More importantly, the point remains:
If you are on the receiving end of it, they differ in what way exactly?
Also:
We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens…
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare…
The State is to care for the elevating national health…
For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.
From the 25 Point Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party
i think you should read some serious history about the so-called “brown revolution”, because the “direct control by the state” you refer to was not what you apparently think it was.
btw, socialism is not about “direct control of the state”. it’s about direct control by society.
not all socialisms advocated this kind of control by the state and many non-socialists ideology did.
[quote]More importantly, the point remains:
If you are on the receiving end of it, they differ in what way exactly?
[/quote]
i don’t know, ask IG Farben, Krupp, Benz or Volkswagen how bad this “socialism” has been for them.
[quote]kamui wrote:
i think you should read some serious history about the so-called “brown revolution”, because the “direct control by the state” you refer to was not what you apparently think it was.
btw, socialism is not about “direct control by the state”. it’s about direct control by society.
not all socialisms advocated this kind of control by the state and many non-socialists ideologies did.
[quote]More importantly, the point remains:
If you are on the receiving end of it, they differ in what way exactly?
[/quote]
i don’t know, ask IG Farben, Krupp, Benz or Volkswagen how bad this “socialism” has been for them.[/quote]
Ah, so the main difference is that not EVERYONE is miserable.
Could it be said then that national socialism is superior to sowjet socialism?
[quote]orion wrote:
Nazi Social Control
(a) Control of mass media. All the means of communication were monopolized by the government. The press and the cinema had to show pictures glorifying the Nazi movements. The Ministry of Propaganda, in the hands of Dr. Goebbels, worked to build up the popularity of the Fuhrer.
(b) Control of education. Education, from kindergarten to university, was a toll for indoctrinating the young. Boys (10-18 years old) were sent to the Hitler Youth, girls (10-18 years old) to the Hitler Maidens. School textbooks were re-written along Nazi lines (e.g. race study was emphasized). University professors were required to wear swastika and take an oath of allegiance to Hitler.
(c) Crushing of discontent. Hitler also made use of the S. S. (Hitler’s elite body-guard) to execute many of his political opponents and put them into the concentration camps.
Economic Re-organization
An economic re-organization of Germany was also undertaken.
(i) The Labour Policy:
(a) All labour unions were abolished by a decree of July 14, 1933. The Labour Front was set up instead. Both employers and employees joined it. According to the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government.
(b) The employees were forbidden to strike. In future, if they had any dispute with their employers concerning wages and conditions, they had to refer them to the Labour Trustees.
[Go Top]
(ii) Nazi Economic Policy:
The goal of the re-organization of the economy was to achieve German self-sufficiency (Autarky). In September 1936, a Four-Year Plan was launched. It was intended to make Germany self-sufficient in coal, iron, steel and other basic raw materials and improve the economy by initiating public works and financial aid to industry and agriculture. After 1935, Hitler also implemented a massive rearmament programme.
Hitler’s economic policy did solve the problem of unemployment. Unemployment dropped from 6 millions in 1932 to less than I million in 1936. The reasons were that:
(a) Many Germans were conscripted into the army.
(b) Many Germans found jobs in the huge public work projects, Hitler Youth, concentration camps and the Nazi party.
(c) Jews and married women were forced out of public service as far as possible, and so created many vacancies.
So they took complete control over the media and education and vowed to bring any company over 20 employees under their control, but they were socialist in name only?
Got it.
Also:
â??The party takes over the function of what has been societyâ??that is what I wanted them to understand. The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth. We must therefore develop branches of the party in which the whole of individual life will be reflected. Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no licence, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialismâ??not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper. It does not alter external conditions; no, it establishes the relation of the individual to the State, the national community. It does this with the help of one party, or perhaps I should say of one order.â??
Adolf Hitler
If we feel and experience this great era thus,â?? Hitler concluded, â??then we shall not be disturbed by details and individual failures. We shall know then that every road leads us forward, no matter how much it seems to go in another direction. And above all, we shall then maintain our passionate desire to revolutionize the world to an extent unparalleled in history. It gives us also a special, secret pleasure to see how the people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.â?? [/quote]
-
media: marx was pro-freepress, so sorry the nazi media policy is not marxist.
-
education: yes marx was for a public education for all, but he was not for a school system that thougt propaganda.
-
labour policy: do you think marx was against free labour unions???
but actually here you touch on something that really defines nazism as fascist not socialist. both workers and capitalist where member of the goverment union. This is class co-operation and is in direct conflict with marxist classwar. again thanks for proving my point orion :D.
open your eyes an see the obvious, marxism and nazism are in opposition in most cases: the national question, the class question, the state question, the race question and the female question.
[quote]Ah, so the main difference is that not EVERYONE is miserable.
Could it be said then that national socialism is superior to sowjet socialism?
[/quote]
no the main difference is that people are miserable for different reasons in both cases.
there is billions reasons to say that nazism was bad.
but Nazism being a socialism is not one of them.
you know, socialism may be bad, it is not the forename of all evils in this world.
if your libertarian ideology leads you to think that nazism was a bit better than stalinism because it was a bit more capitalist /less socialist, that just show how screwed this ideology is.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Ah, so the main difference is that not EVERYONE is miserable.
Could it be said then that national socialism is superior to sowjet socialism?
[/quote]
no the main difference is that people are miserable for different reasons in both cases.
there is billions reasons to say that nazism was bad.
but Nazism being a socialism is not one of them.
you know, socialism may be bad, it is not the forename of all evils in this world.
if your libertarian ideology leads you to think that nazism was a bit better than stalinism because it was a bit more capitalist /less socialist, that just show how screwed this ideology is.
