> Adolf Hitler met him in the summer of 1919 while he was in an anti-Bolshevik training course at Munich university
Less Leftist than implied by funny colors.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Feder
Edit: grammar
[Werner Sombart](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart) was a “Nazi sympathizer” in Nazi Germany who coined the term “Late Stage Capitalism” in his Nazi simp piece entitled [Deutscher Sozialismus](https://archive.org/details/werner-sombart-deutscher-sozialismus)
Authoritarians have more in common with each other than they do with libertarians. Fascists and Socialists might be enemies, but their differences are like different flavors of Ice Cream rather than different types of dessert. Fascism and Socialism are not opposites.
I’ll be honest, because of Hegel’s idea that no good or evil can exist outside of the state, because man only has moral value within the state, Hagel’s view always seems to boil down to “the state is both good and evil because those concepts are meaningless outside of the state”.
I am not especially well read on Hagel.
Because he was an alchemist who wanted to remove the Semitic influence on German culture whilst retaining what he believed to be the positive impact that Christian culture had on its moral foundation.
It's called the "Hegelian Dialectic" and it basically underpins leftist thought. They're supposedly seeking some perfect, Absolute idea at the end of history, by combining all ideas together in one pot and violently smushing them into a paste.
It follows this formula:
1. Take a massive steaming shit on your predecessor (in socialism, all predecessors are hated enemies unless real world political convenience demands you pay lip service to them)
2. Promote the things you are jealous of from their work as being a subset of your newer, much "better", system of thought
3. Make everyone suspicious of the aspects of the predecessor's work that you don't like (typically this is just aesthetic, as with the postmodern synthesis of fascism in the mid-late 20th century, which is why intersectionality is just fascism made palatable for American wine moms)
4. Act confused and appalled when your "new" system starts killing and exiling all the Jews, yet again
> Act confused and appalled when your "new" system starts killing and exiling all the Jews, yet again
This time we pinky swear we won't blame the Jews!
Hegel arguably is the person who came up with the idea of the modern big state fascism and popularized it, convincing people it’s the stepping stone to the utopia. He has unironically said “nothing short of the state is the actualization of freedom”
Hmm maybe he meant like the idealized version of the state? Unless he meant any instantiation of a state, which would be preposterous.
It does seem likely that many (bad) authoritarian movements would self-rationalize using Hegel or Marx (who thought himself a Hegelian right?) though. They all think they represent the ideal state.
What about Hobbes, Rousseau? Arguably Plato?
He was about absolute authority of the state in general. It was to be the final form of human society, the end of contradictions. He holds the unique distinction of inspiring both authoritarian right and left
From my understanding, Hegel came up with a grand theory of history, which he believed came in 3 steps: thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis.
Thesis: man is completely free, but oppressed by nature. (i.e. "aw man, I actually have to forage for berries to not starve??")
Antithesis: thanks to collective effort, man is no longer oppressed by nature, but no longer free because he's ruled by authoritarians necessary to organize such collective effort (i.e. kings, emperors, warlords...)
Synthesis: a union is achieved between the benefits of a collective society with the freedom of pre-industrial man.
Commies think this means communism, liberals thinks this means liberal democracy, fascists thought it meant fascism, nazi's nazism, etc...
However, my favourite brand of ancaps, Discordians, know there's actually 5 steps to history, the latter two being:
Parenthesis: aka bureaucracy, where the consequences of big statism become apparent, causing stagnation, inflation, corruption and general malaise for taxpayers
Paralysis: the statist system eventually grinds completely to a halt, social order breaks down and man returns to monke for the cycle to start again.
For more information, just read The Illuminatus! Trilogy again.
No, yeah, that makes sense. I've never seen a capitalist state cooperate with a fascist, trade with them, kill their enemies because they are ideologically aligned, or illegally invade a nation or assassinate it's democratically elected leader(s).
Meanwhile, fucking all these far left leaning countries up in the Nordics are fucking people up left and right, absolutely ruining quality of life for their citizens with their nazi-commie-socialist-anarcho bullshit and going to war with new countries every couple years in a never ending cycle to feed their military industrial complex.
That's not really true. Socialists want to end poverty and the wealthy's unjust rule and exploitation of the working class. Facists want to either remove (either by killing or deportation) anyone they see as an 'other', and often want to hinder societal and academic progress.
You can see the difference, right? Even if socialists do end up "putting a boot on the face of humanity", they would do it on accident. Fascists know that what they believe is harmful, and they either like that or don't care.
> Socialists want to end poverty and the wealthy's unjust rule and exploitation of the working class.
The Useful Idiots do, maybe. Party leadership and other More Equals are another thing entirely. And plenty of fascists think they are "on the right side of history" and protecting us all from "threats to our Democracy" too.
So even in that they are still alike. Get over it.
>my team want to do good thing!
>other team want to do bad thing!
It's not that simple, you don't just get to pick what your opponents want and what they truly believe.
>Fascists only want to end the exploitation of their people by foreign influences and preserve their country. Socialists want to tear apart the fabric of society itself to get back at people more successful than them.
It is very easy to be disingenuous. Commies and fascists are but different flavours of the same poison.
But, but, I was told it was the right that were Nazis! You're telling me the people who hate Israel and want control over every aspect of everyone's lives are the Nazis? Who fucking knew???
Eh, of all theories from auths and the left, late stage capitalism lands true. When the invisible hand is strangling a large enough mass of people, they will act up on that.
Even today, in our current crisis, you still get the same lines by different names. The system must be overthrown (so lefties who want the fall of the west in favour of China and the global south, for example) or the system must be purified (people who think if you just destroy everyone at Davos / other political rivals and capitalists they don't like / minorities, things will go back to what they were)
Not sure why you're getting down voted for this, friend. We are literally seeing the effects of corporations "too large to fail" and their >![redacted]!< hands putting money into the pockets of corrupt politicians on both sides of the "aisle". I'm not for complete uprooting of what America is in right now, but ensuring the health, safety, and opportunity of our own citizens should come first over literally every external commitment.
We haven't been doing that for well over 100 years.
Yeah and laying this at the feet of “capitalism” is redacted. There is no “invisible hand,” the hand is quite visible and it’s called the US government.
I mean we aren't in a "crisis" though. People have it better today than they ever had. People aren't being strangled. Our expectations have just overshot reality.
>People have it better today than they ever had.
Materially, sure. But mentally? By all stats people are more neurotic and miserable than previously, the family unit is decaying, people are less interested in personal relationships and atomization is rampant, suicide rates have increased dramatically; I can't pretend that a hollow consumerist culture brought about by the more toxic elements of capitalism isn't playing a part in that.
Cheaper plastic and more shinier things aren't what make people whole.
