The Kapp Putsch was a Freikorps coup attempt following the German Revolution. Many of Hitler’s Beer Hall Putschers had been involved in the Kapp Putsch.
prediction: government grows…no matter who gets elected.
For the people who like to appeal to history, there has never been a government in history that has ever restrained its own power - even governments that go through the masturbatory process of creating constitutions to restrain their own power always try to acquire ever more power.
To talk about “what if” is silly and naive if one thinks it will be any different than what has come before.
Obama’s deranged Catholic mentor, Father Michael Pfleger:
“I don’t think there is any group or religion in America that has done more for the African-American male than the Nation of Islam. I feel the real problem is, America doesn’t know how to handle Louis Farrakhan or the truth,” Pfleger told The New York Times.
Sporting a hoodie himself, Pleger challenged Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and unspecified other gun laws as “crazy, racist laws.” “Jesus wore a hood,” Pfleger cried out from the pulpit. “Is he suspicious?”
Pfleger had been close to Obama ever since the young Obama first arrived in Chicago as a community organizer. Obama also seems to have been close to Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. Obama, then taking a break for campaigning for his bid for state senate, attended the Nation of Islam’s Million Man March in Washington in 1995.
Pfleger knew of what he spoke. Indeed, candidate Obama advertised his endorsement from Pfleger in his presidential bid. According to a profile of Barack Obama’s religious faith that ran in the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004, it was Pfleger that was credited with helping the young Barack develop a “moral compass.” “He really came here with a very strong passion about how we can change things, and he understood the churches as being a vehicle for doing that.”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
prediction: government grows…no matter who gets elected.
For the people who like to appeal to history, there has never been a government in history that has ever restrained its own power - even governments that go through the masturbatory process of creating constitutions to restrain their own power always try to acquire ever more power.
To talk about “what if” is silly and naive if one thinks it will be any different than what has come before.[/quote]Ours was the best shot so far. Nothing could be more “masturbatory” than the belief that man can exist without the civil magistrate. You are correct though that government will grow here no matter who’s elected.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
FTW - I’ve discussed this a lot. You can’t talk about Nazism as a “movement” without looking at its history. After WWI Germany was subject to Communist/Marxist/Anarchist revolutionary uprisings.
Apart from the obvious reasons - Lenin(unleashed by the German General Staff on the Russians), the Russian revolution, defeat in the war, mass unemployment - they were also faced with some two million demobilised soldiers - the Versailles treaty restricted the German Army to 50,000 men and the army decided to retain the General Staff and no one else - they wanted to keep a nucleus around which they could rebuild the Army via conscription.
So with mass unemployment, 2 million demobilised soldiers and Communist/Marxist/Anarchist insurgents the Weimar Republic created Freikorps groups from disbanded soldiers to put down the Communist/Marxist/Anarchist insurgents. They put down the German Revolution and killed Rosa Luxemburg.
One particular disbanded Corporal was employed by the Army as an intelligence operative to monitor some of these groups. He found a tiny Socialist Party called the German Workers Party. It had a handful of members. He took over - infused it with his own ideology - German nationalism/volkism, Vienese anti-Semitism and used his oratory skills to build it into a political force.
He brought with him Freikorps nationalists. The Party remained a Nationalist Socialist party until the Night of the Long Knives when the SA was snuffed and a deal with General Staff old schoolers, armaments and corporate cronies(e.g. Krupp) and frightened Weimar “social Democrats” was solidified.
All industry became largely nationalised for all intents and purposes due to the rearmament for war and the wartime economy. Private industry was entirely directed by the state towards rearmament and war. It was a socialist economy - corporate/military alliance after the Night of the Long Knives notwithstanding.
Nazism was and for all intents and purposes remained a socialist movement in as much as these terms can be used meaningfully.[/quote]
As you know this whole nazi movement was very complex. From what i could determine the freikorps groups had been around in Germany for a very long time. I am no historian but its clear to me that Hilter was as you pointed out against, the communist and the workers movement and social democrates since he held that these organizations where made up of Jews and communist. Again oversimplying the workers movement was coop-opted, by Hitler.
I think it would definitely help to understand national socialism and its strong leadership in Hitler as right wing fascist movement. We definitely are not talking about a left wing socialist movement with the aim of improving the life conditions for working class people. We know Hitler saw no value in democracy and workers councils, he held again that these two aspects of Germany were manned by “blockheads”, namely Jews.