[/quote]
I do indeed think that Chiles military dictatorhips and Salazars and Francos fascism was not as bad as socialism.
I also think that fascism, socialism, communism and progressivism all have the same roots, they are a backlash from the ruling ideology of the 19 th century, classic liberalism.
You can argue the finer points all you want, but in the end all utilitarian etatism ends up looking about just the same so can bundle them up and call them socialism because, as Hitler seems to have seen clearer than you, there really is no need for state ownership of the means of production when you can socialize people.
Also, for florelius, who wrote that:
True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt’s: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine”. For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?
…
This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.
…
Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time… We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry
Of course you can google it, but it would be much more fun if you took a wild guess.
[quote]I do indeed think that Chiles military dictatorhips and Salazars and Francos fascism was not as bad as socialism.
I also think that fascism, socialism, communism and progressivism all have the same roots, they are a backlash from the ruling ideology of the 19 th century, classic liberalism.
You can argue the finer points all you want, but in the end all utilitarian etatism ends up looking about just the same so can bundle them up and call them socialism because, as Hitler seems to have seen clearer than you, there really is no need for state ownership of the means of production when you can socialize people.[/quote]
yes, you can say that “in the end”, all totalitarism are the same. and you call even call them socialism, if you want.
but if you do, you will be unable to understand the specifics of nazism. its volkisch component.
the volkisch ideology was not a backlash from classic liberalism. it was a broader backlash from universalism, humanism and rationalism.
nazis didn’t fought a “war of the classes”, like socialists did.
they fought a “war of the races”.
it was “blud and boden” against all the abstract concepts of modern politics.
hence their fascination for axe wielding barbarians and horned gods.
all socialisms (utopian socialism, saint-simonism, fourrierism, proudhonism, marxism, social democracy, social liberalism, etc) belongs to the rationalist and positivist paradigm.
in a way, they are even ultra-modern and ultra-rationalist conceptions.
in other words :
nazism and socialism are both pathologic.
if socialism is a neurosis, nazism, on the other hand, is a psychosis.
btw
your quote is from Marx, in “on the jewish question”. interesting read.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/OAK---Marxism-in-America----Video.html?soid=1102905912381&aid=qYibscDslJ8
This is some of the nonsense that Stewart and Colbert are talking about[/quote]
that guy doesnt know marxism very well, I doubt he have ever read the communist manifesto or other writings of him, and what the fuck does hitler( the biggest antimarxist ever ) have to do with marxism.
[/quote]
Well, Hitler was about as anti-Marxist as the Pope was anti-Lutheran.
Schisms are the worst.
[/quote]
Nice analogy. Two sides of the same totalitarian coin.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/OAK---Marxism-in-America----Video.html?soid=1102905912381&aid=qYibscDslJ8
This is some of the nonsense that Stewart and Colbert are talking about[/quote]
that guy doesnt know marxism very well, I doubt he have ever read the communist manifesto or other writings of him, and what the fuck does hitler( the biggest antimarxist ever ) have to do with marxism.
[/quote]
Well, Hitler was about as anti-Marxist as the Pope was anti-Lutheran.
Schisms are the worst.
[/quote]
If you dont recognize wikipedia, find me another objective article from a source you like better, but for know this will do. It clearly states that nazisme is not even close to marxism. It says what I have said on this forum all along that nazism and fascism are a mix of different ideologys with a rather strong racist and totalitarian streak. One point thats made in the article that I have read in my text in political philosophy, is that the nazi definition of socialism is very different from the the marxist one. If you ask I can qoute you the pharagraph from the textbook if you like.[/quote]
Well, thank God real live “Marxian” socialism never had racist, totalitarian or anti-semitic streaks.
Who was it again who had 4 year plans and who had the 5 year plans?
I always seem to forget.
No, really, they were totally different.
[/quote]
please provide some evidence for racist marxists?
you know that marxist are proletarian internationalist, and because of this they have solidarity with all workers wherever they are and whatever they skintone is.
trotsky, marx, bernstein and others where semits. Are you calling them selfhating jews?
[/quote]
Do you not know of the mass murder the Soviet Union perpetrated on its own citizens on the basis of race, nationality, religion and any other excuse?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As for racism:
Well, there was the Holodomor, the resettlement of the Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachai,
Meskhetians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Armenians, in other words, non Russian minorities were specfically targeted.
[/quote]
You left out the Ukrainians and we all know what happened to them.[/quote]
Que?
What do you think a “Holodomor” is?
[/quote]
Something from Harry Potter?
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, for florelius, who wrote that:
True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt’s: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine”. For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?
…
This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.
…
Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time… We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry
Of course you can google it, but it would be much more fun if you took a wild guess.
[/quote]
Do you think this qoute = that marx where an antisemit, when he himself where a semit? I dont really dont understand what marx is getting at here, but I dont think he was talking about extermination of jews. If you see he`s last sentence it shows the abstract form of this qoute. he basicly says this: make the jews free and you will be free from them, but offcourse what this realy means I dont know…
btw: this qoute is no evidence that nazism and marxism are familiar. as I allready have said they are worlds apart on most questions. This should be obvious for almost everybody except neoliberalists like you. On this forum there have been two marxist aslong as I have been here, me and ryan.p. Have me or him ever said anything that shows that we are racist, antifeminist, nationalist, anti free labour union, immigration sceptic etc.
If you bother answer this in a honest fashion you will see that its not marxist that are closest to nazism, but other political groups. a hint: rightwing populists among others.