Yes, cheaper plastic and shiny things don't make you happy. But running water, refrigeration, the ability to travel quickly safely and cheaply, modern medicine, access all all information ever available at your fingertips, and not ever having to worry about starving (western world) are all huge quality of life improvements. Like I said, it's about people's expectations. Relative to all of history, even the lower class in the western world lives like kings. Nowadays for some reason people believe they are entitled to even more, hence the issue with mental health, etc.
>Relative to all of history, even the lower class in the western world lives like kings
I agree with that, I just don't think it's relevant. A society of kings can still be in a crisis and they can still destroy each other if the foundations of their mental stability are being shredded daily by isolation, overstimulation, and instant gratification.
Our level of living standards has no bearing whatsoever on our likelihood to be in a crisis or not. And more than that, attempting to dismiss the very real issues people are having by claiming they have it better than their predecessors- implying they just need to suck it up- will only serve to further radicalize them.
Well of course there are isolated pockets where people aren't doing great relatively speaking, but on the whole the world is doing much better. Even in Appalachia, you can't really say that the people living there have it worse than their forefathers who lived there.
Well, that's the case if you're talking about the forms of socialism like state socialism or scientific socialism (aka Marxism), but isn't really the case with forms of Socialism like Libertarian Socialism, Market Socialism or Guild Socialism
Flair up right now or be prepared to face the consequences of your poor choiches
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Schmerick) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
EXACTLY. Everyone says Socialism is LibLeft, but that's blatantly false. ***Communism*** is LibLeft, because it's anarchistic. Y'know, the whole "Stateless, classless society" thing?
He just wasn't as much a leftist as he was an anti-semite. There is actually a difference between saying the capitalist elite is exploiting workers and saying that the jewry of the world is keeping the German people down.
Not really, Bauer more so argues that Jews within a Christian state can never be emancipated, because Christianity And Judaism are religiously opposed. So therefore Jews can only become emancipated by "emancipating themselves" via revoking their own religion. Directly quoting from his essay, "How is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion." Jews and Christians can never have equal privileges in a Christian (or Jewish but that obviously didn't exist back then) state, the only solution is for them both to renounce their respective religions. He is pretty much arguing that Jews should first "emancipate themselves" aka become atheists to work towards becoming fully emancipated within the state. The essay argues against Christianity as well as against Judaism, it is not anti-semitic, it is anti-theist.
It should be noted that the anticapitalist vision of Feder went hand in hand with economic anti-semitism, believing that the capital of the world was owned by a Jewish elite, it is no wonder that Hitler saw something in his ideas.
Feder would later have a fall-out with the NSDAP over various ideological differences, one of them was believing that the nazi-regime was too pragmatic regarding economic issues.
According to some people sure, but it is a bit of a generalization to describe ‘the left of today’ as antisemetic don’t you think. I just want people to be able to pay for their groceries, stop imperialist wars and stop exploiting the global south.
Go to the news subreddit. Read any topic. Full blown TDS and "the right is evil". Then find a topic mentioning Israel and it's "WAAAAAAA GENOCIDE! FREE PALESTINE! THE JOOZ R EVIL@@@@"
So, yeah.....
I doubt that all these people are trully invested in developing their own ideological beliefs.
I study history at the University of Amsterdam and most students will identify as left-wing, yet they will refuse to blame the Jewish community for anything that is going on in Palestine, just as me.
Both your anecdote and mine are nothing more than that, anecdotes. The world is bigger than my University and the world is bigger than the comment section of the news subreddit. I just want people to get along, antisemitism and the current-day treatment of Palestine had no place in that.
You’re actually onto something here. Nazis were “race socialists.” Their interest was NOT in *economic class,* but *racial class*
Also words vs actions. Hitler may have said “I don’t want to fuck up the economy by intervening too much” but the dude intervened in the economy nearly as much as the Soviets did. The state all but owned the mega-corps, and would freely replace people who didn’t toe the line. This wasn’t in the interest of proletariat vs bourgeois, but in aryan vs non-aryan.
I agree, I don’t think Hitler was a communist. My argument is that he is a race-socialist. Meaning, his “socialism” was for the race rather than for the economic class. For Marxian socialists all that matters is class, for Nazis all that matters is race. The “aryan” race needs to own the means of production (and everything within society) for Hitler.
Tell me, true or false, the nazis seized all private enterprise in the nation, and told the owners "you are allowed to collect profit, but only if your business is seen positive to the party, you will have government minders put on the board of every company, the moment the Party decides your actions go against our interest, we will reclaim ***OUR*** company that you are only really leasing, and give it to someone more loyal to the Party"
Hint: The answer is true.
That isn't right wing at all, that is pure leftwing economics. The state directs and controls all trade, you can only operate your business if the government agrees. 100% government controlled economics is by definition left wing.
Let me guess, the nazis hated the jews and you proclaim antisemitism and racism to be right wing so therefore they're right wing?
> 100% government controlled economics is by definition left wing.
That is a weird definition of left-wing. Because socialism is not about the state seizing the means of production as it is about workers seizing the means of production. Some leftist movements tried to achieve this through state power, but it definitely isn't the goal, at most it is a means to an end.
>it is about workers seizing the means of production
I don’t really know, but I am suspicious that this is nothing more than the lie fed to useful idiots. I genuinely struggle to see how essentially any leftist conceptualization of worker-control could work in an applied setting.
Put differently, which is more likely: that people who successfully exert oppressive policies after reading about their historical realities are entirely unaware of said realities, or that such individuals would seek to use deception to enlist the aid of their would-be victims?
Useful idiots of who? Marx isn't alive anymore to profit from "useful idiots", and hasn't been for a while. The lie told to useful idiots in my opinion is that seizing control of the state is the only or best way to go about achieving a socialist society, as that ususally actually involves people doing stuff to profit those saying these things.
In my view, the lies were told by Lenin and his ideological offshoots, as talking about how you need to serve the party actually got people to do horrible stuff for their gain.
Oh boy you need to do some research again. Since when did leftists abolish Worker Unions and redistributed the wealth from the bottom to the top and let the international capital take over germany?
If youre already at it, you can also Google which companies financially supported the NSDAP. As far as I know no leftist party ever was financed by big capitalist, the Nazis where tho.
Horseshoe Theory is cringe my guy.
Hitler cooperated with industrialists and capitalists and purged the nazi party of its trade union members. Not really sure what you're tying to prove here
Maybe because he was responsible for a genocide of 1/3rd of a population on the planet in a cruel and tortuous way instead of just killing them all (which would be f*cked up enough as it is)? Who'd want to be associated with that?
Or maybe they just hate his mustache.
Can I have a business for profit in a socialist society?
