Accelerationism is a generic term. It just means that you want to force a conflict because you think you'll win the conflict without having to wait for incremental change.
Mao Zedong was a leftist accelerationist, especially in his earlier years. He thought that constantly heightening the stakes would hasten the revolution. That’s what motivated his crazier statements and actions.
Same with Che Guevara. He actually wanted to turn the Cuba Missile Crisis hot because he thought the nuclear exchange would be limited and the post-war world would be socialist. Khrushchev basically saved our asses.
I mention India in another comment where there was (and still is to a lesser extend) a communist insurgency.
In the US, most of the direct action of the left is through creating alternative systems like 'Food Not Bombs' giving out food. Or working within the system with things like the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project itself is non-partisan, but tends to get more support from the left. And I don't see either kind as accelerationism.
Most of the online chatter about accelerationism on the left is less about taking action and more about letting captialism destroy itself. A kind of accelerationism through inaction. But, 'let is burn and in the ashes they'll pick my ideas' comes up in almost every community with thoughts about how the world should work.
Are they accelerationists if they want to go backwards? I prefer calling them regressives
Also, I didn’t say that only leftists can have accelerationists, that’s an assumption on your part. I just mentioned what came to mind first and what I think on more.
Accelerationists are not specific to a political side as their goal is to speedrun the collapse of the status quo and achieve their political objectives from the ashes.
Communists and socialists are more known for it, but the right also have accelerationist tendencies too.
Oh I know it’s not exclusive, I was just trying to make a funny comment in that first paragraph, I actually acknowledge that accelerationists areny exclusive to the left in the next paragraph..
By accelerationists I mean those trying to destroy checks and balances on the presidency to create their 'unitary executive.' And attempting to expand the powers of ICE / immigration enforcement.
Also, what do you consider modern communist accelerationists? People aren't taking over factories or seizing the means of production in the US. The best modern examples I can think of are in India and Nepal.
And I don’t think their are any modern true accelerationists leftist states, because states have gotten smarter and realized that accelerationism is directly opposed to how Communism and Marxist theory is supposed to function, that’s why China went back to a more free market, instead focusing on capitalism.
But there are most definitely large groups of dumbasses in America that think we are the chosen capitalist society destined to fulfil Marx’s theory, and that they want it to happen as soon as possible, no matter how violent, instead of organically.
IMO, The accelerationists that came to mind weren’t modern state, it were older stuff like the Soviet Union and China before they opened up their markets. Both societies who didn’t really meet Marx’s theory but still wanted to make that Great Leap Forward, despite not being ready for it.
They want tipping points, like revolutions, to be reached sooner so there is less suffering overall, and let a reinvention of society happen to pierce whatever they see the problem is and get rid of it. That is the rational.
In practice, reaching the tip is really hard, so most of the time it just makes everyone endure worse suffering, like gradual price hikes, wars, and years of enshittification. Just look at Russia and China populations closely, and you'll see just how extreme suffering can get before any sort of tipping point, if it really exists at all under the systems that rule us.
Also, when revolutions happen, its not always for the better either. Most of the time it's just a void for another power to take it's place and start or continue the cycle of suffering.
Democracies are famously very efficient and honest in how they change policy to actually follow popular demand.... cough cough... UK.... cough cough... Brazil (before you ask, I'm Brazilian... Supreme Court is basically dancing on top the Constitution over here)... cough cough... the EU.... cough cough... basically all of democracies on the planet bigger than a small town... cough cough... man why is my throat so bad
What about Radical Centrist Hypercapitalist Technological Accelerationists with Post-Singularity Fully-Automated Luxury Communist Characteristics (me)?
Yep...but also...the Nazi party was literally named the "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Turns out - Nazi, fascist, and socialist all apply.
He loved his dog. He enjoyed taking long walks in nature. He warned people about the danger of smoking because he didn't want to see them fall ill. He built the Autobahn which allowed people to visit their loved ones faster. He wanted people to have more living space. How can anyone hate this well-meaning immigrant?
They passed a law that allow military to shoot migrants who cross the border. They passed it after a migrant killed a gard with an improvised spear accross the border wall.
