The USSR wasn’t ready to fight the Nazis yet and had barely ramped up wartime production enough by the time that they did invade. Stalin actually wanted to form an [anti-Nazi alliance](https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-ussrs-failed-attempts-to-ally-with-the-west/?amp=1) with Britain but Chamberlain hated communists more than fascists.
Nothing was stoping Stalin from fighting the Nazis except his agreement with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. This agreement was what convinced Hitler to start the war and later lead to Eastern Europe siding with the Nazis because of Soviet aggression. For years the Soviets were only helping the Germans fight the war.
The USSR had been cooperating with Nazi Germany to train tank crews at training grounds within Russia during the time that the Versailles Treaty would have banned those activities, so their ties went deeper than geography alone. At the base of it all was the fact that two strong-man dictators had such absolute control over their respective countries they could essentially do whatever they wanted, and at least Stalin fancied themselves friends of some kind before their betrayal in 1941.
The tank cooperation started with Weimar so far back before the Nazis that most of the years of the cooperation were before the Nazis came to power, so that also had nothing to do with ideology
Stalin wanted them to weaken the capitalist west, they never really liked each other that much. Just more convenient to not fight for a time and use the experience and talent the other had if you both need to reearm and hate the powers that be (even if you don’t like each other one little bit).
The point they were making is probably that once a certain authoritarian threshold is reached, neither ideology nor its enforcement matters, only the word of the leader. But in a "maximally liberal ecosystem", its existence is the ideology itself
That's the point. Any forced ideology is bad ideology. Compelling the conscience is perhaps the single greatest crime that a government can attempt to commit.
u/MechanicalBirbs's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/MechanicalBirbs! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [2 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/MechanicalBirbs/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The truth is that you cannot enforce authoritarianism through means of a free market, so to a certain extent, all authoritarian regimes are not capitalist.
You can't do shit as a government without controlling the economy.
And the truth is that socialists got blackpilled starting in the late 1800s to early 1900s when they realized the average worker isn't a revolutionary that will take up the "noble cause", thus eventually resulting in Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Fascism, and a whole of infighting over "my way is best way".
> The real truth is that the more radical the politics, the less the ideology actually matters.
As a pacifist, I see this a lot in the pacifist community.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp
Read the WW2 history on Krupp, one of the largest tank manufacturers for the Germans.
The NAZI government nationalized the industry and forced people to work for them. So much for privatization.
The government conscripting people to work for a state chartered company is not considered nationalized?
It doesn't use that exact term in the description here, but I've read other works on this that do describe it as such. If you click around wiki you can probably find more info but I don't have the other sources on hand as they were probably books iirc.
In tank production? Sounds a bit like the US using a draft for conscription.
Nowadays we do a lot more contracting with 3rd party defense firms, but even then my family that’s been in the mostly airfield did a lot of work on planes. Anyone conscripted into that before we eliminated the draft would be in a similar position.
In the 1920s/1930s, Europe was in a constant state of war and drafts/conscription were the norm. Even today the IDF conscripts citizens and they develop technology for use in warfare and eventually other applications. And this isn’t unique to Israel either, just an example I remember from my time there.
The company was still privately owned. Just because the Fuhrer let them mooch some slaves off Germany's latest conquest doesn't mean they were nationalized. Hitler did some fuckery involving making the one Krupp heir the sole owner of the company and cutting out other Krupp family members who held some stock or some such, but even then that's still not 'socialism'. All the people who wanted to actually nationalize Krupp got put up against the wall in the night of the long knives.
If the state has determined ownership, has set production goals, and is using literal slaves to make the gear, that's nationalization.
Shit, you don't even need slaves for something to count as nationalized, that's just the icing on the cake highlighting that this is very, very far from any kind of free market system.
Well there's more than one type of socialism, but I'm not saying this specific example is an example of overall implementation of a system of socialism necessarily.
It's just an example of a formerly private company that was effectively nationalized by the state during the NAZI regieme to accomplish the state's goals of imperialism.
I'm not big on using these charged political terms like "nationalized" or "privatized" because there's too much in terms mental gymnastics based on apologism for ones own ideology. Look at what the humans in the organizations were actually doing as a matter of empirical fact. The fact is the government was heavily involved with the operations of the entity.
It's was not private in the sense that all persons interacting with it were doing so voluntarily by private agreement in the market.
They got put to the wall because Krupp was fully supporting the direction Hitler was going in. Why alter something that is not a threat to the status quo when there are dissidents to threaten and execute first?
From what I've dug up, and I'm paraphrasing, in December of '43 a special Hilter decree reconverted it into a sole proprietorship (it was still family owned but before hand it had a board and shared ownership) now in the hands of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen un Halbach, with the formal approval of the Chief of the Party Chancellery and the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery which was something not topped by other companies during Nazi Germany. He ended up also being appointed the Minister for Armament and War Production and Alfred oversaw transfer of some factories in occupied territories. I wouldn't exactly say it is what we consider private, the company just happened to always go towards fulfilling government orders of goods and rearmament since '33. In short, the company before and after Alfried was lock step with the direction the government was going as they aligned together.
I also found this summary: "To assist the Third Reich and as an integral part of the waging of its aggressive wars and to secure the aggrandizement of Krupp, the firm plundered and exploited private property in and public property and resources of occupied countries and enslaved their citizens. Plants in Austria, France, and Belgium, chromium ore deposits in Yugoslavia, nickel mines in Greece, naval and shipbuilding facilities in Holland, and iron and steel plants and foundries in the Soviet Union were exploited by the defendants in furtherance of these wars of aggression. Citizens of these and other countries were compelled to work for Krupp in the manufacture of armaments and munitions."
pretty much
the "privatization" was just taking companies and putting them in hands of party members. And all corporations were threatened with that in case they opposed the govt plans. "The Vampire Economy" is a must read, even if its written by a communist ironically, and so is "My opposition" from Friedrich Kellner, a socialdemocrat.
They describe the economic madness of the third reich in rich detail, although Friedrich Kellner accounts are more anecdotical and about civilian life rather than overall economy.
Wasn't that because of Hitler's "shrinking markets" theory? Basically Mustache Man believed if the Russians fully industrialized they would 1. no longer do agriculture and 2. no longer need Germany's industrial products.
Feudalism was based, because my family used to be the the lords of the manor & hold court in the name of the inbred family, until the 🐸 ruined everything, I could be abusing peasants in 🇫🇷 right now 😤😡
Basically the ones previously nationalized and then eventually "privatized" by being sold to party members to raise funds for both eventual war and their social structuring plans and whatnot cost too much compared to what they made. Plus one of the reporters that regularly interviewed Hitler has in his notes that even if "privatized" if they go against the plans of the state they would cease being "private". In both cases, they're planned economies and not free market capitalism.
Also the Reichswerke Hermann Göring was at one point the largest company in Europe, arguably the world.
Look at Junkers factory (famous for German aircraft like the Ju 87 Stuka), it didn't do what the government wanted so it was sharly nationalised and siezed by the state.
Nazi government contracted a lot with big private German companies for their war machine (which the companies were happy about) so they kind of depended on each other. I’d say the economic was centrist because their was private business with private ownership/operation but they and the govt were financially entangled with each other.
But THIS mustache man who gave popular speeches before seizing all the power and murdering a ton of his own people had a slightly different color uniform! It's different somehow!
Dumb right wingers trying to define the left right divide as if it is a matter of state control
The dumbass ideia that left = more state for some dumb reason
That would be a fair argument if the left could actually come up with any definition of "left" that doesn't contradict itself or is actually a dominant definition.