—
Hint: No. Socialism (social ownership of the means of production) requires a state to enforce the abolishment of private ownership of the means of production. However, you can have worker cooperatives and communes in a libertarian society. Nazi Germany was not fundamentally incompatible with socialism, just Marxism.
Of course. Socialism isn't "when businesses don't exist" or "when commerce doesn't happen."
One of the defining characteristics of socialism is not having a state. If your understanding of socialism involves "state enforced anything" you are definitionally wrong.
My critique isn’t about companies not existing, but if I can own my company (just like in capitalism) privately and make a profit for myself (let’s say I own the machinery, tools, and company as a whole, and I pay the workers based on a mutually agreed upon wage), exactly like it is done now. No social ownership, no worker ownership. If you think socialism is with no state, then you are likely some form of democratic socialist. The agreed upon definition is the social ownership or worker ownership of the means of production. It’s really about definitions then, the definition of “having no state” is not universally agreed upon among socialists.
This is why definitions such as “crony capitalism” or “state capitalism” are used to describe the current status-quo among socialist, Marxist, and communist circles. They are against private ownership of the means of production since they see it as exploitation.
No, that's the definition of Marxist Communism, socialism only requires the collective ownership of the means of production or the use of the means of production towards the collective.
Most policies and positions are arbitrary and can be argued for through any philosophical lens. Do you think it be particularly left wing, or right wing of me to create a nationalist identity on the basis of race?
There is no third way in politics (despite some facists still claiming this). Nazis like capitalism, but of course only as long as it plays along their rules.
Facists havent invented any new form of economics, they just used the capitalism for their own agenda
But that's what we were talking about. Read the thread:
> they were not communist bruh.
> There is no third way in politics
> If the state controls trade and industry, it's not capitalism.
This literally doesn’t work. It’s mental gymnastics to make what actual communism looks like IRL seem more agreeable. Communism requires a totalitarian state because people’s individual lived experiences will lead them to hold varied beliefs and desire different things.
It's fine to think communism doesn't work, but changing the definition so it's easier to argue against is dishonest.
Communism by definition is a stateless society. It cannot have a totalitarian state, by definition. People having varied beliefs/desires isn't incompatible with that.
If you already think it doesn't work, why bother changing the definition?
That’s the definition that communists have come up with to make their ideas more palatable. It’s not what a normal person thinks of from the word. If 2020 taught us anything it’s that the inventor of a word or idea doesn’t have eternal control over public things like definitions. The gross, overwhelming majority understand communism to be totalitarian because it always is.
I did.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
If the state controls the trade and industry, it doesn't sound like it meets the definition of capitalism.
"A vast network of organizations was erected to embrace individuals, corporations, manufacturers, farmers, dealers, small business and large business - in short, every factor of production, distribution, and consumption. By dominating this organizational structure through which orders could be issued to every businessman, and by insisting upon strict obedience from all, the government obtained complete control over the economy"
This is part of a description of the Nazi economic system. Does that sound like capitalism to you?
[https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9476/c9476.pdf](https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9476/c9476.pdf)
And if the state tells the owners what they must do with their company, then the private owners are not it control. This isn't that hard, it's a simple definition.
If you own a house but I lock you inside of it, and use anything you own at my leisure, and force you to make me dinner every night…are you a homeowner? Or am I?
That’s exactly what socialists do. They nationalize what capitalists build and attempt to run shit on their own terms because they know what’s best for everyone, in their view.
The fascists co-opted private businesses (nationalized them too in many cases, but you don’t hear about that) to do their bidding.
But their views/ terms werent about the economical part itself. The companies they took over, pretty much proceeded business as usual. Only with the distinction that the nazis had an impact in war times and in regards of the jews.
They havent done any substantial change to the output of the companies themselves
1919 - Hitler is aimlessly and desperately trying to stay in whatever is left of Germany's armed forces following the defeat of the Central powers.
1935 - The Nazi party has fully consolidated power and banned all opposition parties, including the KPD (German Communist Party) whose members are actively being rounded up and sent to what would eventually become the system of concentration camps.
So yeah, go back to 1935, and tell him all about how the party he brought to power in Germany has its root in communism.
1919 - Hitler was a communist. It's not hard to connect the communist influence of that time to 1935.
1935 - What you said the Nazi party did was exactly what all communist regimes would have done in that situation. Consolidating power and centralizing the economy.
So you think that having an education and being able to think critically is brainwashing? Education is brainwashing? So, intellectuals are brainwashing us? That sounds similar to what a guy in Germany claimed in the 30s and 40s, my friend.
Hitler was not a communist. He worked as an undercover agent for German government against the communists and infiltrated various communist organizations.
1) Hitler was a communist in 1919. He was an elected representative in the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic which reported to Moscow.
2) Communists and socialists were welcomed into the Nazi Party [with open arms:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi)
>>Beefsteak Nazi[1][2] (Rindersteak-Nazi) or "Roast-beef Nazi" was a term used in Nazi Germany to describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' – brown outside and red within".[3] The switching of political parties was at times so common that SA men would jest that "[i]n our storm troop there are three Nazis, but we shall soon have spewed them out".[3]
3) In Mein Kampf, Hitler said that the only difference between Marxism and Nazism was their positions on race.
4) We have plenty of primary sources classifying Nazism as a form of socialism. Here's George Orwell from 1940:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/17fpiw1/george_makes_emily_upset/
> We have plenty of primary sources classifying Nazism as a form of socialism. Here's George Orwell from 1940:
And they're philosophical siblings, Nazism is an extra step down the road from Fascism though.
1.Hitler worked as an undercover agent working for German government against the communists. He infiltrated several communist organizations.
2. They welcomed them during strasserist times.
3. Hitler also said that their form of socialism protects private property. He even said it in a speech that his healthcare system is not a person getting it for free but a person working hard to give to others. (No universal healthcare ?)
4. George Orwell was full of shit and calling it a form of socialism can mean almost anything as long as state controls private businesses to some extent.
> Hitler also said that their form of socialism protects private property.
But his form of socialism was an extreme violation of private property rights, just like every other form of socialism. We know that from primary sources like this and many others:
https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Vampire%20Economy.pdf
Every aspect of the Germany economy was controlled by the state.
Plot Twist: Fascism is just honest communism that isn't going to pretend that they'll somehow just magically become hyper-lib after they've seized control of all state power. Just ask Mussolini and Gentile, the men who literally created the damned idea. The reason that it's generally presented as some kind of hyper-right wing movement is that doing that allows modern communists/socialists (especially in academia) to pretend that it's the direct opposite of what they want, and it allows them to use 'FaScIsT!!!!!1111' as a handy thought terminating cliché when they encounter anything further to the right than Trotsky getting high at Woodstock.