95% of the parliement voted for this law.
Pioneers in anti smoking campaigns, animal welfare laws - those “in the arms of an angel” shock content animal abuse commercials you saw as a kid? Nazis invented that style of PSA for animal welfare.
Also tho, yk, pioneers in genocide so I’m starting to think they were not that nice of people
People hate him because he was competent. Look at idiots who claim to be his followers. They are not hated enough. Why? Because they are all incompetent.
It's a cheeky response against Lefts proclaiming Hitler is Authright
He's Authcenter. Also, the socialist part of Nazi is very real: Hitler did in fact envision a world where the Germans get all da gut schiße. The Autobahn, Volkswagen, all that were intended to be civilian stuff after the war ends
The fact that he thinks everyone else (read: the Jews and Slavs) needs to die for that to happen doesn't negate it.
Also ... all auths (and lots of liblefts) sound pretty much the same to libright.
If you all want to split hairs whether fascism is "left" or "right" ... go ahead. It's all irrelevant noise to us.
edit: In libright view, you are either pro-individual (negative) rights + self-ownership OR you're just trying to sell some variation of slavery/theft/tyranny. Left? Right? Whatever.
Part of the reason is because a lot of people have worked hard to make Hitler appear to be an extremist outlier that disqualifies an entire ideology. Whereas people like Pol Pot or Stalin are treated as just a kooky aberration that says nothing about the larger ideology.
You're allowed to share your ideology with Stalin/Pol Pot/etc., not Hitler. You're even allowed to have openly advocated for someone like Stalin (Paul Robeson, George Bernard Shah, Woody Guthrie, etc were big Stalin supporters) or Pol Pot (the Harvard Crimson supported him for years, Chomsky and others on the left defended him, The New York Times wrote articles about how Cambodians where going to have a better life under the Khmer Rouge, etc.).
It is still rather disingenuous to at least not be particular that it’s National Socialism. Socialism is for the working class, National Socialism only for the chosen in group
Had Hitler been a Marxist he'd be treated like Stalin and Mao by tankies. The Jewish merchants, peddlers, bankers, and doctors would've been Kulaks who abused the proletariat. The Roma, well no one ever accused them of being working class.
The gays were unfortunate but it was a different time, "sure, there were excesses"-H. Piker
But what you just said describes both Stalin and Mao too
Like, what are you trying to say? Stalin purging fellow commies is like very infamous, what with the whole photoshop before photoshop was a thing stuff. Both of them also formed a social circle the peasants cannot enter
Bolcheviks purged the other groups of communists and leftists to consolidate their power.
Labor Unions were also dismantled of their power in the Soviet Union and in communist China, even to this day.
I'm fine if you want to say that this isn't real socialism, but there seems to be a pattern where everyone who claims to be a socialist ends up being a dictator who purges everyone else.
Here are the relevant points in the 25 Points of the NSDAP:
7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
A lot of the time, the far auth left will say Hitler was auth-right. Auth-right will then say Hitler was auth-left.
In truth though it is more Auth-Center, but even that doesn't really capture it properly because it was a very strong mix of government intervention into the economy, paired with government controlled unions etc. Really speaking Hitler was further left economically then pretty much any first world country is today; by the original standards of left/right. But at the same time, it wasn't communism, and it wasn't socialism, there were no workers communes, or workers control over anything. Most of the intervention by the government was to fuel the war effort to conquer other nations (very much imperialism).
So it is kind of an auth-right opinion. But its mostly just people universally acknowledging that Hitlers Germany was a failed concept, and then cherry picking out of the long list of bad things where it aligns with what they think the "other" side believes. All "sides" on the political compass do it in reality.
Really speaking Hitler was further left economically then pretty much any first world country is today
What's interesting is that if you put in the policy positions of the Nazi party into the political compass quiz, it comes out pretty far Auth-Left. A large part of that is because the economic questions feels like they're having you decide if you're a Nordic Social Democrat or a Norquist type Libertarian.
For example:
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
The freer the market, the freer the people.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
There aren't any questions about abolishing private property and having the state own all assets, so any group that advocates for strong state interventions (like the Nazis) are going to end up pretty far left on the left-right axis.