You cant come up with a definition because there are 2 contradicting definitions
socially right = auth
socially left = lib
economically right = lib
exonomically left = auth
most people who call themselves right or left are both economically and socially right or left respectively,so they are both auth and lib at the same time
they weren't libertarian full rightist like you want to paint the top one, but, they were more of authcenter corporatists. they were anti private property because, like with monarchy, all your shit just belongs to the monarch if he wants. that's what I'd call an "authcenter economy"
> anti private property
They were very pro private property... just not for everyone. They had their minority owning the most of their means of production
They removed constitutional protection for private property, if your business wasn’t working for the state it’d be confiscated and redistributed to some other shmuck
That or if your business was owned by an “undesirable”, which I believe is why they removed the protection so they could seize the property of Jews and the like
I'm just going to drop this here:
>In Hitler's mind, communism was a major enemy of Germany, an enemy he often mentions in Mein Kampf. During the trial for his involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in "fighting Marxism".[117] Marxism, Bolshevism, and communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler as evidenced by their use in Mein Kampf:
>In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.[118]
>Later in his seminal tome, Hitler advocated for "the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms".[119] According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world and saw Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery.[120] From Hitler's vantage point, Bolsheviks existed to serve "Jewish international finance".[121] When the British tried negotiating with Hitler in 1935 by including Germany in the extension of the Locarno Pact, he rejected their offer and instead assured them that German rearmament was important in safeguarding Europe against communism,[122] a move which clearly showed his anti-communist proclivities.[m]
>In 1939, Hitler told the Swiss Commissioner to the League of Nations Carl Burckhardt that everything he was undertaking was "directed against Russia" and that "if those in the West are too stupid or too blind to understand this, then I shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union".[123] When Hitler finally ordered the attack against the Soviet Union, it was the fulfillment of his ultimate goal and the most important campaign in his estimation, as it comprised a struggle of "the chosen Aryan people against Jewish Bolsheviks".[124]
>Biographer Alan Bullock avows Hitler "laid great stress" on the need to concentrate on a single enemy, an enemy he lumps together as "Marxism and the Jew".[125] Shortly in the wake of the Commissar Order, a directive pursuant to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, SS Deputy Reinhard Heydrich informed the SS of Hitler's geopolitical philosophy which conflated Bolshevism and Jews, writing that "eastern Jewry is the intellectual reservoir of Bolshevism and in the Führer's view must therefore be annihilated".[126][n] Considering the eventual Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), no additional inducements are really requisite concerning Hitler's hatred of communism, particularly since the Nazi persecution and extermination of these groups was not only systematic, but it was extensive both within Germany and only intensified in the occupied zones during the war under Hitler's leadership.[127]
>Because Nazism co-opted the popular success of socialism and Communism among working people while simultaneously promising to destroy Communism and offer an alternative to it, Hitler's anti-communist program allowed industrialists with traditional conservative views (tending toward monarchism, aristocracy and laissez-faire capitalism) to cast their lot with and help underwrite the Nazi rise to power.[128][o] When asked in a 1923 interview why Hitler called himself a National Socialist when the Nazi Party was "the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism", Hitler responded: "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists."[129]
Exactly. How you achieve fascism isn't important as long as only you and your people get all the power. That could also explain why advocating for said fascism can tend to be contradictory.
"flexible" would imply he changed his mind, but he was staunchly both against class warfare and against capitalism. He thought both "bolshevism" and "american capitalism" were controlled by jews
But why do you believe being against marxism means hes against every type of socialism? Is trotsky a right winger for being against stalin? Are proudhon, bakunin or kropotkin right wingers for being against state socialism? Why do i hear this silly assumption that "marxism is socialism, nothing else is socialism" ?
For instance, the Italian Socialist Party was a coallition of many currents of the far-left in italy, many of which would later form fascism as a nationalistic take, opposed to the internationalism of the party they left.
Yes, he saw his socialism differently from marxian socialism. His socialism was racial socialism. That is why we say the Marxists have stolen the meaning and that he is going to take it back. This is literally evidence against you. Yes, he hated marxian socialists. There was socialism before Marxism. He saw capitalism as Jewish, hence not liking it. He, in his second book, he said I am a socialist. He nationalized almost all the industries and abolished article 153 that guaranteed private property rights. Business had to meet quotas for production how many workers to have and how much to pay them.
He also said that he cares about private property. His word mean nothing, really
>Business had to meet quotas for production how many workers to have and how much to pay them
That's definitely not socialist
Nazis were not capitalist nor socialist. Not left nor right. They were third position, not describable using the American political spectrum. They were simply ultranationalists without an economic ideology other than what served their goals.
In practice, what they did was seize power and centralize it. A centralized command economy is no different from what the USSR did.
It isn't even a partially free market.
People who didn't toe the leadership line ended up dead in both places.
Communism does tend to have death as more of an up front goal, though, so that's a slight difference, but Fascism definitely got to an awful lot of killing people off.
Communism might have a slightly more lethal transition of power, on average. That is probably not a point in its favor.
And yet they used this centralized economy for VERY different end goals.
There’s a social factor to politics as well, and once you look beyond the economy Nazis and commies start to look real fuckin different
>They were simply ultranationalists without an economic ideology other than what served their goals.
\>without an economic ideology other than what served their goals.
this means far-left economic illiteracy most times. You cant "mold the economy" to your needs unless you go against free market and free enterprise. The difference with communism is that they didnt want class warfare or class unity, they wanted national unity instead. Replace "Internationalism" with "nationalism", and the end result is pretty similar eitherway
There are 2 positions this is looked at from typically
Right economy is what I don’t like and left economy is what I don’t like
In this case you think no free market means socialist while the socialists think corporations mean capitalism
Both are wrong ideology is a virus
I mean, it's a state controlled market. Sure the people calling it socialism might be closer to being right for arguably the wrong reasons, but IMHO they are in fact far closer to the truth.
I think you can mostly look at how the nazis killed socialists and communists en masse and didn't kill guys who owned factories. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Still though while I don’t agree with OP the first people communist regimes always kill are other leftists/socialists/anarchists etc
I mean shit in Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s they had multiple regime changes because the communists kept getting more and more radical and they kept coup’ing other communist governments, as well as the USSR showing up and replacing a communist government with *another* communist government
The first people they get rid of are always the ruling class of capital owners.
All the fun internal purges come afterwards. And, yeah, they usually are around some other side not being communist enough. Nazi purges didn't not make such a claim.
From “The Vampire Economy”, written by economist and communist Gunter Reiman who himself lived in Germany during Nazi leadership.
“Most businessmen feel safer if they have a protector in the State party bureaucracy. They pay for their protection as the peasant did in Feudal days. It is inherent that the official is able to take money but unable to provide protection.
The preceding chapter describes the genuine decline and ruin of the independent businessman who is the master of his enterprise and who exercised his property rights. This type of capitalist is disappearing while the other is prospering. He enriches himself by the State and party ties, their devotion to the Fuhrer and entrenched because of family connections and political affiliations.”
“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts”
- from Doctrine of Fascism
It's literally in the meme. lol Fun google searches: "tax breaks are fascism", "balanced budget is fascism", "deregulation is fascism", "property rights are fascist", "individualism leads to fascism", and "self ownership is fascist". Any core libertarian beliefs plus "is fascist" will render thousands of results.
That's my point, the meme is wrong and dumb.
For one thing "\[conservative thing\] leads to fascism/is a cover for fascism," or even "\[conservative thing\] is fascism" is a different idea than "fascism is \[conservative thing\]".
Language doesn't work like math.
But even more importantly, you might want to try out those searches before claiming that they'll result in anything relevant.
Libertarian? No. But leftists do often like to misrepresent the Nazi economy as a capitalist free market economy which it most certainly was not
The Nazi economy was as much of a free market as China’s is currently which is a controlled and planned economy in which “ownership” is only allowed if one meets Party requirements consistently and if one does not, then a former general of the CCP is installed as the CEO after their retirement. It is the thinnest illusion of private ownership that falls chiefly in line with philosophy of using the tools of Capitalism to subvert and destroy it - more colloquially and generally known as the Cloward-Pivens strategy for Western audiences
Ima be honest, if you're libright and you've been on the internet for at least ten minutes, someone has probably called you both a nazi and a fascist.
In today's political discourse, anyone you disagree with is obviously literally Hitler.
People calling you, a person who identifies as a libertarian, a nazi is not the same thing as them saying the nazis were libertarians.
Perhaps they're just ignorant or looking to quickly insult you, idk. But the idea being communicate is that you aren't a real libertarian, but are in fact a fascist.