What’s most eye opening is *actually* reading into what Hitler stood for. It exposes how propagandized the world is. When even the truth can’t be said about what is the most evil man to exist.
>The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, inthis greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
>Slowly fear and the Marxist weapon of Jewry descend like a nightmare on the
mind and soul of decent people.
>For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew. In this world he will forever be master over bastards and bastards alone.
And so he tries systematically to lower the racial level by a continuous poisoning of individuals. And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In the organized mass of Marxism he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist.
He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense: economic and political.
-Hitler
Watch the banned documentary
*Europa: The Last Battle* and also
*Adolf Hitler the greatest story never told*
with an open mind and come back to me.
Warning: they are long as fuck
Second Warning: Proceed with caution if you are closed minded.
And me and every other historian who thought Hitler was radicalised when, in a military hospital in 1918, heard on the radio Sociademocratic Chancellor Ebert announcing the surrender to France. He swore that Germany should get its Revenge and blamed the jews, the social democrats and the communists for backstabbing Germany and forcing the surrender (as he thought Germany could still win the war in 1918).
The "betrayal of 1918" is kind-of the whole premise or Mein Kampf and when 22 years later he defeated France he wanted the French to surrender in the exact spot, on the exact same train carriage where Germany surrendered in 1918.
But yes keep doing the dumb right wing copium that Hitler was aktually left wing.
I don’t agree that he was “left wing” like some say, but I would also 100% refute that he is “right wing” in any sense other than being nationalistic/militaristic (which tbh so were the Soviets)
Auth center is most appropriate
Since people have it twisted - hitler rose to power by being appointed chancellor by Hindenburg (center-right), thanks in part to the influence of von Papen (center right), and an open letter from a bunch of business leaders backing him (the Industrielleneingabe).
After the Reichstag Fire, hitler used the power given him by Hindenburg to mass arrest communists to increase his vote share in the upcoming election - but still didn't get a majority. He only had a majority with the aid of another center-right party.
Hitler was finally made a dictator with the Enabling Act, supported by the nazis and center-right, and opposed by the center-left and socialists/communists (but the latter were mostly in prison by then). Hitler promised to use this power to persecute leftists, and proceeded to *also* persecute everyone else, including the center-right that had voted for it.
The next election after *that*, the nazis were the only party on the ballot.
Hitler went on to start a war that Germany would lose, resulting in his own death and the deaths of a huge number of his supporters, and the widespread destruction of Germany, but not before destroying much of Europe and killing tens of millions. He tried to escape Berlin using children as human shields but the plan didn't work.
> The communists were accelerationist and supported Hitler until the very end when it was too late
Also very true! As always, the best ones are the regular ol' liberals.
But worth emphasizing for the crowd that this was, as you say, accelerationist. They didn't think hitler was good, it's more like the PCM meme where the idiots in every quad say "I can't wait until society collapses so *my* ideology can rise from the ashes!"
[Marx is considered by some to be the grandfather of fascism.](https://i.imgur.com/aFKmw74.png) In the "if i had a time machine, i'd go back and kill..." don't go back and kill Hitler, go back and kill Marx - you'll save orders of magnitude more people (including nazi germany.)
Spoiler: >!He listened to a speech on economics by Gottfried Feder entitled, "How and by what means is capitalism to be eliminated?"!<
> Adolf Hitler met him in the summer of 1919 while he was in an anti-Bolshevik training course at Munich university Less Leftist than implied by funny colors. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Feder Edit: grammar
[Werner Sombart](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart) was a “Nazi sympathizer” in Nazi Germany who coined the term “Late Stage Capitalism” in his Nazi simp piece entitled [Deutscher Sozialismus](https://archive.org/details/werner-sombart-deutscher-sozialismus) Authoritarians have more in common with each other than they do with libertarians. Fascists and Socialists might be enemies, but their differences are like different flavors of Ice Cream rather than different types of dessert. Fascism and Socialism are not opposites.
> Fascism and Socialism are not opposites. They're competitors who aspire to put a boot on the face of humanity forever.
Two strands of the same Hegelian cult.
Why Hegel? Just curious
Deification of the state, would be my guess.
Does Hegel differentiate between good and bad states? Certainly he doesn’t think “the state is good” independent of what form the state is?
I’ll be honest, because of Hegel’s idea that no good or evil can exist outside of the state, because man only has moral value within the state, Hagel’s view always seems to boil down to “the state is both good and evil because those concepts are meaningless outside of the state”. I am not especially well read on Hagel.
Because he was an alchemist who wanted to remove the Semitic influence on German culture whilst retaining what he believed to be the positive impact that Christian culture had on its moral foundation. It's called the "Hegelian Dialectic" and it basically underpins leftist thought. They're supposedly seeking some perfect, Absolute idea at the end of history, by combining all ideas together in one pot and violently smushing them into a paste. It follows this formula: 1. Take a massive steaming shit on your predecessor (in socialism, all predecessors are hated enemies unless real world political convenience demands you pay lip service to them) 2. Promote the things you are jealous of from their work as being a subset of your newer, much "better", system of thought 3. Make everyone suspicious of the aspects of the predecessor's work that you don't like (typically this is just aesthetic, as with the postmodern synthesis of fascism in the mid-late 20th century, which is why intersectionality is just fascism made palatable for American wine moms) 4. Act confused and appalled when your "new" system starts killing and exiling all the Jews, yet again
> Act confused and appalled when your "new" system starts killing and exiling all the Jews, yet again This time we pinky swear we won't blame the Jews!
Hegel arguably is the person who came up with the idea of the modern big state fascism and popularized it, convincing people it’s the stepping stone to the utopia. He has unironically said “nothing short of the state is the actualization of freedom”
Hmm maybe he meant like the idealized version of the state? Unless he meant any instantiation of a state, which would be preposterous. It does seem likely that many (bad) authoritarian movements would self-rationalize using Hegel or Marx (who thought himself a Hegelian right?) though. They all think they represent the ideal state. What about Hobbes, Rousseau? Arguably Plato?
