be able to convince them otherwise.
Example: Cringe YouTuber "Razorfist" (Leather Biker Twink in his 40s) made a video on that exact subject claiming every side in WWII: America, Imperial Japan, Italy, Nazi Germany, the USSR, The United Kingdom, etc, were socialists.
yes but unfortunately the common man falls for this bs
so we gotta debunk it
Fascism is like a conspiracy of gangsters and imperialist warmongering right-wing ultranationalists with the assistance of big business to impose a dictatorship to run the country like a business while throwing leftists in prison and any other outgroups they blame an economic and social crisis on so it's like putting Elon Musk, Alex Jones and Michael Flynn (for the Americans) into a blender.
The superficial aesthetic similarities to socialism is the result of a reaction to socialists and communists developing into a mass movement and using propaganda to motivate and inspire people. Fascism on the other hand is pure propaganda, manipulation, violence and domination of culture and everything they say are lies. It's an extreme idealist and relativist ideology that believes in nothing and everything at the same time.>>1070128
Keep in mind the author of that book was a huge Julius Evola fan, a member of a bizarre eugenicist society, and translated some of his works from the Italian and then got tenure at U.C. Berkeley… mysteriously… at the peak of the student protests against the Vietnam War while creating this theory that Ho Chi Minh and Mao were ackshually fascists. He was later rewarded for his career at U.S. Marine Corps University banquets.
Extract from Fascism in Germany by Robin Blick (ik he's a trot but his work covers a lot of useful detail):>24 March: The stock exchange boom continues unabated. AEG shares have climbed from 30 to 37 points under Hitler’s rule, while IG Farben have improved from 96.5 to 133.75. Siemens are up from 121.5 to 155.5, and Hamburg America lines, from 16.75 to 23.5. Business is good in the Third Reich. But for the proletariat, crushed by the sheer ferocity and scale of the Nazi terror, and betrayed by its leaders, life is a nightmare. A foreign correspondent describes their agony in what was once proudly known as Red Berlin:>"In the working-class quarters the inquirer will be told in almost every street that the Nazis murdered so and so living at number so and so; they have beaten so and so living round the corner. Almost all workers who were at all prominent in the local organisations of the Socialist or Communist parties, or who were known in their district as keen politicians, are in danger of their lives. Many are in hiding, they cannot emigrate with their wives and families, having no money even to pay the fare. The German working class is now dominated by an intense mass emotion compounded of fear… and a controlled fury. A hatred such as never existed before in Germany has been aroused…" >And on the Bourse? ‘Firm and active… with the improved political situation in Germany.’
has any socialist movement in any country ever instigated a stock market BOOM upon coming to power?
for all their talk about "globohomo finance capital", bankers clearly aren't afraid of the fash
Why do you believe that?
talk to your average republican or average democrat and they will say reeeeee socialism is when gov does stuff
I believed that as a lib, but I never believed that fascism=socialism. I thought the soviet union was misguided and what happened if your socialist society became to “authoritarian”, but otherwise was more of bad execution of a good idea than the intended outcome
huh well ive ecountered multiple libs that say fascism=communism
tho tbf there are a bunch of libs that are against this too
Granted I’m south asian diaspora and thus grew up with a relativelh positive view of Russia
>>1070128>china follows the marxist lenin gov science/ideology, and politics. also the traditional petit and porkie got eliminated and massacred
translation : the ruling party has communist in the name and a rich person got arrested once
These do not negate the argument put forth
ah yes anon which is why if you go into china, the viewpoint of the chinese communist party is somehow not more in line with marxist leninism than fascism
which is why if you read the books by deng and other communist leaders you see things appealing more to italian fascism than marxist doctrine
or if you look at china reforms it was somehow more based on italian fascism than the burkharian nep
tell me more anon
The anon probably thinks that because china isn’t an example of good socialism, which shouldn’t be controversial, that it’s actually just fascism
this exactly, youve got to be politically illiterate to think china is fascist
the guys linking carl schmitt as a gotcha :/
translating once more : this guy claimed to be a communist
You avoided everything i linked and responded in seconds.