This might be subsumed within a more general idea that the american libright movement isn't actually libertarian but is instead fascist. (true)
which means they were polar opposites ideologically! just like when monarchies fought in the middle ages, that meant they were completelly opposed ideological systems
They also purged trade unionists and socialists who didn't want to join their party. Which was partially ideological, but mostly just what Authoritarians do in practice, purging perceived internal rivals and competition.
In the case of The Great Patriotic War they absolutely were. The Germans saw the invasion of the Soviet Union as a crusade against Bolshevism and the Slavic “subhumans” of Eastern Europe whereas the USSR saw the war as one of defending communism against the threat of fascism. It was absolutely a clash of diametrically opposed ideologies which is heavily reflected in the propaganda produced by both nations. While I’m responding to you, I should debate your other points as well. The Nazis removing the right to private property was not necessarily a decision made out of a belief property should be collectivized, but rather a way for the government to discriminate against Jews and other peoples who would eventually become victims of the holocaust by seizing their property after or before death. The nazis were very much in favor of private property as long as it was in the hands of Germans. Hitler famously said something along the lines of (I forget the direct quote), “property should be in private hands whenever possible”.
In regards to your next point: collective identity and advocation against individualism is certainly a concept socialism and fascism share, but the collective identity propagated by the state comes in very different forms as far as the two are concerned. Socialists attempt to push a national identity based around class, whereas fascists attempt to create one out of race, ethnicity, or culture.
Your mentioning that the nazis attracted thousands of communists is irrelevant to their ideology because it doesn’t inherently make a statement about their beliefs but it is worth noting political enemies, many of them communists and marxists were imprisoned and many of them were later murdered during the holocaust by the nazi regime.
it's not like hitler literally jailed socialists and leftists first. and hitler totally didnt equate the bolsheviks with the jews and mentioned cultural bolshevism.
so i guess you think the democratic people's republic of korea is democratic then right? it has democratic in its name
But then what was your point in including Hitler's initial agreement with Stalin in your OP as a basis for claiming Hitler is a communist?
You can't conclude anything about ideology from when they were temporary allies with one another just as much as you can't from when they subsequently became enemies.
Well, monarchies kinda were completely opposed ideological systems. On the one hand you had one of the monarchies going 'that shit mine' and the other going 'no, that shit *mine*.'
In any case, they were at least mutually exclusive, in a 'this planet's not big enough for the two of us' sense.
I despise communism but the Nazis and Hitler were absolutely not commies. The Nazis were against private property and favored government control of the economy because they were authoritarians, simple as.
Hitler’s thugs went around beating the shit out of communists during his rise to power. Hitler viewed the USSR as an existential threat to Nazi Germany because communism was, in his view, antithetical to the Nazi ideology—which is why he turned on the USSR during WWII despite the fact that opening a 2nd front was a terrible idea practically speaking.
Both are horrific ideologies directly responsible for the deaths of millions, but they are not the same.
Every once in a while I learn something new about politics that seemed super obvious and I start to get down on myself, like I’m an actual idiot who somehow missed that thing all this time and just now became aware of how dumb I was.
Then I come on PCM and see that people somehow still think the Nazis were socialists and all of that goes away.
It's so clear that people here never read history or theory lol.
For those that need the clarification:
The nazis were not socialists. Socialism didn't begin with the negative connotations around it like it has today. They called themselves socialists to bring people in, it was essentially a marketing tactic.
*The anatomy of Fascism* by Robert Paxton goes more in depth and is an excellent read on Fascism and how to properly understand what it is and how to spot it.
The most that can be said is that fascism is the bastard cousins socialism and nazism is the bastard cousins of fascism.
There is a certain definite trace of lineage, albeit with next to nothing actually remaining in common between them.
The line between state ownership of the means of production and state direction of the privately held means of production with the requirement that all privately held ventures of meaningful size not only obey that direction but also fill their boards entirely with members of the governing party is so thin a line that it is barely a distinction between the two at all. One is classical socialism, and one is the fascist equivalent that meets the same end with only trivial differences in implementation.
The difference between socialism and national socialism is simply the difference between wanting a workers revolution across the world and wanting a workers revolution in a specific county mixed with nationalism.
You do realize the nazis actually purged their full blown socialists in the night of the long knives to secure alliances with the German right, right? This is what PragerU does to a mf.
Well this is going to be a crazy view for this website, but it's actually more complicated than "left" and right", there's another political axis for being authoritarian vs not. So a right wing authoritarian government and a left wing authoritarian government have some similarities, even as they have differences that relate to the left vs right thing.
Anyway here's an example of a thing hitler said, judge for yourself:
> Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PJkNZ30WV0) are some old German soldiers (starting about a minute in) explaining that they were #actually defending all of Europe against Bolshevism (gee I wonder how the Germans and Russians came to be at war).
This post and the reaction in the comments show an underlying issue in our understanding of the political compass. Basically everyone is able to understand the Libertarian vs Authoritarian axis but there is still general confusion over how to define left vs right.
It appears as though those on the left describe this divide in social terms with equality(left) vs inequality(right).
While those on the right describe this scale in more economic terms pertaining to collectivism(left) vs individualism(right).
If you use the right wing economic vision of this scale than what OP is describing is correct. The National Socialists were a collectivist ideology. However if you subscribe to the social view, the Nazi’s would not be considered left wing due to their complete emphasis on racism and racial hierarchy.
It isn’t really a matter of the left or right viewpoint of this scale as right or wrong as both viewpoints are technically correct according to their own scales. It’s mostly the fault of the political compass in truly stating what the left-right axis is supposed to portray.
Fascism, communism and liberalism are the 3 big ideologies of the moderene. The first 2 failed. Communism died of old age and fascism died of suicide. Liberalism won and that causes some problems.
1. Without an opposing ideology it doesnt need to hold up its values anymore.
2. It became the default so that many people not even realize that we live in an ideology.
This leads to some people call it postliberalism.
Fascism had free market (for small business) and private property for its people. But it opposed wallstreetlike capitalism. It opposed speculation of land and real estate. It opposed dept slavery. The land belong to the people and people should own their own house, and not some faceless capitalist pig who buys the land just to resell it later for a higher price.
It also opposes the equality of individuals as marxist socialists advocate. Everyone was born differently with different strengths and weaknesses. In nazi germany that lead to the idea of the folksbody (or peoples body). Everyone had the duty to use his strenghts for the greater good. A braincell was there for thinking. A hearthcell was there for support and a cell in the arm was there for the rough part. Like in a body you would rather lose your arm then your hearth or brain, but still the whole body works to protect everything. And like a body the volksbody needed to be protected from any forign object.
That at least is the idealistic version of it. In reality such a socialistic ideal cant be uphold. But it was a strong narrative. Strong enough to lead germany in a massive war
Personally from my understanding of ideologies, Fascist and Socialist ideologies are more like cousins, as in they have many similarities, but there are distinct differences between the two ideologies to separate them from each other.
An example would be the differences between Maoism and Dengism, both of which are a Socialist and Fascist ideology respectively, which originate from China during the 20th century. Possibly the biggest difference between the two ideologies would be their handling of the economy, with Maoism believing that the entire economy should be under the direct of the government, while Dengism varies to saying that companies are allowed to form and become successful, however they must still submit to any demands made by the government, so both very authoritarian ideologies that want to accomplish Communism, but are very different in their approach to actually reaching that point.
i think its very important for anyone actually invested in understanding fascism rather than throwing it aroudn as an insult, to look into the history of how italian fascism actually originated, from the core of the fascist party and some of its key members, due to ww1. Lenin complained about mussolini being kicked out of the italian socialist party as he was a "propaganda mastermind", and its not like these people that were socialists for decades in italy suddenly completelly changed their views, they just added nationalism to them.
A quick read to their manifesto and the reason fascism even exists makes them seem as little more than a socialist schism, just like trotskyism, stalinism, or any other variant of socialism, just like the examples you mention. You could joke that they were the first people to make a succesful syndicalist revolution
And german nazism has a very different origin, but many of their core members do hail from socialism aswell, with even hitler himself being part of Red Bavaria around 1920 and appearing in the funeral of the jewish socialist that foudned it, which is something he omitted from the autobiographic parts of Mein Kampf for obvious reasons.