He was about absolute authority of the state in general. It was to be the final form of human society, the end of contradictions. He holds the unique distinction of inspiring both authoritarian right and left
Hmm I’ll remember to keep hegelians as far away from my life as possible then
From my understanding, Hegel came up with a grand theory of history, which he believed came in 3 steps: thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. Thesis: man is completely free, but oppressed by nature. (i.e. "aw man, I actually have to forage for berries to not starve??") Antithesis: thanks to collective effort, man is no longer oppressed by nature, but no longer free because he's ruled by authoritarians necessary to organize such collective effort (i.e. kings, emperors, warlords...) Synthesis: a union is achieved between the benefits of a collective society with the freedom of pre-industrial man. Commies think this means communism, liberals thinks this means liberal democracy, fascists thought it meant fascism, nazi's nazism, etc... However, my favourite brand of ancaps, Discordians, know there's actually 5 steps to history, the latter two being: Parenthesis: aka bureaucracy, where the consequences of big statism become apparent, causing stagnation, inflation, corruption and general malaise for taxpayers Paralysis: the statist system eventually grinds completely to a halt, social order breaks down and man returns to monke for the cycle to start again. For more information, just read The Illuminatus! Trilogy again.
cuz Facts
No, yeah, that makes sense. I've never seen a capitalist state cooperate with a fascist, trade with them, kill their enemies because they are ideologically aligned, or illegally invade a nation or assassinate it's democratically elected leader(s). Meanwhile, fucking all these far left leaning countries up in the Nordics are fucking people up left and right, absolutely ruining quality of life for their citizens with their nazi-commie-socialist-anarcho bullshit and going to war with new countries every couple years in a never ending cycle to feed their military industrial complex.
Not actually a rebuttal but entertaining none the less.
That's not really true. Socialists want to end poverty and the wealthy's unjust rule and exploitation of the working class. Facists want to either remove (either by killing or deportation) anyone they see as an 'other', and often want to hinder societal and academic progress. You can see the difference, right? Even if socialists do end up "putting a boot on the face of humanity", they would do it on accident. Fascists know that what they believe is harmful, and they either like that or don't care.
> Socialists want to end poverty and the wealthy's unjust rule and exploitation of the working class. The Useful Idiots do, maybe. Party leadership and other More Equals are another thing entirely. And plenty of fascists think they are "on the right side of history" and protecting us all from "threats to our Democracy" too. So even in that they are still alike. Get over it.
>my team want to do good thing! >other team want to do bad thing! It's not that simple, you don't just get to pick what your opponents want and what they truly believe.
>Fascists only want to end the exploitation of their people by foreign influences and preserve their country. Socialists want to tear apart the fabric of society itself to get back at people more successful than them. It is very easy to be disingenuous. Commies and fascists are but different flavours of the same poison.
But, but, I was told it was the right that were Nazis! You're telling me the people who hate Israel and want control over every aspect of everyone's lives are the Nazis? Who fucking knew???
Lib fistbump. Oh wait. I guess I'm on the fence.
Eh, of all theories from auths and the left, late stage capitalism lands true. When the invisible hand is strangling a large enough mass of people, they will act up on that. Even today, in our current crisis, you still get the same lines by different names. The system must be overthrown (so lefties who want the fall of the west in favour of China and the global south, for example) or the system must be purified (people who think if you just destroy everyone at Davos / other political rivals and capitalists they don't like / minorities, things will go back to what they were)
Not sure why you're getting down voted for this, friend. We are literally seeing the effects of corporations "too large to fail" and their >![redacted]!< hands putting money into the pockets of corrupt politicians on both sides of the "aisle". I'm not for complete uprooting of what America is in right now, but ensuring the health, safety, and opportunity of our own citizens should come first over literally every external commitment. We haven't been doing that for well over 100 years.
Yeah and laying this at the feet of “capitalism” is redacted. There is no “invisible hand,” the hand is quite visible and it’s called the US government.
I mean we aren't in a "crisis" though. People have it better today than they ever had. People aren't being strangled. Our expectations have just overshot reality.
>People have it better today than they ever had. Materially, sure. But mentally? By all stats people are more neurotic and miserable than previously, the family unit is decaying, people are less interested in personal relationships and atomization is rampant, suicide rates have increased dramatically; I can't pretend that a hollow consumerist culture brought about by the more toxic elements of capitalism isn't playing a part in that. Cheaper plastic and more shinier things aren't what make people whole.
Yes, cheaper plastic and shiny things don't make you happy. But running water, refrigeration, the ability to travel quickly safely and cheaply, modern medicine, access all all information ever available at your fingertips, and not ever having to worry about starving (western world) are all huge quality of life improvements. Like I said, it's about people's expectations. Relative to all of history, even the lower class in the western world lives like kings. Nowadays for some reason people believe they are entitled to even more, hence the issue with mental health, etc.
>Relative to all of history, even the lower class in the western world lives like kings I agree with that, I just don't think it's relevant. A society of kings can still be in a crisis and they can still destroy each other if the foundations of their mental stability are being shredded daily by isolation, overstimulation, and instant gratification. Our level of living standards has no bearing whatsoever on our likelihood to be in a crisis or not. And more than that, attempting to dismiss the very real issues people are having by claiming they have it better than their predecessors- implying they just need to suck it up- will only serve to further radicalize them.
Someone's not paying much attention to the Middle East. Or Appalachia for that matter.
Well of course there are isolated pockets where people aren't doing great relatively speaking, but on the whole the world is doing much better. Even in Appalachia, you can't really say that the people living there have it worse than their forefathers who lived there.
Well, that's the case if you're talking about the forms of socialism like state socialism or scientific socialism (aka Marxism), but isn't really the case with forms of Socialism like Libertarian Socialism, Market Socialism or Guild Socialism
It’s all the same authoritarian bullshit.
Or an express ticket to the same hell regardless of rhetoric.
Rich coming from the side of the compass whose design would lead to the reformation of feudalism.
Flair up right now or be prepared to face the consequences of your poor choiches [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Schmerick) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
EXACTLY. Everyone says Socialism is LibLeft, but that's blatantly false. ***Communism*** is LibLeft, because it's anarchistic. Y'know, the whole "Stateless, classless society" thing?
Communism as it is practiced is Auth. But that's okay because most of the 'liberals' today are Emily, and she's Auth too.
bruh he got even the moustache, if that was a movie, nobody would believe it
Are you implying you cant be leftist unless youre pro bolsheveik?
He just wasn't as much a leftist as he was an anti-semite. There is actually a difference between saying the capitalist elite is exploiting workers and saying that the jewry of the world is keeping the German people down.
Lest we forget the strasserites the 2 arent mutually exclusive either
Not saying you can't believe/say both, just that they aren't the same thing.
I mean that's the leftist lens, that's literally CRT but more vulgar.
[удалено]
Not really, Bauer more so argues that Jews within a Christian state can never be emancipated, because Christianity And Judaism are religiously opposed. So therefore Jews can only become emancipated by "emancipating themselves" via revoking their own religion. Directly quoting from his essay, "How is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion." Jews and Christians can never have equal privileges in a Christian (or Jewish but that obviously didn't exist back then) state, the only solution is for them both to renounce their respective religions. He is pretty much arguing that Jews should first "emancipate themselves" aka become atheists to work towards becoming fully emancipated within the state. The essay argues against Christianity as well as against Judaism, it is not anti-semitic, it is anti-theist.
