Both are Marxist? Huh?
Yes, Nazism/Fascism saw the failures of communism and thought they had a better way of making the system work. They recruited by sympathizing with communists and convincing them their way was a better method to get to same socialist utopia.
Marxās main premise was collective ownership/control of the means of production.
Communism: state control of the means of production
Nazism/fascism: State control of the entire society. They donāt run the company, they run you. If they tell you to do something with your business and you donāt they take you out back and shoot you.
āModernā Socialism: Strict guidance of the means of production by the state, major taxation and safety net programs. Several different flavors (Venezuela/CUBA vs Europe).
Do you have any examples of German business owners or managers in Third Reich Germany being punished for anything aside from not producing pornographic or communist material or exploiting or mistreating their workers or the general citizenry? I am aware that some crooked financiers wound up in labor camps but other than that I am am unaware.
Well I donāt know everything and I have no intention of arguing with you, as I do respect you, but I have no idea how the Hitlerās and the Naziās vision of a white Europe with free enterprise and entrepreneurship, working husbands, and housewives is anything like a socialist utopia that Marxists envisioned.
1 Like
āfreeā other than Jewish businesses? Or anyone the Nazis didnāt like? Or anyone who was denounced? Or Businesses with Jewish customers? Or any business with Imported goods? Or when they went to a socialist profit sharing scheme with the oil industry? Or the massive infrastructure and military debt spending taking contract control of most of the economy? Or the debasement of currency by the government printing massive amounts of money at a whim? Or the German program for slave labor in industry?
There was no free enterprise in Nazi Germany. Everything was subject to the absolute authority of the state up to and including your life. There was 100% regulation not only of business but of everything. What you sold, who you sold it to, what you wore, who you could hang out with, everything. The difference was organizational. Communism ostensibly gave the managing of the planned economy to the ācorrectā class of people, the worker. The Nazis gave managing of the planned economy to the ācorrectā race of people. That is at base a strikingly similar thing. Nazis had the advantage of being able to include successful business structure in the governmental managing of the economy. However, a guild running a planned economy through government authority and at the discretion of the Nazi political elite is still government control, not free enterprise.
Grant it, as Iāve stated, this structural difference manifested itself in some substantial differences in day to day management of the lives of people, but ideologically, they arenāt all that different. Planned economy, absolute governmental authority, unification of the world under the boot of the ācorrectā peoples. Either the German āraceā or the worker class. I think that what you may be neglecting is that communism was not the unification of all peoples as equal. It was the unification of all āworkersā as equals and subjugation of all other sub-peoples. Even in the ultimate communist āutopiaā they would have eliminated all the other classes. When you notice that, it looks not so different than Nazism.
1 Like
Stolen from a wiki. They let you own property so long as you did exactly what you were told to do with it. Kind of like China today.
Hitlerās views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that āwe are socialists, we are enemies of todayās capitalistic economic systemā,[13] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism āhas nothing to do with Marxian Socialism,ā saying that āMarxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.ā[14] At a later time, Hitler said: āSocialism! That is an unfortunate word altogetherā¦ What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.ā[12] The term that Hitler later wished he had used for his political party name was āsocial revolutionary.ā[15] In private, Hitler also said that āI absolutely insist on protecting private propertyā¦ we must encourage private initiativeā.[16] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[17] Shortly after coming to power, Hitler told a confidant: "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they canāt escapeā¦What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings".
Centrally planned economics, appeals to the Mother/Fatherland, cults of personality & a robust police state.
"Tomorrow, Fascists and communists, both persecuted by the police, may arrive at an agreement, sinking their differences until the time comes to share the spoils. I realise that though there are no political affinities between us, there are plenty of intellectual affinities. Like them, we believe in the necessity for a centralised and unitary state, imposing an iron discipline on everyone, but with the difference that they reach this conclusion through the idea of class, we through the idea of the nation. " -Benito Mussolini.
"It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism. Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from itā¦. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will. "
-Adolf Hitler.
There was a significant overlap. It is a modern notion that they were polar opposites.
2 Likes
Iām sure there was some overlap.
Itās also a modern tendency to state how similar they are when bashing socialism as a whole regardless of what form of socialism is being discussed, even if beneficial.
I would like to respond more when I can. I just want to say some things here.
-
I donāt know everything about National Socialist Germany, World War II, politics, economics, ethics, or the Soviet Union.