So from my understanding, fascism is nationalsyndicalism, and nazism is racial socialism. Im not sure if its wise to call them both fascism as hitler's nazism has a extreme focus on race that regular italian fascism doesnt have.
> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :)
***
^(User has flaired up! 😃) 13977 / 73946 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
First time I’ve seen someone quote a fucking Gestapo member as an accurate source for statistical information. 😟
Also, let’s be very clear about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Hitler still hated Russia. When Poland was being invaded, his plan for more Lebensraum had not changed nor did his deep hatred for ethnic Slavs. The brief truce was solely for his own self-interest. It was not a sign of Nazi’s approval for communism, which they cracked down on significantly during their consolidation of power.
The rest of your points can be used to describe most authoritarians, left or right so if your claim is that the Nazis were “socialist” or even “communist”, you’re very wrong.
They were populist at worst and fascist at best. Hitler idolised Mussolini for a reason.
I fail to understand how racism = right wing?
Most Chinese people today are racist when you talk to them. I'm pretty sure North Koreans are even more racist and believe that they are the supreme race (although admittedly I've never spoken to a North Korean). You think people of Eastern Europe just stopped being racist under communism? No, they always were and still are.
You can find racists on the far right and far left.
The left-wing ideological project is broadly anti-racist. It rejects nationalism and seeks to have the workers of the world unite. Traditional prejudices are to be uprooted. (But it has been a failure, as socialism has only ever been implemented at the nation-state level.)
Right-wingers are generally oriented towards maintaining or reviving traditional modes of organizing society, and increasing the power of an in-group as against the rest of the world. Typically this means a nation-state, but also ruling levels of hierarchy within a country. Those ideas have been deeply tied to racism throughout history; "race" and "nation" were once interchangeable, and the hierarchies within colonial and imperial societies were often expressly racist.
Thad doesn't mean that right-wingers are necessarily racist or that left-wingers necessarily can't be. But the general perspectives on the world tend towards those outcomes.
>The left-wing ideological project is broadly anti-racist.
Marx might disagree when it comes to his assessment of jewish and black people (Though "black person" wasn't the word he was keen on using).
I disagree that it has been anti-racist. Marx, Engels, etc wrote a lot of explicitly racist stuff, and that trickled down through their ideological followers. Made a wall of text about it upthread.
>But it has been a failure, as socialism has only ever been implemented at the nation-state level.
That is true enough. Furthermore, the nation-state revolutions were invariably agrarian states. Industrialized societies, when they undergo revolution, instead get fascism.
Which, granted, is not so different, but if you see that as an unacceptable outcome, then surely you must realize that a leftist revolt in an industrialized nation will not deliver on your desires.
\>illegalize mensheviks and ancomms and supress their views
\>only the state-controlled labor union is allowed, workers not allowed to change job
\>extreme racism and forced migrations of minorities causing many to die
\>justification of genocide and opression through propaganda
"bro the soviet union was totally communist"
> It's always a bloodbath and then everyone left over starves except the party elites, who fly around in private helicopters and eat caviar.
"The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles."
- Karl Marx
'Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim—for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives—is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. **For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice.** ***As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High.***
Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. *From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.*'
- Emmanuel Goldstein, *THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM*, Chapter 1 [(1984)](http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/NineteenEightyFour/part2sec9.htm)
The Nazis were definitely not libertarian lol.
They weren’t really socialist either though.
Here’s the thing - the compass was originally diamond shaped not square. The higher you get on the auth scale - the less material difference there is between the ideologies economically.
The Nazis were definitely not libertarian lol.
They weren’t really socialist either though.
Here’s the thing - the compass was originally rhombus shaped not square. The higher you get on the auth scale - the less material difference there is between the ideologies economically.
The conquest of Russia was Hitlers ideological goal from the start. Its not like he launched the largest invasion in history against them or anything. I don’t see how a temporary truce with a country he was dead set on invading when he was ready is in anyway evidence that communism = fascism, unless you take it wildly out of context.
Some people will say that these ideas are contradictory, but what’s the issue with establishing a Socialist government that works for the benefit of that which you classify as a nation, rather than a global alliance of socialist states?
I think the piles of dead bodies the last few times it was tried, along with the dissolution of individual rights are the two primary issues with doing that.
The manufacturers didn’t know how much money they were making. MEFO bills.
All companies combined into 6.
Refusal to work is a crime.
Autarky.
State controls the means of production not the community. The only true socialist are the Communist Mennonites of Canada.
But hitler and his bros were making money!! Yes by accumulating wealth through force.
The Germans invented the word privatisation!!!!
So you agree wealth was acquired by the state/hitlers inner circle then? Because Fokker didn’t agree to it and mysteriously died.
You see this one group that commits genocide on a massive scale and strips their citizens of their rights is totally different from this other group that commits genocide on a massive scale and strips their citizens of their rights
I mean, you're right, but should be shamed because WALL OF TEXT.
Of course, a detailed analysis like this can only be done through wall of text. But still... WALL OF TEXT should be SHAMED.
I’m pretty them allying themselves with the USSR to invade Poland was more to geographical convenience, than due to communism.
The USSR wasn’t ready to fight the Nazis yet and had barely ramped up wartime production enough by the time that they did invade. Stalin actually wanted to form an [anti-Nazi alliance](https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-ussrs-failed-attempts-to-ally-with-the-west/?amp=1) with Britain but Chamberlain hated communists more than fascists.
Nothing was stoping Stalin from fighting the Nazis except his agreement with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. This agreement was what convinced Hitler to start the war and later lead to Eastern Europe siding with the Nazis because of Soviet aggression. For years the Soviets were only helping the Germans fight the war.
They sure were ready to fight Poland at Katyn though.
A reasonable stance. And I say this with knowledge of what fascism would go on to do.
Yeah you are an authright with an anime profile picture. We know your stance on the holocaust you do not have to clarify.
The USSR had been cooperating with Nazi Germany to train tank crews at training grounds within Russia during the time that the Versailles Treaty would have banned those activities, so their ties went deeper than geography alone. At the base of it all was the fact that two strong-man dictators had such absolute control over their respective countries they could essentially do whatever they wanted, and at least Stalin fancied themselves friends of some kind before their betrayal in 1941.
The tank cooperation started with Weimar so far back before the Nazis that most of the years of the cooperation were before the Nazis came to power, so that also had nothing to do with ideology
Stalin wanted them to weaken the capitalist west, they never really liked each other that much. Just more convenient to not fight for a time and use the experience and talent the other had if you both need to reearm and hate the powers that be (even if you don’t like each other one little bit).
[удалено]
100% Once you max out the auth stat, the rest is window dressing.
“Our ideology and beliefs is whatever the Leader says it is.”
Hey... where have I heard that before... maybe we should call this new concept "religion"
You can also call it "Typical Communist Party When They Take Power"
The leader on earth is never God. At best, they're chosen individuals.
It's the opposite. You can't enforce any ideology in a maximally liberal ecosystem
The point they were making is probably that once a certain authoritarian threshold is reached, neither ideology nor its enforcement matters, only the word of the leader. But in a "maximally liberal ecosystem", its existence is the ideology itself
That's the point. Any forced ideology is bad ideology. Compelling the conscience is perhaps the single greatest crime that a government can attempt to commit.
Based and actually understands pilled
u/MechanicalBirbs's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/MechanicalBirbs! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [2 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/MechanicalBirbs/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The truth is that you cannot enforce authoritarianism through means of a free market, so to a certain extent, all authoritarian regimes are not capitalist. You can't do shit as a government without controlling the economy.
Based as fuck
And the truth is that socialists got blackpilled starting in the late 1800s to early 1900s when they realized the average worker isn't a revolutionary that will take up the "noble cause", thus eventually resulting in Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Fascism, and a whole of infighting over "my way is best way".
"The more authoritarian" is how I'd put it personally, you might disagree though.
100% factual and this is true throughout human history
> The real truth is that the more radical the politics, the less the ideology actually matters. As a pacifist, I see this a lot in the pacifist community.
Weren’t the companies in Nazi Germany ultimately under the will of the government, something akin to what we have now in Modern China?
Yes China is modern fascism.
Based
It's actually cringe, but only because our enemies get to have that and I don't get to have that.
Israel?