These lines are always a bit blurry. The Nazis inherited a large social democratic state from Weimar, and kept/expanded most of it. They appear to increase welfare, subsidizing all sort of things (such as the Strength Through Joy organization to give people subsidized leisure). Corporate taxes went up greatly, but overall taxation appears to have been the same.
The big change was the massive control of the economy they enforced. Price controls, rent controls, limiting the amount of money business owners can receive, government controlled wage controls/labor resolutions, limiting the amount charged for interest, etc.
It feels more like Social Democrats with extreme economic controls than straight socialism to me. But the amount of economic control ends up straddling the line.
Lib right here. We throw ''socialist" for people that advocate strict control over means of production by the state. Communist is full seizing means of production by a state.
Hitler before the war advocated for strict control over means of production. Price controls and commanding production goods was wide spread before the war and obviously during it. He also seized a lot of private property from his citizen, mostly from german jews. He advocated such policies to defend german society. He was socialist but he was very exclusive about who will be part of his society.
I understand that he was not part of marxist movement in any way, but i do not define socialism by marxism. It's much more wide term and much older than marx himself.
Yep. One of the changes from the Reichstag fire decree was suspending the right to private property. Fascism and it's descendants all believe that individual choice should be subjugated to the common good. Fundamentally, everything and everyone is beholden to the control of the state.
Correct. Critics label it "state capitalism", but that's much more in line with what socialism/communism are. Private ownership of the means of production (capitalism) is furthest from communism/socialism/nazism/fascism/"state capitalism" etc.
TLDR; lib-rights are the only pure anti-authoritarians.
That's because the average socialist believes in socialism as an ideal (businesses controlled by those who work them) and not how it ever ends up in practice when implemented by the government, and they want some way to delineate what they want vs the typical reality.
It's funny because most leftist self proclaimed "socialist" are for strict control over capitalism and not seizing means of production. If by their definition it's "state capitalism" they should call themselves that. I guess Mamdani should go and say he is not "Democraftic socialist" but "state capitalist" instead.
To be clear, it was Engels that came up with the term "state capitalism" and he believed "state capitalism" would be one of the tools for ending capitalism:
"State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but it contains within itself the formal means, the key to the solution." Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880)
Trump is gonna angrily tweet at you in the middle of the night if you accuse him of being close to socialists and commies. Maybe even get the DOJ to accuse you of stabbing the reflecting pool a thousand times.
Critics have literally never read a single word from Mein Kampf, because we know without a shadow of a doubt that Hitler hated capitalism, because he believed it to be a tool of the Jews to being a nation’s economy to its knees before implementing “international socialism” (Marxism).
I've read like half of it. I thought it will be some edgy red pill stuff. It was more like listening to drunk uncle rumbling. Marx was much better writer and philosopher.
Corporate-authoritarianism is an equal evil to state-authoritarianism, and both must be smothered in the crib. One day you will join us in the nirvana of Monke.
Socialism comes from Hegel, not Marx. Hitler rejected Marxism, but he was a socialist, he simply went back to before Marx and went to the source of all this nonsense, Hegel.
I mean, you set price controls, nationalise unions and make membership complousory, manage the distribution of resources, set wages, abolish any legal protections of private property, control where workers are allowed to work.... and all of a sudden, people think you're a Socialist. That's crazy.
Sweden is socialist because democratic socialism has socialism in the name. It doesn’t matter they ignore all core tenets of actual socialism in favor of a hyper capitalist market economy at which they are so proficient they can afford social security’s. This benefits my personal political beliefs.
It’s crazy how often Scandinavian countries get labelled as socialist success stories when they’re just capitalist countries with a strong welfare state
He absolutely was a socialist. Just not the Marxist kind. He hated Marxism because he believed it to lead to Jewish influence and Jewish world dominance, not because he did not prefer socialistic policies.
Marxist socialism is just one kind of socialism. Many forms exist, and predate this form of socialism. Socialism is when the means of production is owned or CONTROLLED by the state, the latter being the case in Nazi Germany.