Their economics were basically a precursor to Rhine capitalism of West Germany. The more blatant racist aspects just were later removed. Or am I wrong to make this comparison?
and once again doesnt negate the argument>>1070235
well for one hes one thinker in a huge number of theorists that influenced the ccp. And once again i dont see the ccp promoting something like italian fascism or nazi germany
i will read your posts but i have researched this before and found nothing but exaggerations
and the thing is i know about this shit before >>1070243
they also got rid of elements of central planning too
From one of your articles
“The appropriation of Schmitt by thinkers on the ostensible Left has garnered special attention. Already in the 1950s, Frankfurt School theorists like Otto Kirchheimer were being designated as “Left-Schmittians.” Diagnosticians of neoliberalism take interest in Schmitt’s characterization of modern democracy as an “economic administrative factory…a façade,” concealing a “demagogic plutocracy.” In Empire (2000), arch post-Marxists Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt invoke the German jurist in their critique of the “juridical structure” of global governance regimes. Matthew Specter observes that Schmitt’s wartime and postwar writings “prefigure postcolonial critiques of international law and Eurocentric world order.” Schmitt did argue that “the concept of humanity” is an “ideological instrument of imperialist expansion in…ethical-humanitarian form.” Thus, in 1999, at the height of the “unipolar moment,” Chantal Mouffe proposed that “Schmitt’s thought serves as a warning against the dangers of complacency that a triumphant liberalism entails.” Finally, in the wake of 9/11, Giorgio Agamben and countless others enlisted Schmitt’s notion of the “state of exception” to indict the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war on terror. ”
I listed all types of article and research paper. You can pick and choose and say some are shit you can't take away the idea entirely of Carl Schmitt influence in china and say it's entirely made up.
Quoting one you think is faulty does not remove the rest.
>>1070139>claiming every side in WWII: America, Imperial Japan, Italy, Nazi Germany, the USSR, The United Kingdom, etc, were socialists.
I need a link to believe that.
Carl Schmidt is studied in a lot of countries, that doesn't make them fascist.
>>1070261>Refuses to engage
I'm not doing this. You Search for one quote in assortment as a debunk you disagree with of the idea as a whole that he is influential in china. As if that removes all the rest.
the ccp is an organization that is influenced by multiple thinkers most of them probably not fascist
<but let me tell you how this one supposedly fascist influence posons the entire well
No I selected and highlighted one quote that you haven’t read because if you did you’d understand why the whole “China is influenced by fascists” crack doesn’t really matter
Importantly other marxists (cucked westoid marxists but marxists all the same) make reference to Schmitt’s ideas at least in part. Singling out China for it and using it to suggest some latent fascism is ridiculous.
Again, China isn’t that great when it comes to being socialist, since they’re the bare minimum commanding heights of the economy kind of socialist. But they aren’t fascist
even schmitt isnt considered an actual fascist and is considered more of a generic "revolutionary reactionary" than antything by some intellectual circles
>>1070272>even schmitt isnt considered an actual fascist
He is absolutely a fascist was supportive of Nazism as well as exposed plenty of antisemitism in his days
they were doing a good ol' inb4
In hindsight I was rarted to mention China here
kinda complicated for as you see here in the mainland
A critical reception of his use in a Chinese context does also exist. These differences go together with different interpretations of Schmitt's relation with fascism. While some scholars regard him as a faithful follower of fascism, others, such as Liu Xiaofeng, consider his support to the Nazi regime only as instrumental and attempt to separate his works from their historical context. According to them, his real goal is to pave a different and unique way for the modernization of Germany—precisely what makes him interesting for China. Generally speaking, the Chinese reception is ambivalent: quite diverse and dynamic, but also highly ideological. Other scholars are cautious when it comes to Schmitt's arguments for state power, considering the danger of totalitarianism, they assume at the same time that state power is necessary for the current transition and that a "dogmatic faith" in liberalism is unsuitable for China. By emphasizing the danger of social chaos, many of them agree with Schmitt—beyond their differences—on the necessity of a strong state.
tho i need to find a better source
I don’t accept that argument, but the point I was making is that other thinkers in the marxist tradition address and incorporate ideas that were discussed by Schmitt, if for the purposes of making wholly new critiques and Ideas.
Because Schmitt basically discusses a body politic outside of liberalism, which is commensurable, but still not identical to a positive view of fascism (positive meaning devised by proposing a unique perspective, not as in “good”)
Stop spamming your video. It's garbage.
You yourself aren’t wrong though, there are thinkers who look at Schmitt the way you describe them to do. It’s just that coming from them, I think their perspective is incorrect
also fair enough and why do you think their perspective is incorrect?