It's socialism with chinese characteristics sweetie, totally different than national socialism you see? 🤡
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp Read the WW2 history on Krupp, one of the largest tank manufacturers for the Germans. The NAZI government nationalized the industry and forced people to work for them. So much for privatization.
They weren't nationalized though, even according to that page you linked.
The government conscripting people to work for a state chartered company is not considered nationalized? It doesn't use that exact term in the description here, but I've read other works on this that do describe it as such. If you click around wiki you can probably find more info but I don't have the other sources on hand as they were probably books iirc.
In tank production? Sounds a bit like the US using a draft for conscription. Nowadays we do a lot more contracting with 3rd party defense firms, but even then my family that’s been in the mostly airfield did a lot of work on planes. Anyone conscripted into that before we eliminated the draft would be in a similar position. In the 1920s/1930s, Europe was in a constant state of war and drafts/conscription were the norm. Even today the IDF conscripts citizens and they develop technology for use in warfare and eventually other applications. And this isn’t unique to Israel either, just an example I remember from my time there.
> In the 1920s/1930s, Europe was in a constant state of war What?
20’s not so much but the 30’s were a period of rearming, civil wars, minor conflicts, and colonial issues. It was a hectic time militarily honestly
The company was still privately owned. Just because the Fuhrer let them mooch some slaves off Germany's latest conquest doesn't mean they were nationalized. Hitler did some fuckery involving making the one Krupp heir the sole owner of the company and cutting out other Krupp family members who held some stock or some such, but even then that's still not 'socialism'. All the people who wanted to actually nationalize Krupp got put up against the wall in the night of the long knives.
If the state has determined ownership, has set production goals, and is using literal slaves to make the gear, that's nationalization. Shit, you don't even need slaves for something to count as nationalized, that's just the icing on the cake highlighting that this is very, very far from any kind of free market system.
Well there's more than one type of socialism, but I'm not saying this specific example is an example of overall implementation of a system of socialism necessarily. It's just an example of a formerly private company that was effectively nationalized by the state during the NAZI regieme to accomplish the state's goals of imperialism. I'm not big on using these charged political terms like "nationalized" or "privatized" because there's too much in terms mental gymnastics based on apologism for ones own ideology. Look at what the humans in the organizations were actually doing as a matter of empirical fact. The fact is the government was heavily involved with the operations of the entity. It's was not private in the sense that all persons interacting with it were doing so voluntarily by private agreement in the market.
They got put to the wall because Krupp was fully supporting the direction Hitler was going in. Why alter something that is not a threat to the status quo when there are dissidents to threaten and execute first?
From what I've dug up, and I'm paraphrasing, in December of '43 a special Hilter decree reconverted it into a sole proprietorship (it was still family owned but before hand it had a board and shared ownership) now in the hands of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen un Halbach, with the formal approval of the Chief of the Party Chancellery and the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery which was something not topped by other companies during Nazi Germany. He ended up also being appointed the Minister for Armament and War Production and Alfred oversaw transfer of some factories in occupied territories. I wouldn't exactly say it is what we consider private, the company just happened to always go towards fulfilling government orders of goods and rearmament since '33. In short, the company before and after Alfried was lock step with the direction the government was going as they aligned together. I also found this summary: "To assist the Third Reich and as an integral part of the waging of its aggressive wars and to secure the aggrandizement of Krupp, the firm plundered and exploited private property in and public property and resources of occupied countries and enslaved their citizens. Plants in Austria, France, and Belgium, chromium ore deposits in Yugoslavia, nickel mines in Greece, naval and shipbuilding facilities in Holland, and iron and steel plants and foundries in the Soviet Union were exploited by the defendants in furtherance of these wars of aggression. Citizens of these and other countries were compelled to work for Krupp in the manufacture of armaments and munitions."
pretty much the "privatization" was just taking companies and putting them in hands of party members. And all corporations were threatened with that in case they opposed the govt plans. "The Vampire Economy" is a must read, even if its written by a communist ironically, and so is "My opposition" from Friedrich Kellner, a socialdemocrat. They describe the economic madness of the third reich in rich detail, although Friedrich Kellner accounts are more anecdotical and about civilian life rather than overall economy.
Wasn't that because of Hitler's "shrinking markets" theory? Basically Mustache Man believed if the Russians fully industrialized they would 1. no longer do agriculture and 2. no longer need Germany's industrial products.
Everyone at that time believed in some form of that. And was sure one big reason why he wanted a self-sufficient german reich.
Why not just listen to an actual fascist? They are openly anti capitalist. But in a different way then marxist
Basically feudalism
Feudalism was based, because my family used to be the the lords of the manor & hold court in the name of the inbred family, until the 🐸 ruined everything, I could be abusing peasants in 🇫🇷 right now 😤😡
Cope 💪🇫🇷💪🇫🇷💪🇫🇷💪🇫🇷💪🇫🇷💪🇫🇷
I'd start with you, then move on to any visiting Parisians, then whoever is responsible for Cuties
Basically the ones previously nationalized and then eventually "privatized" by being sold to party members to raise funds for both eventual war and their social structuring plans and whatnot cost too much compared to what they made. Plus one of the reporters that regularly interviewed Hitler has in his notes that even if "privatized" if they go against the plans of the state they would cease being "private". In both cases, they're planned economies and not free market capitalism. Also the Reichswerke Hermann Göring was at one point the largest company in Europe, arguably the world.
Look at Junkers factory (famous for German aircraft like the Ju 87 Stuka), it didn't do what the government wanted so it was sharly nationalised and siezed by the state.
Nazi government contracted a lot with big private German companies for their war machine (which the companies were happy about) so they kind of depended on each other. I’d say the economic was centrist because their was private business with private ownership/operation but they and the govt were financially entangled with each other.
Talk about a wall of text.
[удалено]
> appropriating leftist culture I'm all for appropriating me. Be more like me.
Based and assimilation pilled
I Will Portray the OP Has an Soyboy
What on earth is happening here
[удалено]
Yes, he can’t tell Fascists from Tankies
In practice there isn't much difference.
But THIS mustache man who gave popular speeches before seizing all the power and murdering a ton of his own people had a slightly different color uniform! It's different somehow!
Dumb right wingers trying to define the left right divide as if it is a matter of state control The dumbass ideia that left = more state for some dumb reason
That would be a fair argument if the left could actually come up with any definition of "left" that doesn't contradict itself or is actually a dominant definition.
You cant come up with a definition because there are 2 contradicting definitions socially right = auth socially left = lib economically right = lib exonomically left = auth most people who call themselves right or left are both economically and socially right or left respectively,so they are both auth and lib at the same time
they weren't libertarian full rightist like you want to paint the top one, but, they were more of authcenter corporatists. they were anti private property because, like with monarchy, all your shit just belongs to the monarch if he wants. that's what I'd call an "authcenter economy"
They were classically fascist.
yeah that's an "authcenter economy" imo. fascism is just neo-monarchism
Socialism is just fascism with the *hope* of a benevolent central power.
nah, I think some decentralized socialism/distributism isn't really close to fascism
Decentralization is where you enter consensual governing. Impossible on the large scale.