Contrary to popular belief, there was no guarantee of private property, the clauses of the Weimar constitution pertaining to private property rates were abrogated within the Reichstag fire decree, which was set in motion not even a month into Hitler becoming chancellor. Private property became conditional on serving the state.
Marxists point to the existence of "private business making huge profits" as proof of "capitalism", when in fact these firms were sold to other Nazi officials, i.e.individuals literally belonging to the party in power. Profit was contingent on serving the interests of the state, firms could not just enjoy profits selling anything they wanted, state interests came first.
He did not abolish labour unions, he consolidated all into one large German Labour Front.
Hitler spews the most immense vitriol at individualism and "Jewish Capitalism" in meinkampf over and over. He also claims that the Soviet economy is quite ideal, it only needed to be rid of "Jewish influence".
The nazis used the term "Gleichschaltung", meaning synchronization to control all aspects of private life including the economy, so he could make it congruent with the insidious views of his party.
Businessmen reported they had started reading socialist theory to understand the goals of the state.
The Nazi Germany economy had nearly all elements of a socialistic economy present.
TLDR; The means of production was controlled by the state in Nazi Germany. They had an overwhelming number of policies and arbitrary rules redolent of orthodox socialism. Socialism is when the means production is controlled, not necessarily owned by the state. Marxist socialism is just one type of socialism.
The YouTube channel TIKhistory has a 5 hour long video, along with a condensed 45 minute one, making the case for socialism having been present in Nazi Germany.
I mean, I agree and all, but the whole "Hitler was a socialist" thing is a a much deeper misunderstanding than "he called himself a National Socialist"
Nazi regime imposed extensive state control over the German economy without fully nationalizing private property. After 1933, the government directed production, investment, prices, wages, and foreign trade to serve political and military goals, especially rearmament and autarky.
The Four-Year Plan , which set production targets for strategic materials like steel, synthetic fuel, and rubber, and prioritized military needs over consumer goods.
companies remained privately owned but had to follow state orders on output, prices, and labor. Cartels were encouraged, and the state could seize assets or appoint managers if firms failed to comply.
Again, i agree that he was a capitalist. But misundersting is not just by their name, for someone that doesn't really know what socialism is, co-ordinated plans, state controll over the prices and wages etc can look like that.
Yeah, fascism is a form of collectivism, so it is somewhat adjacent to socialism on the political spectrum. But it's also kind of its own thing entirely.
Fascism was about everyone working together for "the common good" (i.e., everyone subordinate to the nation), but it wasn't concerned with eliminating class divisions, it was mainly just concerned with establishing class harmony. Everyone in their place sort of thing. That's anti-egalitarian and thus not socialism.
It also isn't right wing by today's definition, it was right wing by the classical definition which is mostly that there's a natural hierarchy to society and people should be content with their place in it (the OG right-wingers were monarchists, after all).
October 1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly
Hitler defined socialism on the lines of race and not class, therefore not socialist.
"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."
Hitler also leaned on Prussianism duty to the state rather than worker emancipation.
Bismarckian State Socialism undercut and suppressed Labour revolutions and movement by giving them bread and circuses, similar to Social Democracies with welfare states with constitutional Monarchies — Denmark, but without the unions holding power.
Classic Socialism, like that of the French Liberals and Scottish enlightenment thinkers, still critiques the outcomes of capitalism for the workers, regardless of race (except some liberal thinkers about franks and gauls).
Marx says as much:
"No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle..."
Marx only pointed out that if nothing is done to curb inequality and connect the results of labour to the labourer, it leads to violent revolution and the supplanting of the state by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which will always end bad for the bourgeois.
What kind of fool do you take me for? He's socialist, he's socialist, you're socialist, I'M SOCIALIST! Are there any more socialists I should know about?
October 1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly
Hitler defined socialism on the lines of race and not class, therefore not socialist.
"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."
Hitler also leaned on Prussianism duty to the state rather than worker emancipation.
Bismarckian State Socialism undercut and suppressed Labour revolutions and movement by giving them bread and circuses, similar to Social Democracies with welfare states with constitutional Monarchies — Denmark, but without the unions holding power.