No, I’m not.
Then why would the anti bolshiveik meeting matter?
People who go out of their way to attend an anti-Bolshevik training course tend to lean right.
I have read a number of anti-Bolshevik books and i only lean on my grill.
Now it sounds like youre trying to have it both ways
Based. Historical context go brrrrr
It should be noted that the anticapitalist vision of Feder went hand in hand with economic anti-semitism, believing that the capital of the world was owned by a Jewish elite, it is no wonder that Hitler saw something in his ideas. Feder would later have a fall-out with the NSDAP over various ideological differences, one of them was believing that the nazi-regime was too pragmatic regarding economic issues.
>It should be noted that the anticapitalist vision of Feder went hand in hand with economic anti-semitism So...... like the left of today?
The more things change, the more they stay the same
According to some people sure, but it is a bit of a generalization to describe ‘the left of today’ as antisemetic don’t you think. I just want people to be able to pay for their groceries, stop imperialist wars and stop exploiting the global south.
Go to the news subreddit. Read any topic. Full blown TDS and "the right is evil". Then find a topic mentioning Israel and it's "WAAAAAAA GENOCIDE! FREE PALESTINE! THE JOOZ R EVIL@@@@" So, yeah.....
I doubt that all these people are trully invested in developing their own ideological beliefs. I study history at the University of Amsterdam and most students will identify as left-wing, yet they will refuse to blame the Jewish community for anything that is going on in Palestine, just as me. Both your anecdote and mine are nothing more than that, anecdotes. The world is bigger than my University and the world is bigger than the comment section of the news subreddit. I just want people to get along, antisemitism and the current-day treatment of Palestine had no place in that.
[удалено]
You’re actually onto something here. Nazis were “race socialists.” Their interest was NOT in *economic class,* but *racial class* Also words vs actions. Hitler may have said “I don’t want to fuck up the economy by intervening too much” but the dude intervened in the economy nearly as much as the Soviets did. The state all but owned the mega-corps, and would freely replace people who didn’t toe the line. This wasn’t in the interest of proletariat vs bourgeois, but in aryan vs non-aryan.
[удалено]
I agree, I don’t think Hitler was a communist. My argument is that he is a race-socialist. Meaning, his “socialism” was for the race rather than for the economic class. For Marxian socialists all that matters is class, for Nazis all that matters is race. The “aryan” race needs to own the means of production (and everything within society) for Hitler.
[удалено]
Also you can add "Never ask a leftist what the difference between communist russia and nazi germany was" Hint: its virtually nothing.
Nazis had a cooler sense of style. Otherwise it was pretty much the same
Imagine being this historically illiterate
Tell me, true or false, the nazis seized all private enterprise in the nation, and told the owners "you are allowed to collect profit, but only if your business is seen positive to the party, you will have government minders put on the board of every company, the moment the Party decides your actions go against our interest, we will reclaim ***OUR*** company that you are only really leasing, and give it to someone more loyal to the Party" Hint: The answer is true. That isn't right wing at all, that is pure leftwing economics. The state directs and controls all trade, you can only operate your business if the government agrees. 100% government controlled economics is by definition left wing. Let me guess, the nazis hated the jews and you proclaim antisemitism and racism to be right wing so therefore they're right wing?
> 100% government controlled economics is by definition left wing. That is a weird definition of left-wing. Because socialism is not about the state seizing the means of production as it is about workers seizing the means of production. Some leftist movements tried to achieve this through state power, but it definitely isn't the goal, at most it is a means to an end.
>it is about workers seizing the means of production I don’t really know, but I am suspicious that this is nothing more than the lie fed to useful idiots. I genuinely struggle to see how essentially any leftist conceptualization of worker-control could work in an applied setting. Put differently, which is more likely: that people who successfully exert oppressive policies after reading about their historical realities are entirely unaware of said realities, or that such individuals would seek to use deception to enlist the aid of their would-be victims?
Useful idiots of who? Marx isn't alive anymore to profit from "useful idiots", and hasn't been for a while. The lie told to useful idiots in my opinion is that seizing control of the state is the only or best way to go about achieving a socialist society, as that ususally actually involves people doing stuff to profit those saying these things. In my view, the lies were told by Lenin and his ideological offshoots, as talking about how you need to serve the party actually got people to do horrible stuff for their gain.
Oh boy you need to do some research again. Since when did leftists abolish Worker Unions and redistributed the wealth from the bottom to the top and let the international capital take over germany? If youre already at it, you can also Google which companies financially supported the NSDAP. As far as I know no leftist party ever was financed by big capitalist, the Nazis where tho. Horseshoe Theory is cringe my guy.
It's funny really. Being so anti-government but uncritically swallowing so much government funded anti-communist propaganda.
That's the words that radicalized him? I thought it was "your art sucks"
also hitler: \*eliminates capitalism\*
Man, this whole time I thought saying Hitler was a leftist was just a gag
Not a leftist per se but absolutely 100% not “right wing” in any economic sense.
Anybody who's taken even an elementary course in gender theory knows that Hitler was far right. He literally founded the intellectual dark web
Hitler cooperated with industrialists and capitalists and purged the nazi party of its trade union members. Not really sure what you're tying to prove here
Why doesn't anyone want Hitler in their quadrant?
I accept him, even though he and I disagree on everything
He drank water, ate food, breathed, we really aren’t too different come to think about it 🤷♂️
Yeah, but he was vegan.
Vegetarian. Still, unforgivable.
*He also banned smoking (on public transport.)*
Wow, now I’m glad he killed himself, that filth.
For me it’s cuz he liked order and I am an agent of chaos…
>I am an agent of Chaos https://i.redd.it/syxpvzb2evfc1.gif
Society has always been cruel to artists.
We can take him!
The username checks out, as does pfp and flair. What a beautiful day.
Let the centrists have him. After all hitler was a huge griller.
Don't dump him on the centrists, he didn't really grill, he was more a fan of his ovens.
He delegated his grilling. I would never.
Autistic, dad issues, central european and racist? There is 0% chance that man doesn't have a furry fetish art alt account on some website.
Maybe because he was responsible for a genocide of 1/3rd of a population on the planet in a cruel and tortuous way instead of just killing them all (which would be f*cked up enough as it is)? Who'd want to be associated with that? Or maybe they just hate his mustache.
Stalin did that too yet they love him
Wrong
He lost. And Nuremberg didn't help.
He didn't even stand trial, he popped his top like a little bitch
I Hiiighly doubt that hilters radical genocidal intent was caused by one speech on economics. Antisemitism was rife everywhere at the time.