Because my view of fascism and counterrevolutionary reaction is that the venn diagram is almost a circle. Not quite, but almost
ah fair enough after all the "conservative revolution" and all of its variants in germany did lead to the rise of the nazis and their ideology
Nazis don't identify as leftists. They are/were seated 8n the right alongside the conservatives in the Reichstag. They self identify as rightwing and hate leftists.
True, but misleading. They identify as being socialist and imagine being rightwing socialists.
broke: WWII was a war against fascism in which communism triumphed
woke: WWII was an inter-imperialist war, same as WWI
bespoke: WWII was leftist infighting
I think this is the video. I believe he calls Truman and Eisenhower Socialists too, but I can’t remember, it’s been a while since I’ve seen it.
You must start with our understanding of politics
More government = more tyranny = nazi = commie = more leftist
Less government = right wing = wild west = more freedom
i mean theres the shadow of oto strasser
and otto had uh interesting ideas
The issue is that the term "socialism" actually predates the term "communism," and while communist theory uses the term "socialism" in a particular way that is in conflict with the views expressed by these piece-of-shit nazis the nazis weren't bound to this usage and therefore wrong to use the existing term "socialism" in a more general way that encompassed their horrible project. Communists don't own "socialism."
goddamn I wish there was more english resources on japanese governance in manchukuo
You can trace socialist ideas back to feudal times and they will still deal with concepts like the abolition of private ownership and the distribution of goods according to need. Do you think this stuff is unique to Marx/communists or something? Socialism is incompatible with nazism, and Hitler's silly definition was only valid in his mind. It wasn't even a legit attempt, it's just a word he used to attract workers and left-leaning people.
>>1070789>capitalism good! usury bad!
He was spooked by petty bourgeois idealism
Do you know what private property is?
They privatised industries, rejected class struggle, killed communists of all persuasions, abolished democratic institutions that would serve the collective working class and they committed acts of imperialism and genocide.
Yeah, can you state your point?
>>1070105>What are the biggest divides that separate Nazis/fascist from socialist.
Nazis create class hierarchies, something that socialists want to abolish, and love sucking on their bosses. They lack sanity.
Good replies. Good info
The real question is how nazi can be considered leftist in the first place ? Unless you definition of leftism is some social security and some state intervention, there's nothing in national-socialism that is remotely leftist : the ideology is the epitome of anti-left.
leftism means democracy and egalitarianism
i think they can connect the dots with nazism
did the workers own the means of production?
and how many work hours did people work in nazi germany?
those are the two main ones i recall from the top of my head
Most conservatives/lolberts literally think the Nazis were socialist because they had word socialist in their name.
Rightoids created this meme that “left” and “right” are defined by the “size” of government. Size being defined by “how many laws does the government have” and vibes, for the most part.
Therefore, in their worldview, Nazis and Commies are both “Left Wing” aka “Socialist” because their governments supposedly were “bigger” compared to the Wild West frontier fantasy rightoids enjoy.
I like to imagine that burger conservatives believe that the president has a giant knob on his desk labeled "GOVERNMENT", which they can set from 1 to 11. Clearly when Joe Biden got into power, he cranked it all the way up which is why he's a communist.>>1074321>His tirade was about how a democratic system would have dragged down muh big personalities like them and eventually and inevitably it would also have dissolved any notion of private property and thus democracy = communism.
I knew Ayn Rand fans were already crypto-fascists, but this basically confirms that they share Hitler's exact views.
The fact that they were capitalist.
Self identification is a terrible way of judging someone's politics. Only look at their actions.
Just look at how many liberals consider themselves on the left for example.
>>1070522>WWII was leftist infighting
imagine the clowndom
Germany wasn't really centrally planned beyond pillaging for valuables and funding infrastructure though that's off top of my head to my recall. They had private businesses such as Fanta a subdivision that broke off from the Coca Cola company due to wartime for example.
who the fuck would i need to explain this to? most people intuitively understand they were far right
there were elements of central planning in the form of economic plans. basically the state wanted these things built and convinced the companies to follow through with these macroeconomic plans, by giving them subsidies in return. theres also the threat of competitors getting a gov contract which thus convinced firms to accept state contracts.
of course this wasnt microeconomic planning at all but just the gov saying oh we need more steel, we need more guns, we need more ammunition and etc so lets give the companies contracts to build them. The companies were pretty much the ones that built the factories and etc micro wise, its just the gov did ww2 dirigsme and directed them towards certain sectors by promising lots of funding
also the reason why i mentioned the central planning thing is because the guy behind the miracle of the rhine heavily criticized the nazi economy for having central planning mechanics
im not joking look it up
This is basic neoliberalism.
was that comment meant for this?>>1078167
and if it was okay i guess
As Goebbels famously said : "we have erased 1789 from history".