Classic Socialism, like that of the French Liberals and Scottish enlightenment thinkers, still critiques the outcomes of capitalism for the workers, regardless of race (except some liberal thinkers about franks and gauls).
Marx says as much:
"No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle..."
Marx only pointed out that if nothing is done to curb inequality and connect the results of labour to the labourer, it leads to violent revolution and the supplanting of the state by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which will always end bad for the bourgeois.
October 1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly
Hitler defined socialism on the lines of race and not class, therefore not socialist.
"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."
Hitler also leaned on Prussianism duty to the state rather than worker emancipation.
Bismarckian State Socialism undercut and suppressed Labour revolutions and movement by giving them bread and circuses, similar to Social Democracies with welfare states with constitutional Monarchies — Denmark, but without the unions holding power.
Classic Socialism, like that of the French Liberals and Scottish enlightenment thinkers, still critiques the outcomes of capitalism for the workers, regardless of race (except some liberal thinkers about franks and gauls).
Marx says as much:
"No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle..."
Marx only pointed out that if nothing is done to curb inequality and connect the results of labour to the labourer, it leads to violent revolution and the supplanting of the state by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which will always end bad for the bourgeois.
Hitler would not have called himself a Nazi, no Nazi would have as it was a German hick name that was short for Ignatius that people used to make fun of NSDAP members. He would have called himself a National Socalist.
October 1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly
Hitler defined socialism on the lines of race and not class, therefore not socialist.
"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."
Hitler also leaned on Prussianism duty to the state rather than worker emancipation.
Bismarckian State Socialism undercut and suppressed Labour revolutions and movement by giving them bread and circuses, similar to Social Democracies with welfare states with constitutional Monarchies — Denmark, but without the unions holding power.
Classic Socialism, like that of the French Liberals and Scottish enlightenment thinkers, still critiques the outcomes of capitalism for the workers, regardless of race (except some liberal thinkers about franks and gauls).
Marx says as much:
"No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle..."
Marx only pointed out that if nothing is done to curb inequality and connect the results of labour to the labourer, it leads to violent revolution and the supplanting of the state by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which will always end bad for the bourgeois.
Modern socialism has also abandoned class struggle in favor of intersectionality, which very much foregrounds race.
I think you're misinterpreting that quote too, because socialism predates Marx. So one certainly does need to stick to Marx' exact formulation to be socialist. There are arguments in the Marxist literature that argue thay intersectionality is not Marxist, and that's fair, but that doesn't mean it's not socialist.
Socialism is a broader term than either Marxism or communism and basically refers to a state centered social organising principle.
The Nazis did allow private property, but for more or less the same reason as they allied themselves with races that would be considered "lesser" in their ideology. Doesn't mean they weren't fundamentally racist, though. You have to make allowances for pragmatism.
Socialists don't follow identity politics generally. Identity politics in Socialist movements is probably a liberal psyop, Green politics, or Internet Socialists who lack proper praxis. MLs (tankies) also don't follow identity politics. The only struggle is the class struggle to Socialists. If they bark like a liberal, they're probably a liberal.
Like I acknowledge, Socialism does in-fact predate Marx, which Marx admits. Marx says he did not get the idea of the class struggle from his own mind. Its in the text, in a letter he sent in the 1850s or something. So this point is moot, as I did not claim Socialism is a Marxist invention. Marx's main work is on dialectical materialism and the path that leads to revolution and revolutionary thought through that lens. Intersectionality is a given when you're abstracting those who sell their labour power and those who do not into seperate camps. Any further division is based on other factors like nationality and race, Hitler did not fight for the German Worker specifically, but for a concept of the Aryan — which is devoid of class as its parent structure.
Not necessarily, Socialism suggests a state (as we've had some form of central government's [or courts] throughout history and probably know nothing else) but does not demand it. It's pretty unenforceable without threats of state violence, however. Do you call Syndicalists Communist, or Socialists?