-
I believe most of what Iāve been taught about the above has been false!
-
Although I am Jewish and have some relatives who experienced the anti-Jewishness of NS Germany, I still donāt take every story about it hook, line, and sinker.
-
I am not democratic. Iād prefer a dictatorship, monarchy, or aristocratic democracy. Usually when I state this I get some snark response like, āAre you gonna be part of the aristocracy or the monarch/dictator?ā The answer is no! I am not skilled, talented or sophisticated enough to be that. Hence the monarchy/dictatorship: not everyone has a say unless they prove theyāre worth a shit!
-
Iām not obsessed with unbridled freedom or the ridiculous notion of equality.
1 Like
Defining any ideology is incredibly difficult, so I somewhat agree with this sentiment.
Knowing everything is impossible. So many records necessary for the endeavour have been destroyed. So we get best guesses on a lot of the blacker sides of both regimes.
Sadly, by about every estimable metric we have, the hyperbole is closer to the mark than the revisionism.
Candid admission. I cannot say I agree, but the candour is refreshing.
Given the above, Iād be gobsmacked if you were.
Your post made me think alot. This point could only be written by someone already in possession of unbridled freedom. We are taught about freedom of speech/religion/press etcā¦ as little kids in grade school. The teachers have to explain what oppression is because real honest to goodness oppression is rare in the US. The Bill of Rights almost seems quaint for someone raised in the US.
We couldnāt have a discussion about which leader sucks the most in China. The politburo would shut off your internet and be at your door that day. The Russians wouldnāt be nice if we had a āPutin Sucksā thread in that country. There are several countries on earth where being a Jew would mean persecution or death (from the government) to this very day. The NYT could not write a scathing Op Ed about the Swedish government if they were headquartered in Sweden. They could legit be charged with Sedition, in 2017.
Clearly people arenāt equal, ever. The government should treat people equally in regards to the law, or at least make an effort.
Most dictatorships arenāt meritocracies. Whoever grabs the power gets to keep it.
Honest question: Under which dictator would an RD fair the best? Not Noriega, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro. Honestly I think itās actually Hitler. The NAZIs had an obsession with health an fitness. What do you think?
@Basement_Gainz thatās correct. See link here: http://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=ojhe
Well we have a fresh one. I love the fair and unbiased approach that the situation got ugly between pro-trump marchers and protesters in black hoods showing up and actually causing the violence.
The part of interest starts @ 1:41, apparently itās the whole news broadcast. We live in interesting times. Right now itās probably safer to leave your house looking like a āBloodā or a āCripā than wearing a āMake America Great Againā hat.
Been a long time since Iāve been in a fist fight. Given all the bad crap that could happen in my life (jail time, manslaughter charges etcā¦) I hope I avoid them forever. With all the situational awareness and SD training thatāshe one place you wonāt find me.
Why would people even engage the trolls? Just let them spew their dumb stuff.
I think the culture war could become a real war if we arenāt careful. The cynical part of me says ālet itā. In the war between urban skinny jean SJWās and deplorablesā¦
My favorite part was the old man calling out the masked men. āWhy you hiding behind a mask? Are you a pussy or just ugly? The Viet Cong wore masks too.ā Savage.
2 Likes
You are spot on with this comment. Sadly I too feel thatās where all of this meddling and radical behavior by the left may lead.
Actually, traditionally the left- apart from hardcore communists and anarchists- has been less violent and more in favour of peaceful protest. That was until something fucking bizarre happened sometime in the past decade or so and the world went insane and we have āleftiesā who think deliberately provoking the russians is a good idea and rightwingers who say they want to defend important freedoms. I have no theory on what the fuck happened but it was clearly pretty serious.
That is a rather large chunk of the traditional left to be excising from the equation.
If I had to guess? Success. Nothing makes you shit the bed quite like getting everything you want and still being unable to usher in the happiness you thought youād get.
Not really- practically nobody is an actual communist anymore and the anarchists have always been a pretty small faction. I canāt be arsed to look this up, but I think itās very likely that the vast majority of lefties are actually fairly close to the middle of the road. Socialists rather than anything more hardcore.
What success? Obama could only be considered a left winger by the standards of you people across the Atlantic.
1 Like
What a world. Socialism isnāt hardcore left? Itās totally middle of the road leftism? Well, F-me.
3 Likes
He was hard hard left for the US. He was THE most left voting member of congress when he was there, for reference.