I just want to acknowledge again that this was a complex historical development and hard to do justice on this site… I know I can’t do that. But I do know that Nazism was a right wing fascist phenomenon.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
FTW - I’ve discussed this a lot. You can’t talk about Nazism as a “movement” without looking at its history. After WWI Germany was subject to Communist/Marxist/Anarchist revolutionary uprisings.
Apart from the obvious reasons - Lenin(unleashed by the German General Staff on the Russians), the Russian revolution, defeat in the war, mass unemployment - they were also faced with some two million demobilised soldiers - the Versailles treaty restricted the German Army to 50,000 men and the army decided to retain the General Staff and no one else - they wanted to keep a nucleus around which they could rebuild the Army via conscription.
So with mass unemployment, 2 million demobilised soldiers and Communist/Marxist/Anarchist insurgents the Weimar Republic created Freikorps groups from disbanded soldiers to put down the Communist/Marxist/Anarchist insurgents. They put down the German Revolution and killed Rosa Luxemburg.
One particular disbanded Corporal was employed by the Army as an intelligence operative to monitor some of these groups. He found a tiny Socialist Party called the German Workers Party. It had a handful of members. He took over - infused it with his own ideology - German nationalism/volkism, Vienese anti-Semitism and used his oratory skills to build it into a political force.
He brought with him Freikorps nationalists. The Party remained a Nationalist Socialist party until the Night of the Long Knives when the SA was snuffed and a deal with General Staff old schoolers, armaments and corporate cronies(e.g. Krupp) and frightened Weimar “social Democrats” was solidified.
All industry became largely nationalised for all intents and purposes due to the rearmament for war and the wartime economy. Private industry was entirely directed by the state towards rearmament and war. It was a socialist economy - corporate/military alliance after the Night of the Long Knives notwithstanding.
Nazism was and for all intents and purposes remained a socialist movement in as much as these terms can be used meaningfully.[/quote]
As you know this whole nazi movement was very complex. From what i could determine the freikorps groups had been around in Germany for a very long time. I am no historian but its clear to me that Hilter was as you pointed out against, the communist and the workers movement and social democrates since he held that these organizations where made up of Jews and communist. Again oversimplying the workers movement was coop-opted, by Hitler.
I think it would definitely help to understand national socialism and its strong leadership in Hitler as right wing fascist movement. We definitely are not talking about a left wing socialist movement with the aim of improving the life conditions for working class people. We know Hitler saw no value in democracy and workers councils, he held again that these two aspects of Germany were manned by “blockheads”, namely Jews.
I just want to acknowledge again that this was a complex historical development and hard to do justice on this site… I know I can’t do that. But I do know that Nazism was a right wing fascist phenomenon.
[/quote]
But they did improve he living conditions of the working people.
That was one of the reasons for his success.
I agree with silee here in that it is important to distinguish nazism from the traditional socialist labour movements, this two ideologys and movements dont see eye to eye on many questions, like gender relations, race, nationalism/internationalism, militarism etc. However Hitler where influenced by Lenin and he`s ideas on party structure and the like. I will say nazism can be described as the perverted culturally conservative cousin of socialism.
[quote]silee wrote:
As you know this whole nazi movement was very complex. From what i could determine the freikorps groups had been around in Germany for a very long time.
[/quote]
No, as I stated above they were formed after the First World War by the German Army.
Not correct. Some consider the forerunner to Nazism to be George Valois’ Cercle Proudhon formed in 1911. Valois aimed to “unite nationalists and left-wing anti-democrats(i.e. Communists)” against “Jewish capitalism.” Valois had been a member of Charles Maurras’s Action Front and broke away to concentrate on uniting the “working class.”
Both groups were influenced by the Marquis de Mores who founded an anti-capitalist, anti-Jewish party that terrorised Jewish shops and offices in the 1890s. Mores killed a Jewish officer during the Dreyfus Affair then fled the country. He was murdered by his guides in the Sahara where he was on an expedition to “unite France to Islam.”
But I explained above that “right-wing” and “left-wing” are meaningless terms in talking about Nazism and fascism. I also explained why fascism cannot be viewed as a “movement” as it evolved over time. So you disagree with that? You’ll go on the explain why presumably…
Left/right whatever. National Socialist German Workers Party that had a 25 point Socialist platform.
I don’t even know how to respond. You say you “know that Nazism was a right wing fascist phenomenon.” But weren’t we discussing what “fascism” is? Your meaningful contribution is that fascism was a fascist movement? Okay great. Thanks.
[quote]
No, as I stated above they were formed after the First World War by the German Army.[/quote]
Actually, the first Freikorps were formed by Frederik II of Prussia in the middle of the 18th century.