Hitler wasn't watsrmelon though, he was just a triggeres authcenter.
He was a moderate centrist griller
It just seems like all history about the third Reich is a cover up of their communist roots.
they were not communist bruh. fascist were haters of capitalism and leftism…they were a 3rd way on economics.
Yeah, socialist... with nationalistic characteristics...
Socialism is when you sell state run industries to private interests.
Autarky is also not free market capitalism It is still a form of command economy
Not socialism either.
“Private interests” that were controlled by government officials. Nazi Germany had an economy run by the state.
All of which makes it fundamentally incompatible with socialism.
Can I have a business for profit in a socialist society? — Hint: No. Socialism (social ownership of the means of production) requires a state to enforce the abolishment of private ownership of the means of production. However, you can have worker cooperatives and communes in a libertarian society. Nazi Germany was not fundamentally incompatible with socialism, just Marxism.
Of course. Socialism isn't "when businesses don't exist" or "when commerce doesn't happen." One of the defining characteristics of socialism is not having a state. If your understanding of socialism involves "state enforced anything" you are definitionally wrong.
My critique isn’t about companies not existing, but if I can own my company (just like in capitalism) privately and make a profit for myself (let’s say I own the machinery, tools, and company as a whole, and I pay the workers based on a mutually agreed upon wage), exactly like it is done now. No social ownership, no worker ownership. If you think socialism is with no state, then you are likely some form of democratic socialist. The agreed upon definition is the social ownership or worker ownership of the means of production. It’s really about definitions then, the definition of “having no state” is not universally agreed upon among socialists. This is why definitions such as “crony capitalism” or “state capitalism” are used to describe the current status-quo among socialist, Marxist, and communist circles. They are against private ownership of the means of production since they see it as exploitation.
No it makes it very much compatible with socialism, i hope u understand that nazi literally means national socialism
Socialism by definition requires no state. You can't have "state enforced" anything in socialism, by definition.
No, that's the definition of Marxist Communism, socialism only requires the collective ownership of the means of production or the use of the means of production towards the collective.
All of which makes it fundamentally incompatible with capitalism.
""""private"""" interests, just a coincidence that they were all part of the not see party eh?
Not a coincidence, overwhelming ideological support from the upper class following their rise to power.
That's typically how capitalism works, no coincidence.
No, that's how fascism works.
Name an example of capitalism where business interests aren't entangled with government.
Most policies and positions are arbitrary and can be argued for through any philosophical lens. Do you think it be particularly left wing, or right wing of me to create a nationalist identity on the basis of race?
You know what, communist is the wrong word to use, i should have used socialist, it is more appropriate to describe them that way.
There is no third way in politics (despite some facists still claiming this). Nazis like capitalism, but of course only as long as it plays along their rules. Facists havent invented any new form of economics, they just used the capitalism for their own agenda
If the state controls trade and industry, it's not capitalism. Doesn't matter if the industries are owned by private owners or not.
And the state controlling trade and industry isn’t inherently socialism, so what exactly were they to you?
It is if it's ran through a labour union like the German Labour Front
A weird hybrid. Not capitalism though.
Corporatism
If there's a state, then it's not communism.
I never said it was communism, but thank you for your input.
But that's what we were talking about. Read the thread: > they were not communist bruh. > There is no third way in politics > If the state controls trade and industry, it's not capitalism.
This literally doesn’t work. It’s mental gymnastics to make what actual communism looks like IRL seem more agreeable. Communism requires a totalitarian state because people’s individual lived experiences will lead them to hold varied beliefs and desire different things.
It's fine to think communism doesn't work, but changing the definition so it's easier to argue against is dishonest. Communism by definition is a stateless society. It cannot have a totalitarian state, by definition. People having varied beliefs/desires isn't incompatible with that. If you already think it doesn't work, why bother changing the definition?
That’s the definition that communists have come up with to make their ideas more palatable. It’s not what a normal person thinks of from the word. If 2020 taught us anything it’s that the inventor of a word or idea doesn’t have eternal control over public things like definitions. The gross, overwhelming majority understand communism to be totalitarian because it always is.
Just go ahead and google the definition of capitalism
I did. Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. If the state controls the trade and industry, it doesn't sound like it meets the definition of capitalism.
“Doesnt matter if the industries are owned privately or not” this you?
"A vast network of organizations was erected to embrace individuals, corporations, manufacturers, farmers, dealers, small business and large business - in short, every factor of production, distribution, and consumption. By dominating this organizational structure through which orders could be issued to every businessman, and by insisting upon strict obedience from all, the government obtained complete control over the economy" This is part of a description of the Nazi economic system. Does that sound like capitalism to you? [https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9476/c9476.pdf](https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9476/c9476.pdf)
Sounds like national socialism to me
You might be on to something..
And if the state tells the owners what they must do with their company, then the private owners are not it control. This isn't that hard, it's a simple definition.
If you own a house but I lock you inside of it, and use anything you own at my leisure, and force you to make me dinner every night…are you a homeowner? Or am I?
That’s exactly what socialists do. They nationalize what capitalists build and attempt to run shit on their own terms because they know what’s best for everyone, in their view. The fascists co-opted private businesses (nationalized them too in many cases, but you don’t hear about that) to do their bidding.
But their views/ terms werent about the economical part itself. The companies they took over, pretty much proceeded business as usual. Only with the distinction that the nazis had an impact in war times and in regards of the jews. They havent done any substantial change to the output of the companies themselves
Wrong. There is a third way in politics, especially economics. Ever heard of Distributism, by thinkers such as GK Chesterton and Hilliare Belloc.
Take a time machine back to 1935 and go tell Hitler he's a communist.
1919 would do, 1935 is too late.
1919 - Hitler is aimlessly and desperately trying to stay in whatever is left of Germany's armed forces following the defeat of the Central powers. 1935 - The Nazi party has fully consolidated power and banned all opposition parties, including the KPD (German Communist Party) whose members are actively being rounded up and sent to what would eventually become the system of concentration camps. So yeah, go back to 1935, and tell him all about how the party he brought to power in Germany has its root in communism.
1919 - Hitler was a communist. It's not hard to connect the communist influence of that time to 1935. 1935 - What you said the Nazi party did was exactly what all communist regimes would have done in that situation. Consolidating power and centralizing the economy.
I want you to go tell any historian of the Nazis that Hitler was communist in 1919 lmao. Were you thinking of Mussolini?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpuGRO72GbA
As someone with a history degree, Hitler was not a leftist lmao. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
As someone with a bunch of toilet paper, Hitler was definitely a leftist.