Clearly words having no meaning to rightoids is a long held tradition.
Nah. Nazis murdered socialists and commies because Hitler and Stalin had monthly chess games and Hitler kept losing.
Or maybe their was a lass that Hitler crushed on, but she was smitten by socialism, so Hitler took that too personally.
Stalin purged all rival communist movements such as the Trotskyists in "The Great Purge".
This is a secondary indicator at best since eliminating rivals is a trait of all authoritarian systems regardless of their position on the economic axis.
A primary indicator of what separates communism from national socialism, private ownership of capital would be my pick for this trait. Since no true communist government allows it because capitalism and communism are polar opposites and can not exist side by side without one being a parody of its true self.
Probably already said five times, but the only true answer is:
- Leftism doesn't exist.
- Nazis aren't socialists, and didn't even pretend to be after they assassinated the Strassers.
Anything really diverging from this is just coping mechanisms to rationalize a fundamentally broken framework, something any anti-capitalist should be embarrassed of.
>I'm talking about to a person who is not going to sit there and read long ass books you show them or studies how would you explain it.
This person isn't looking to be convinced, so first of all don't dance to their tune and try to "convince" them while they smirk and handwave every argument you throw at them. Turn the game around on them. When they quip that Nazis are leftists, demand they prove it. When they try explaining themselves, tell them they're wrong. Don't elaborate. Make them waste their time trying to justify themselves to you.
>>1091032>no UV bulb up the ass
I'll arbitrate this dispute quickly.
right for pointing out Nazi prevalence of private ownership was proof that they were not socialist, even though you then proceeded to post liberal cringe I could have taken straight from DailyKos.
Naxalite Flag anon >>1090961
was right for pointing out that thinking in terms of "libertarian vs authoritarian" and other political compass memes is retarded.
You are both correct on different counts. Now kiss and make up.
If you talk about authoritarianism, your mom’s a ho
It's not unique to Marx, yet neither is it universal to all pre-Marx socialists. Fourierists, for example, were creating companies where voting power was ascribed based on both capital contributed and hours worked, and they had private property and inheritance. That's obviously not compatible with a Marxist conception of socialism, and yet Fourierists are widely regarded as early utopian socialists. This term is bigger than your limited conception of it. I'm not defending Hitler or Nazi Germany at all, but they did a thing that was socialism in a general sense. It wasn't Marxism, nor did it claim to be. It let people extract wealth from corporations, but it was willing and able to replace those people if they didn't comply with the demands of the state, which they felt were for the welfare of the people.
There's also another YouTuber named TIKhistory who made a long-ass video explaining why the Nazis were socialists.
I usually just point out the fact that communist and fascist have been killing each other for the past couple of hundred of years. Though, it only does so much. As former lib the indoctrination and brainwashing is formidable
>>1102444>I usually just point out the fact that communist and fascist have been killing each other for the past couple of hundred of years.
To man, man is wolf. Do we say, therefore man is not man? Monotheists and Muslims have been killing each other for over a thousand years, but we understand that Muslims are also a type of monotheist.
i you want to survive you need at least a little collaboration, that said you can keep the "bourgeois" even if for me a leader of any side can be called "bourgeois" .
You can't build a stable country without good leader (nazi or commie i don't care)
that's why the only real poilitical views that seems highly irrealistic for are the full anarchist they just want global and constant chaos and that will never work .
We don't have to turn every descriptive claim into a hill to die on. Saying that the National Socialist German Workers' Party was socialist should be obvious and non-controversial. That doesn't mean it was a desirable party, nor that the Nazis were left-wing, nor that their movement reflects badly on those who use the term differently. Not all socialists are against class collaboration; to claim otherwise is to pull some No True Scotsman bullshit because you're too triggered to accept consensus definitions of words that include movements like Fourierism under the general banner of socialism.
because they werent
youre a fucking faggot
Unique IPs: 60