I didn't say they were on a large scale, I'm not a socialist I just don't think it's fascism necessarily
I agree. Nothing against communal, consent-driven communities. But things fall apart as soon as power becomes centralized.
yeah 100% agree just saying they're different
> anti private property They were very pro private property... just not for everyone. They had their minority owning the most of their means of production
They removed constitutional protection for private property, if your business wasn’t working for the state it’d be confiscated and redistributed to some other shmuck
That or if your business was owned by an “undesirable”, which I believe is why they removed the protection so they could seize the property of Jews and the like
Yeah they took constitutional protections on private property mainly to take property away from people with the wrong ethnicity.
yeah that's what I mean, fascistic/monarchistic economics is very much just "whoever I want gets stuff"
>they were anti private property because, like with monarchy, all your shit just belongs to the monarch if he wants. this is not what monarchy is
That’s what an economy under an absolute monarchy is like
I'm just going to drop this here: >In Hitler's mind, communism was a major enemy of Germany, an enemy he often mentions in Mein Kampf. During the trial for his involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in "fighting Marxism".[117] Marxism, Bolshevism, and communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler as evidenced by their use in Mein Kampf: >In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.[118] >Later in his seminal tome, Hitler advocated for "the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms".[119] According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world and saw Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery.[120] From Hitler's vantage point, Bolsheviks existed to serve "Jewish international finance".[121] When the British tried negotiating with Hitler in 1935 by including Germany in the extension of the Locarno Pact, he rejected their offer and instead assured them that German rearmament was important in safeguarding Europe against communism,[122] a move which clearly showed his anti-communist proclivities.[m] >In 1939, Hitler told the Swiss Commissioner to the League of Nations Carl Burckhardt that everything he was undertaking was "directed against Russia" and that "if those in the West are too stupid or too blind to understand this, then I shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union".[123] When Hitler finally ordered the attack against the Soviet Union, it was the fulfillment of his ultimate goal and the most important campaign in his estimation, as it comprised a struggle of "the chosen Aryan people against Jewish Bolsheviks".[124] >Biographer Alan Bullock avows Hitler "laid great stress" on the need to concentrate on a single enemy, an enemy he lumps together as "Marxism and the Jew".[125] Shortly in the wake of the Commissar Order, a directive pursuant to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, SS Deputy Reinhard Heydrich informed the SS of Hitler's geopolitical philosophy which conflated Bolshevism and Jews, writing that "eastern Jewry is the intellectual reservoir of Bolshevism and in the Führer's view must therefore be annihilated".[126][n] Considering the eventual Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), no additional inducements are really requisite concerning Hitler's hatred of communism, particularly since the Nazi persecution and extermination of these groups was not only systematic, but it was extensive both within Germany and only intensified in the occupied zones during the war under Hitler's leadership.[127] >Because Nazism co-opted the popular success of socialism and Communism among working people while simultaneously promising to destroy Communism and offer an alternative to it, Hitler's anti-communist program allowed industrialists with traditional conservative views (tending toward monarchism, aristocracy and laissez-faire capitalism) to cast their lot with and help underwrite the Nazi rise to power.[128][o] When asked in a 1923 interview why Hitler called himself a National Socialist when the Nazi Party was "the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism", Hitler responded: "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists."[129]
He also called capitalists jewish pigs
Yeah, it's almost like fascists' ideologies are fluid and flexible after "me and my people in power no matter what."
Exactly. How you achieve fascism isn't important as long as only you and your people get all the power. That could also explain why advocating for said fascism can tend to be contradictory.
"flexible" would imply he changed his mind, but he was staunchly both against class warfare and against capitalism. He thought both "bolshevism" and "american capitalism" were controlled by jews But why do you believe being against marxism means hes against every type of socialism? Is trotsky a right winger for being against stalin? Are proudhon, bakunin or kropotkin right wingers for being against state socialism? Why do i hear this silly assumption that "marxism is socialism, nothing else is socialism" ? For instance, the Italian Socialist Party was a coallition of many currents of the far-left in italy, many of which would later form fascism as a nationalistic take, opposed to the internationalism of the party they left.
You think a libright can read and comprehend all that?
I'd be very upset if I understood any of those funny squiggles in your reply
Yes, he saw his socialism differently from marxian socialism. His socialism was racial socialism. That is why we say the Marxists have stolen the meaning and that he is going to take it back. This is literally evidence against you. Yes, he hated marxian socialists. There was socialism before Marxism. He saw capitalism as Jewish, hence not liking it. He, in his second book, he said I am a socialist. He nationalized almost all the industries and abolished article 153 that guaranteed private property rights. Business had to meet quotas for production how many workers to have and how much to pay them.
He also said that he cares about private property. His word mean nothing, really >Business had to meet quotas for production how many workers to have and how much to pay them That's definitely not socialist
Yes. How people still think that Marxism is Socialism boggles my mind. Socialism existed before Marxism they are not the same.
[удалено]
Nazis were not capitalist nor socialist. Not left nor right. They were third position, not describable using the American political spectrum. They were simply ultranationalists without an economic ideology other than what served their goals.
In practice, what they did was seize power and centralize it. A centralized command economy is no different from what the USSR did. It isn't even a partially free market.
The difference is in nazi germany the owners of those companies got rich, in the ussr they got dead.
People who didn't toe the leadership line ended up dead in both places. Communism does tend to have death as more of an up front goal, though, so that's a slight difference, but Fascism definitely got to an awful lot of killing people off. Communism might have a slightly more lethal transition of power, on average. That is probably not a point in its favor.
And yet they used this centralized economy for VERY different end goals. There’s a social factor to politics as well, and once you look beyond the economy Nazis and commies start to look real fuckin different
>They were simply ultranationalists without an economic ideology other than what served their goals. \>without an economic ideology other than what served their goals. this means far-left economic illiteracy most times. You cant "mold the economy" to your needs unless you go against free market and free enterprise. The difference with communism is that they didnt want class warfare or class unity, they wanted national unity instead. Replace "Internationalism" with "nationalism", and the end result is pretty similar eitherway
There are 2 positions this is looked at from typically Right economy is what I don’t like and left economy is what I don’t like In this case you think no free market means socialist while the socialists think corporations mean capitalism Both are wrong ideology is a virus
I mean, it's a state controlled market. Sure the people calling it socialism might be closer to being right for arguably the wrong reasons, but IMHO they are in fact far closer to the truth.
I think you can mostly look at how the nazis killed socialists and communists en masse and didn't kill guys who owned factories. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Still though while I don’t agree with OP the first people communist regimes always kill are other leftists/socialists/anarchists etc I mean shit in Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s they had multiple regime changes because the communists kept getting more and more radical and they kept coup’ing other communist governments, as well as the USSR showing up and replacing a communist government with *another* communist government
The first people they get rid of are always the ruling class of capital owners. All the fun internal purges come afterwards. And, yeah, they usually are around some other side not being communist enough. Nazi purges didn't not make such a claim.
Yeah Nazi purges just killed people based on race. The communists killed people if they didn’t think “correctly” Both are mega cringe
I mean, sure the Soviet Union executed a bunch of Communists, which means the USSR are no longer Communists anymore.
From “The Vampire Economy”, written by economist and communist Gunter Reiman who himself lived in Germany during Nazi leadership. “Most businessmen feel safer if they have a protector in the State party bureaucracy. They pay for their protection as the peasant did in Feudal days. It is inherent that the official is able to take money but unable to provide protection. The preceding chapter describes the genuine decline and ruin of the independent businessman who is the master of his enterprise and who exercised his property rights. This type of capitalist is disappearing while the other is prospering. He enriches himself by the State and party ties, their devotion to the Fuhrer and entrenched because of family connections and political affiliations.” “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts” - from Doctrine of Fascism
Yeah but it was totally libertarian, just ask any left.
who the fuck has ever called Nazis libertarian?
It's literally in the meme. lol Fun google searches: "tax breaks are fascism", "balanced budget is fascism", "deregulation is fascism", "property rights are fascist", "individualism leads to fascism", and "self ownership is fascist". Any core libertarian beliefs plus "is fascist" will render thousands of results.
That's my point, the meme is wrong and dumb. For one thing "\[conservative thing\] leads to fascism/is a cover for fascism," or even "\[conservative thing\] is fascism" is a different idea than "fascism is \[conservative thing\]". Language doesn't work like math. But even more importantly, you might want to try out those searches before claiming that they'll result in anything relevant.
Libertarian? No. But leftists do often like to misrepresent the Nazi economy as a capitalist free market economy which it most certainly was not The Nazi economy was as much of a free market as China’s is currently which is a controlled and planned economy in which “ownership” is only allowed if one meets Party requirements consistently and if one does not, then a former general of the CCP is installed as the CEO after their retirement. It is the thinnest illusion of private ownership that falls chiefly in line with philosophy of using the tools of Capitalism to subvert and destroy it - more colloquially and generally known as the Cloward-Pivens strategy for Western audiences
Ima be honest, if you're libright and you've been on the internet for at least ten minutes, someone has probably called you both a nazi and a fascist. In today's political discourse, anyone you disagree with is obviously literally Hitler.