Then, a second generation of Freikorps fought the Frenchs during the Napoleonic Wars.
The post-WW1 freikorps that were formed by veterans of the German Army during the period of Weimar Republic were actually the “third generation” of Freikorps in Germany.
A few things :
-I would like to know where this quote
[quote]“unite nationalists and left-wing anti-democrats(i.e. Communists)” against “Jewish capitalism”[/quote] comes from.
I suspect that’s not Valois’s own words.
[quote]
Valois had been a member of Charles Maurras’s Action Front and broke away to concentrate on uniting the “working class.”[/quote]
After a anarcho-syndicalist youth, Valois became some kind of left-wing monarchist with distributism (the catholic social and economic doctrine) as a goal and revolutionary syndicalism as a mean.
At some point, Valois spoke favorably about Mussolini’s fascism, as he thought it was in line with “the italian genius” and a positive attempt to “invent a modern state”.
He even tried to emulate it and created his own short-lived fascist party, the Faisceau, in 1925.
As such, Valois can be described as an “importer” of fascism in France.
On the other hand, i haven’t read Valois’s books and articles for many years, but i can’t remember reading one positive thing about nazism in them.
What i do remember is that, at the end of his life, after he broke away from the Action Francaise, he became an active member of the Resistance, was arrested by the Gestapo and died from typhus at Bergen-Belsenn concentration camp.
Some (Zeev Sternhell) are certainly right to consider the Cercle Proudhon as a forerunner to italian Fascism, but one could find better forerunners to nazism than George Valois.
The point is you won’t find them in “socialist” micro-parties, but in volkisch sects.
in a second post, because this part is not specifically directed against Sexmachine :
That’s right, nazism and fascism are complex phenomena. As such, they can not be analyzed with simplistic dichotomies like “right vs left”.
But, a fortiori, they can not be defined as “forms of socialisms”. The “socialist vs non-socialist” dichotomy is even more simplistic than the “right vs left” one.
I understand that, for a conservative or a libertarian, it has some cool polemic value to be able to say that Obama is “a socialist, just like Hitler”. But this kind of stretch doesn’t add anything to any discussion, either about Obama, or about Hitler.
Obama is a well-intentioned technocrat.
The worst and the most dangerous kind of technocrats.
That’s evil enough.
There’s no need to invoke all the ghosts of the european history.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Actually, the first Freikorps were formed by Frederik II of Prussia in the middle of the 18th century.
Then, a second generation of Freikorps fought the Frenchs during the Napoleonic Wars.
The post-WW1 freikorps that were formed by veterans of the German Army during the period of Weimar Republic were actually the “third generation” of Freikorps in Germany.
[/quote]
I was not aware of that. However, that is a technicality. The Freikorps of 1918 had nought to do with the earlier Freikorps. The Freikorps of 1918 was established solely to suppress the Communist insurgency.
The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton.
You would be wrong.
Notes Chapter 2:
-
La Droite revolutionnaire, 1885 - 1914: Les origines francaises du fascisme by Zeev Sternhell (Paris: Seuil, 1978), pp. 391-98. See also Sternhell, Birth, pp. 86, 96, 123-27
-
La Droite revolutionnaire Valois, quoted in Sternhell p. 394
I’m not trying to pin fascism on France. It’s very complex. Precursor fascist movements can be found in Italy and Russia as well. However, as I’ve said before Italian fascism and Nazism have to be studied both together and apart.
You are missing the point. The Nazis were heavily influenced by ideas of Oswald Spengler - yet he never endorsed Nazism and called Hitler a “dangerous burden on the road to politics.” The Nazis and fascists absorbed ideas from Nietzsche. Yet, they quoted him out of context in political pamphlets. In Italy, Gaetano Mosca, a strong influence on the early Italian fascists, was one of the first Senators to oppose Mussolini. It’s really not as simple as saying this guy opposed fascism therefore his ideas had no influence on the fascists.
Agree.
Elements of socialism were merged with Volkism/French Nationalism as early as the 1880’s. The preconditions weren’t right for such a movement at the time however. The First World War brought about the preconditions. Psychology played an important part also - Gustave Le Bon etc.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Obama is a well-intentioned technocrat.
The worst and the most dangerous kind of technocrats.
That’s evil enough.
There’s no need to invoke all the ghosts of the european history.