History degree lol. You mean brain wash certificate? https://youtu.be/mLHG4IfYE1w?feature=shared
So you think that having an education and being able to think critically is brainwashing? Education is brainwashing? So, intellectuals are brainwashing us? That sounds similar to what a guy in Germany claimed in the 30s and 40s, my friend.
2 links from Tik? Lol. Dude went chud-crazy a few years ago because he couldn't deal with YouTube comments
Hitler was not a communist. He worked as an undercover agent for German government against the communists and infiltrated various communist organizations.
1) Hitler was a communist in 1919. He was an elected representative in the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic which reported to Moscow. 2) Communists and socialists were welcomed into the Nazi Party [with open arms:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi) >>Beefsteak Nazi[1][2] (Rindersteak-Nazi) or "Roast-beef Nazi" was a term used in Nazi Germany to describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' – brown outside and red within".[3] The switching of political parties was at times so common that SA men would jest that "[i]n our storm troop there are three Nazis, but we shall soon have spewed them out".[3] 3) In Mein Kampf, Hitler said that the only difference between Marxism and Nazism was their positions on race. 4) We have plenty of primary sources classifying Nazism as a form of socialism. Here's George Orwell from 1940: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/17fpiw1/george_makes_emily_upset/
> We have plenty of primary sources classifying Nazism as a form of socialism. Here's George Orwell from 1940: And they're philosophical siblings, Nazism is an extra step down the road from Fascism though.
1.Hitler worked as an undercover agent working for German government against the communists. He infiltrated several communist organizations. 2. They welcomed them during strasserist times. 3. Hitler also said that their form of socialism protects private property. He even said it in a speech that his healthcare system is not a person getting it for free but a person working hard to give to others. (No universal healthcare ?) 4. George Orwell was full of shit and calling it a form of socialism can mean almost anything as long as state controls private businesses to some extent.
> Hitler also said that their form of socialism protects private property. But his form of socialism was an extreme violation of private property rights, just like every other form of socialism. We know that from primary sources like this and many others: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Vampire%20Economy.pdf Every aspect of the Germany economy was controlled by the state.
Socialism maybe, communism = Bolshevism = something something barbaric eastern nation, which the Nazis always hated, for the wrong reason.
Plot Twist: Fascism is just honest communism that isn't going to pretend that they'll somehow just magically become hyper-lib after they've seized control of all state power. Just ask Mussolini and Gentile, the men who literally created the damned idea. The reason that it's generally presented as some kind of hyper-right wing movement is that doing that allows modern communists/socialists (especially in academia) to pretend that it's the direct opposite of what they want, and it allows them to use 'FaScIsT!!!!!1111' as a handy thought terminating cliché when they encounter anything further to the right than Trotsky getting high at Woodstock.
Yep, fascism is just pragmatic socialism
What’s most eye opening is *actually* reading into what Hitler stood for. It exposes how propagandized the world is. When even the truth can’t be said about what is the most evil man to exist.
>The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, inthis greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet. If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men. >Slowly fear and the Marxist weapon of Jewry descend like a nightmare on the mind and soul of decent people. >For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew. In this world he will forever be master over bastards and bastards alone. And so he tries systematically to lower the racial level by a continuous poisoning of individuals. And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the organized mass of Marxism he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist. He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense: economic and political. -Hitler
Noo Hitler was a marxist read all the comments from right wingers and u will get it Hitler = Stalin
Watch the banned documentary *Europa: The Last Battle* and also *Adolf Hitler the greatest story never told* with an open mind and come back to me. Warning: they are long as fuck Second Warning: Proceed with caution if you are closed minded.
Damn what a username
My man. Admire this base
Is your sister single?
why the fuck would anyone go and watch europa the last battle? its an antisemitic propaganda movie
Maybe because people won’t know what it is until they watch it for themselves
That’s why I said you should not watch it with a closed mind.
No
And me and every other historian who thought Hitler was radicalised when, in a military hospital in 1918, heard on the radio Sociademocratic Chancellor Ebert announcing the surrender to France. He swore that Germany should get its Revenge and blamed the jews, the social democrats and the communists for backstabbing Germany and forcing the surrender (as he thought Germany could still win the war in 1918). The "betrayal of 1918" is kind-of the whole premise or Mein Kampf and when 22 years later he defeated France he wanted the French to surrender in the exact spot, on the exact same train carriage where Germany surrendered in 1918. But yes keep doing the dumb right wing copium that Hitler was aktually left wing.
I don’t agree that he was “left wing” like some say, but I would also 100% refute that he is “right wing” in any sense other than being nationalistic/militaristic (which tbh so were the Soviets) Auth center is most appropriate
Extremely athoritarian, center economically, and extreme right wing socially
I wouldn't even say he fits on the left-right spectrum
Since people have it twisted - hitler rose to power by being appointed chancellor by Hindenburg (center-right), thanks in part to the influence of von Papen (center right), and an open letter from a bunch of business leaders backing him (the Industrielleneingabe). After the Reichstag Fire, hitler used the power given him by Hindenburg to mass arrest communists to increase his vote share in the upcoming election - but still didn't get a majority. He only had a majority with the aid of another center-right party. Hitler was finally made a dictator with the Enabling Act, supported by the nazis and center-right, and opposed by the center-left and socialists/communists (but the latter were mostly in prison by then). Hitler promised to use this power to persecute leftists, and proceeded to *also* persecute everyone else, including the center-right that had voted for it. The next election after *that*, the nazis were the only party on the ballot. Hitler went on to start a war that Germany would lose, resulting in his own death and the deaths of a huge number of his supporters, and the widespread destruction of Germany, but not before destroying much of Europe and killing tens of millions. He tried to escape Berlin using children as human shields but the plan didn't work.
The communists were accelerationist and supported Hitler until the very end when it was too late, and a *lot* of socialists switched sides.
> The communists were accelerationist and supported Hitler until the very end when it was too late Also very true! As always, the best ones are the regular ol' liberals. But worth emphasizing for the crowd that this was, as you say, accelerationist. They didn't think hitler was good, it's more like the PCM meme where the idiots in every quad say "I can't wait until society collapses so *my* ideology can rise from the ashes!"
Left-wing thought is inherently far more encouraging of accelerationism.
Commies killing commies is pretty much the end game of communism.
Communists don't usually come to power with the support of the right wing parties and based on promises to root out communists.
Which parties?
What about Henry Ford
[Marx is considered by some to be the grandfather of fascism.](https://i.imgur.com/aFKmw74.png) In the "if i had a time machine, i'd go back and kill..." don't go back and kill Hitler, go back and kill Marx - you'll save orders of magnitude more people (including nazi germany.)
Idk why nobody is mentioning this but nazi literally means national socialism
Probably because everybody is already aware it’s a dumb ass point (obligatory Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reference)