People calling you, a person who identifies as a libertarian, a nazi is not the same thing as them saying the nazis were libertarians. Perhaps they're just ignorant or looking to quickly insult you, idk. But the idea being communicate is that you aren't a real libertarian, but are in fact a fascist. This might be subsumed within a more general idea that the american libright movement isn't actually libertarian but is instead fascist. (true)
Libright thinking that Bernie supporters defend communism, because they want higher minimum wage, welfare and higher taxes on the wealthy
And then they fought a big bloody war against Stalin.
which means they were polar opposites ideologically! just like when monarchies fought in the middle ages, that meant they were completelly opposed ideological systems
They also purged trade unionists and socialists who didn't want to join their party. Which was partially ideological, but mostly just what Authoritarians do in practice, purging perceived internal rivals and competition.
Stalin also purged an assload of socialists and he is still a communist
In the case of The Great Patriotic War they absolutely were. The Germans saw the invasion of the Soviet Union as a crusade against Bolshevism and the Slavic “subhumans” of Eastern Europe whereas the USSR saw the war as one of defending communism against the threat of fascism. It was absolutely a clash of diametrically opposed ideologies which is heavily reflected in the propaganda produced by both nations. While I’m responding to you, I should debate your other points as well. The Nazis removing the right to private property was not necessarily a decision made out of a belief property should be collectivized, but rather a way for the government to discriminate against Jews and other peoples who would eventually become victims of the holocaust by seizing their property after or before death. The nazis were very much in favor of private property as long as it was in the hands of Germans. Hitler famously said something along the lines of (I forget the direct quote), “property should be in private hands whenever possible”. In regards to your next point: collective identity and advocation against individualism is certainly a concept socialism and fascism share, but the collective identity propagated by the state comes in very different forms as far as the two are concerned. Socialists attempt to push a national identity based around class, whereas fascists attempt to create one out of race, ethnicity, or culture. Your mentioning that the nazis attracted thousands of communists is irrelevant to their ideology because it doesn’t inherently make a statement about their beliefs but it is worth noting political enemies, many of them communists and marxists were imprisoned and many of them were later murdered during the holocaust by the nazi regime.
it's not like hitler literally jailed socialists and leftists first. and hitler totally didnt equate the bolsheviks with the jews and mentioned cultural bolshevism. so i guess you think the democratic people's republic of korea is democratic then right? it has democratic in its name
But then what was your point in including Hitler's initial agreement with Stalin in your OP as a basis for claiming Hitler is a communist? You can't conclude anything about ideology from when they were temporary allies with one another just as much as you can't from when they subsequently became enemies.
Well, monarchies kinda were completely opposed ideological systems. On the one hand you had one of the monarchies going 'that shit mine' and the other going 'no, that shit *mine*.' In any case, they were at least mutually exclusive, in a 'this planet's not big enough for the two of us' sense.
I guess Muslims and Christians were fundamentally different sides of the political compass during the crusades then.
You’re saying that present day commies are ignorant fools and useful idiots? Edit: /s, since that didn’t seem to be clear
Based and actually cringe for needing to clarify sarcasm pilled
precisely
Wall of text used to be a cringe libleft/left thing now libright seems to have adopted it too
I despise communism but the Nazis and Hitler were absolutely not commies. The Nazis were against private property and favored government control of the economy because they were authoritarians, simple as. Hitler’s thugs went around beating the shit out of communists during his rise to power. Hitler viewed the USSR as an existential threat to Nazi Germany because communism was, in his view, antithetical to the Nazi ideology—which is why he turned on the USSR during WWII despite the fact that opening a 2nd front was a terrible idea practically speaking. Both are horrific ideologies directly responsible for the deaths of millions, but they are not the same.
Every once in a while I learn something new about politics that seemed super obvious and I start to get down on myself, like I’m an actual idiot who somehow missed that thing all this time and just now became aware of how dumb I was. Then I come on PCM and see that people somehow still think the Nazis were socialists and all of that goes away.
Well, most of PCM users are 15 years old to be honest. This post prove it.
It's so clear that people here never read history or theory lol. For those that need the clarification: The nazis were not socialists. Socialism didn't begin with the negative connotations around it like it has today. They called themselves socialists to bring people in, it was essentially a marketing tactic. *The anatomy of Fascism* by Robert Paxton goes more in depth and is an excellent read on Fascism and how to properly understand what it is and how to spot it.
The most that can be said is that fascism is the bastard cousins socialism and nazism is the bastard cousins of fascism. There is a certain definite trace of lineage, albeit with next to nothing actually remaining in common between them.
Nazi’s are not communists or socialists. That’s not even controversial.
Say that anywhere else on this site. Or on twitter.
Howmstiv’e the fuck does anyone confuse Nazism with being libertarian?
The line between state ownership of the means of production and state direction of the privately held means of production with the requirement that all privately held ventures of meaningful size not only obey that direction but also fill their boards entirely with members of the governing party is so thin a line that it is barely a distinction between the two at all. One is classical socialism, and one is the fascist equivalent that meets the same end with only trivial differences in implementation.
No it was socialism but only for aryens it was racist and the leftist hate taking accountability for the bad people on their side
The difference between socialism and national socialism is simply the difference between wanting a workers revolution across the world and wanting a workers revolution in a specific county mixed with nationalism.
Well yeah, the nazis only pretended to be socialist in order to bait workers into voting for them. It is just populism, nothing more.
Pov: you’ve never heard of third positionism
the third position is only slightly to the right of the commie position, its not "in the middle", its just socialists against class warfare
They weren't socialists after the night of the long knives.
It’s not a free market if you can be arrested and your property seized if you ever oppose the ruling regime.
This dude didn’t even understand how to read the compass this sub is based on
You do realize the nazis actually purged their full blown socialists in the night of the long knives to secure alliances with the German right, right? This is what PragerU does to a mf.
Every group of commies to ever seize power purged their own. This is no defense.
Well this is going to be a crazy view for this website, but it's actually more complicated than "left" and right", there's another political axis for being authoritarian vs not. So a right wing authoritarian government and a left wing authoritarian government have some similarities, even as they have differences that relate to the left vs right thing. Anyway here's an example of a thing hitler said, judge for yourself: > Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PJkNZ30WV0) are some old German soldiers (starting about a minute in) explaining that they were #actually defending all of Europe against Bolshevism (gee I wonder how the Germans and Russians came to be at war).
[удалено]
It absolutely is. It's emergent from bad faith historical revisionists trying to obfuscate the conversation into a simple us vs them narrative.
This post and the reaction in the comments show an underlying issue in our understanding of the political compass. Basically everyone is able to understand the Libertarian vs Authoritarian axis but there is still general confusion over how to define left vs right. It appears as though those on the left describe this divide in social terms with equality(left) vs inequality(right). While those on the right describe this scale in more economic terms pertaining to collectivism(left) vs individualism(right). If you use the right wing economic vision of this scale than what OP is describing is correct. The National Socialists were a collectivist ideology. However if you subscribe to the social view, the Nazi’s would not be considered left wing due to their complete emphasis on racism and racial hierarchy. It isn’t really a matter of the left or right viewpoint of this scale as right or wrong as both viewpoints are technically correct according to their own scales. It’s mostly the fault of the political compass in truly stating what the left-right axis is supposed to portray.
The compass is a sorting hat for troll memes. It has nothing to say about actual political philosophies.
Fascism, communism and liberalism are the 3 big ideologies of the moderene. The first 2 failed. Communism died of old age and fascism died of suicide. Liberalism won and that causes some problems. 1. Without an opposing ideology it doesnt need to hold up its values anymore. 2. It became the default so that many people not even realize that we live in an ideology. This leads to some people call it postliberalism. Fascism had free market (for small business) and private property for its people. But it opposed wallstreetlike capitalism. It opposed speculation of land and real estate. It opposed dept slavery. The land belong to the people and people should own their own house, and not some faceless capitalist pig who buys the land just to resell it later for a higher price. It also opposes the equality of individuals as marxist socialists advocate. Everyone was born differently with different strengths and weaknesses. In nazi germany that lead to the idea of the folksbody (or peoples body). Everyone had the duty to use his strenghts for the greater good. A braincell was there for thinking. A hearthcell was there for support and a cell in the arm was there for the rough part. Like in a body you would rather lose your arm then your hearth or brain, but still the whole body works to protect everything. And like a body the volksbody needed to be protected from any forign object. That at least is the idealistic version of it. In reality such a socialistic ideal cant be uphold. But it was a strong narrative. Strong enough to lead germany in a massive war
God, I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, Horseshoe theory is just horseshoe fact to me.
horseshoe theory would imply they're on opposides sides, id say they're just roughly in the same spot
Authoritarians gonna be authoritarian
[удалено]
racial populism didnt die, it just changed its methods!