[/quote]
Just happens to be in an Obama thread - I think the thread just got derailed. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Obama is the political heir of Adolf Hitler or anything.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A rare occasion just occurred. Me and dis guy ^ agree.[/quote]
Fucking amazing that I agree with Puss, Guess there is a glimmer of hope for you
[quote]
I was not aware of that. However, that is a technicality. The Freikorps of 1918 had nought to do with the earlier Freikorps. The Freikorps of 1918 was established solely to suppress the Communist insurgency.[/quote]
I agree.
but it means that there was already an old paramilitary tradition with a quite complex history (and sociology) in germany in 1918. Which is a quite interesting fact per se.
[quote]
The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton.
Notes Chapter 2:
-
La Droite revolutionnaire, 1885 - 1914: Les origines francaises du fascisme by Zeev Sternhell (Paris: Seuil, 1978), pp. 391-98. See also Sternhell, Birth, pp. 86, 96, 123-27
-
La Droite revolutionnaire Valois, quoted in Sternhell p. 394[/quote]
Thanks.
[quote]
I’m not trying to pin fascism on France. It’s very complex. Precursor fascist movements can be found in Italy and Russia as well. However, as I’ve said before Italian fascism and Nazism have to be studied both together and apart.[/quote]
True. Especially the bolded part.
[quote]
It’s really not as simple as saying this guy opposed fascism therefore his ideas had no influence on the fascists.[/quote]
Yes. But Valois was influenced by fascists, not the other way around.
He became interested in fascism in 1922, when fascist ideology was already formed
If you want to find french “forerunners” to fascism, you will find them in the older generation. Daudet, BarrÃ?©s, the “integralists”. And amongst socialists : Sorel.
But it would be harder to find french forerunners to nazism. Early converts, like Doriot, Deat or Jouvenel, yes. But forerunners… well, i suppose you could probably find some “proto-nazis” amongst breton nationalists, but they had no influence on the nazis themselves.
[quote]
Elements of socialism were merged with Volkism/French Nationalism as early as the 1880’s. The preconditions weren’t right for such a movement at the time however. The First World War brought about the preconditions. Psychology played an important part also - Gustave Le Bon etc.[/quote]
True. And it’s an important point.
Nazism’s ideological roots are far older (and deeper) than what most people think. (and they are substantially older than the ideological roots of fascism).
To Florelius :
if you want to understand the complexity of the ambiguity of the relationship between “the left”/the progressive movement and nazism, you should check the history of Monte Verita community.
If one wanted to look into the ideological underpinnings of Nazism one would have to look the works of Sombart who was a proponent of what was then called “Kathedersozialismus”, which I will very loosely translate as Academic Socialism.
A “Katheder” was basically the platform a professor would stand on while holding a lecture.
One of his main thesis was that Jews, being basically a landless people where destined to be one of the main proponents of capitalism because they lacked allegiance to any fatherland and primarily thought in terms of business relationships and had developed a sort of distanced and emotionless way of doing business a true German could never hope to emulate.
Just for shits and giggles I highly recommend reading some of his stuff, because if you read the anti globalism manifestos of today you will know where they got most of their stuff from.
Everytime I hear that some form of capital produces things whereas others simply greedily aim to make more money or that those greedy companies dont care about allegiances to countries I hear “juedisch raffendes vs deutsches schaffendes Kapital” and his tirades regarding Anglo Saxon cosmopolitans who, horribile dictu, invested where it would yield the most profit.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ours was the best shot so far. Nothing could be more “masturbatory” than the belief that man can exist without the civil magistrate. You are correct though that government will grow here no matter who’s elected.
[/quote]
And yet everyday I require nothing from the civil magistrate.
Huh…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And yet everyday I require nothing from the civil magistrate.
Huh…[/quote]
Sure you do - if someone hits your car on the road today and breaks it to pieces, you will require the civil magistrate.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And yet everyday I require nothing from the civil magistrate.
Huh…[/quote]
Sure you do - if someone hits your car on the road today and breaks it to pieces, you will require the civil magistrate.[/quote]
Is versus ought, numbskull. Just because they want into my business does not mean it is necessary. Learn the difference and why it is an important distinction.
The only time I interact with the “magistrate” is when they want something from me.
And no, I won’t ever call the cops.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is versus ought, numbskull. Just because they want into my business does not mean it is necessary. Learn the difference and why it is an important distinction.[/quote]
Heh, it isn’t an is-ought problem. The issue is that the civil magistrate exists because you need it to seek a remedy when the car crash occurs. Even if you don’t need it right now, you will.
Yes, in the event of a car crash, you will, just like you dutifully pay your taxes, hypocrite.