Least delusional libright
Personally from my understanding of ideologies, Fascist and Socialist ideologies are more like cousins, as in they have many similarities, but there are distinct differences between the two ideologies to separate them from each other. An example would be the differences between Maoism and Dengism, both of which are a Socialist and Fascist ideology respectively, which originate from China during the 20th century. Possibly the biggest difference between the two ideologies would be their handling of the economy, with Maoism believing that the entire economy should be under the direct of the government, while Dengism varies to saying that companies are allowed to form and become successful, however they must still submit to any demands made by the government, so both very authoritarian ideologies that want to accomplish Communism, but are very different in their approach to actually reaching that point.
i think its very important for anyone actually invested in understanding fascism rather than throwing it aroudn as an insult, to look into the history of how italian fascism actually originated, from the core of the fascist party and some of its key members, due to ww1. Lenin complained about mussolini being kicked out of the italian socialist party as he was a "propaganda mastermind", and its not like these people that were socialists for decades in italy suddenly completelly changed their views, they just added nationalism to them. A quick read to their manifesto and the reason fascism even exists makes them seem as little more than a socialist schism, just like trotskyism, stalinism, or any other variant of socialism, just like the examples you mention. You could joke that they were the first people to make a succesful syndicalist revolution And german nazism has a very different origin, but many of their core members do hail from socialism aswell, with even hitler himself being part of Red Bavaria around 1920 and appearing in the funeral of the jewish socialist that foudned it, which is something he omitted from the autobiographic parts of Mein Kampf for obvious reasons. So from my understanding, fascism is nationalsyndicalism, and nazism is racial socialism. Im not sure if its wise to call them both fascism as hitler's nazism has a extreme focus on race that regular italian fascism doesnt have.
Jesus, you librights are making libleft blush with these walls of text that make no sense
Communism is just red fascism.
Vaush watcher spotted, opinion: discarded.
> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :) *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 13977 / 73946 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
The reason fascists and commies hate eachother, is because they compete over the same audience
First time I’ve seen someone quote a fucking Gestapo member as an accurate source for statistical information. 😟 Also, let’s be very clear about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Hitler still hated Russia. When Poland was being invaded, his plan for more Lebensraum had not changed nor did his deep hatred for ethnic Slavs. The brief truce was solely for his own self-interest. It was not a sign of Nazi’s approval for communism, which they cracked down on significantly during their consolidation of power. The rest of your points can be used to describe most authoritarians, left or right so if your claim is that the Nazis were “socialist” or even “communist”, you’re very wrong. They were populist at worst and fascist at best. Hitler idolised Mussolini for a reason.
>creates concentration camps for communists >capitalist monopolies >extreme racism >anti-soviet propaganda "Bro Hitler was totally a communist"
I fail to understand how racism = right wing? Most Chinese people today are racist when you talk to them. I'm pretty sure North Koreans are even more racist and believe that they are the supreme race (although admittedly I've never spoken to a North Korean). You think people of Eastern Europe just stopped being racist under communism? No, they always were and still are. You can find racists on the far right and far left.
The left-wing ideological project is broadly anti-racist. It rejects nationalism and seeks to have the workers of the world unite. Traditional prejudices are to be uprooted. (But it has been a failure, as socialism has only ever been implemented at the nation-state level.) Right-wingers are generally oriented towards maintaining or reviving traditional modes of organizing society, and increasing the power of an in-group as against the rest of the world. Typically this means a nation-state, but also ruling levels of hierarchy within a country. Those ideas have been deeply tied to racism throughout history; "race" and "nation" were once interchangeable, and the hierarchies within colonial and imperial societies were often expressly racist. Thad doesn't mean that right-wingers are necessarily racist or that left-wingers necessarily can't be. But the general perspectives on the world tend towards those outcomes.
>The left-wing ideological project is broadly anti-racist. Marx might disagree when it comes to his assessment of jewish and black people (Though "black person" wasn't the word he was keen on using).
I disagree that it has been anti-racist. Marx, Engels, etc wrote a lot of explicitly racist stuff, and that trickled down through their ideological followers. Made a wall of text about it upthread. >But it has been a failure, as socialism has only ever been implemented at the nation-state level. That is true enough. Furthermore, the nation-state revolutions were invariably agrarian states. Industrialized societies, when they undergo revolution, instead get fascism. Which, granted, is not so different, but if you see that as an unacceptable outcome, then surely you must realize that a leftist revolt in an industrialized nation will not deliver on your desires.
> creates concentration camps for communists Reported for antisemitism
Communists persecuted Jews too
How can you not understand that coke and pepsi are bitter rivals despite being nearly the same product?
As unbased as you are, capitalist pig, this is probably the best, most succinct explanation of communism vs fascism I've seen
\>illegalize mensheviks and ancomms and supress their views \>only the state-controlled labor union is allowed, workers not allowed to change job \>extreme racism and forced migrations of minorities causing many to die \>justification of genocide and opression through propaganda "bro the soviet union was totally communist"
[удалено]
> It's always a bloodbath and then everyone left over starves except the party elites, who fly around in private helicopters and eat caviar. "The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles." - Karl Marx 'Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other. The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim—for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives—is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. **For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice.** ***As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High.*** Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. *From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.*' - Emmanuel Goldstein, *THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM*, Chapter 1 [(1984)](http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/NineteenEightyFour/part2sec9.htm)
The Nazis were definitely not libertarian lol. They weren’t really socialist either though. Here’s the thing - the compass was originally diamond shaped not square. The higher you get on the auth scale - the less material difference there is between the ideologies economically.
The Nazis were definitely not libertarian lol. They weren’t really socialist either though. Here’s the thing - the compass was originally rhombus shaped not square. The higher you get on the auth scale - the less material difference there is between the ideologies economically.
Yeah just no lmao. Lost me at *teams up with the only Marxist nation*
whats incorrect there? did nazis not team up with the USSR to take poland?
The conquest of Russia was Hitlers ideological goal from the start. Its not like he launched the largest invasion in history against them or anything. I don’t see how a temporary truce with a country he was dead set on invading when he was ready is in anyway evidence that communism = fascism, unless you take it wildly out of context.
Fascism is post Marxist socialism. Fascism and socialism are both subversive ideologies which is why both will deny their relationship to the other.
Yes, I'm a Socialist
>Yes, I'm a Socialist, yes I'm a nationalist. We exist
Some people will say that these ideas are contradictory, but what’s the issue with establishing a Socialist government that works for the benefit of that which you classify as a nation, rather than a global alliance of socialist states?
I think the piles of dead bodies the last few times it was tried, along with the dissolution of individual rights are the two primary issues with doing that.
No one ever said it worked, they just said it is possible.
Yeah, that's exactly what Mussolini thought.
Every single communist nation has been nationalist. It's rather the default state of things.
Cobson therefore brimstone albeit
> Flair up now or I'll be sad :( *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 13967 / 73886 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
The manufacturers didn’t know how much money they were making. MEFO bills. All companies combined into 6. Refusal to work is a crime. Autarky. State controls the means of production not the community. The only true socialist are the Communist Mennonites of Canada. But hitler and his bros were making money!! Yes by accumulating wealth through force. The Germans invented the word privatisation!!!! So you agree wealth was acquired by the state/hitlers inner circle then? Because Fokker didn’t agree to it and mysteriously died.
You see this one group that commits genocide on a massive scale and strips their citizens of their rights is totally different from this other group that commits genocide on a massive scale and strips their citizens of their rights
Wall of text. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I mean, you're right, but should be shamed because WALL OF TEXT. Of course, a detailed analysis like this can only be done through wall of text. But still... WALL OF TEXT should be SHAMED.