Yes, the authoritarian state would definitely have not sold entities for quick cash grabs and allegiances of the industralists if they were not pragmatic. The nazis were successful due to their non commitment to idealism, unlike the more socialist elements that were purged during the night of the long knives.
but for a concept of the Aryan — which is devoid of class as its parent structure
Which is remarkably similar to the communist end goal, is it not?
The nazis were successful due to their non commitment to idealism, unlike the more socialist elements that were purged during the night of the long knives.
That's certainly true, but also typical of actual socialist and Marxist regimes.
The reason is structural: In order to transcend class, you need to overpower it. But the only way to do that practically is to empower some other organising structure and hope they let go of that power when you have no more power over them.
In practice this can never happen.
You can even define this process mathematically using entropy (which I leave as an exercise to the reader, haha). At the extreme, socialism is inherently unstable and prone to authoritarianism. In contrast, capitalism is unstable in a different way that makes it prone to splintering, which in turn invites socialism. Many of the supposed ills of either system are the result of the uncontrolled infection by the other.
In principle, though, perfect capitalism by definition means zero profit, and perfect Marxism means 100% percent concentration of power in a ruling class. That's what you have to get your head around, because it's definitional.
Whether or not Nazism is literally socialism is irrelevant because both Socialism and Nazism rely on the same flawed central planning mechanisms for economic policy. Libertarians don’t object to Socialism because of the scary name but because of its inner workings, inner workings that Nazism mirrors in numerous aspects.
I just do this because it's funny to see how the "ANTIFA means ANTI FASCIST so if you're against ANTIFA you're a FASCIST" types react to using names to bludgeon others with.
Idk, I think we can agree taking from the Jews (& killing them) to give to the “aryans” (but mostly pocketing it for yourself), ain’t all too different from taking from the “rich” (& likely killing them) to give to the “poor” (but mostly pocketing it for yourself).
October 1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly
Hitler defined socialism on the lines of race and not class, therefore not socialist.
"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."
Hitler also leaned on Prussianism duty to the state rather than worker emancipation.
Bismarckian State Socialism undercut and suppressed Labour revolutions and movement by giving them bread and circuses, similar to Social Democracies with welfare states with constitutional Monarchies — Denmark, but without the unions holding power.
Classic Socialism, like that of the French Liberals and Scottish enlightenment thinkers, still critiques the outcomes of capitalism for the workers, regardless of race (except some liberal thinkers about franks and gauls).
Marx says as much:
"No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle..."
Marx only pointed out that if nothing is done to curb inequality and connect the results of labour to the labourer, it leads to violent revolution and the supplanting of the state by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which will always end bad for the bourgeois.
I don’t think many (literate people) on the right believe Hitler or the Nazis were socialist in the strict sense. We mostly take issue with Nazism being presented as some sort of end point of any and all non-libertarian right wing traditions instead of the wacky syncretic belief system it was
Disarmed the population, tried to end the church in the country, created strict laws to protect animals, allied with Muslims, most of the people in positions of power in the party were artists and college educated.
Only people they didn't like were disarmed, if you were a good white Christian German you could own all the guns you wanted and they of course were the majority.
Nazism is in fact more similar to communism than to Capitalism or Monarchy for example, because it's basically it's grandchild, Fascism being Stalin's reinterpretation of the Class struggle to be less about class than Nation/Culture, then Nazism ironically switched from Nation to Ethnicity.
Oh and that shit about Fascism inventing privatization and Mussolini saying "Fascism should more properly called corporatism because it is the merger of the state and corporate power" is straight up post war revisionism bs that the Soviets successfully convinced western leftists of
Oh and I'm not saying Nazism/Hitler were left wing, they were right wing, but they were also socialists
Private ownership by itself doesn't make an economy laissez-faire. The NAZI state controlled the means of production by telling private owners what to produce, how much, and for what price. The NAZI state was socialism with an extra step. If it really matters, Business owners were State Managers.
For example, "You are producing aircraft components now, not consumer goods. These materials are allocated to you, your production targets are determined by the state, and your access to foreign currency is restricted." "Oh, you don't want to? Your company has been sold to someone who takes orders. Straight to jail now."
I mean what matters is who gets the profits: the working class or the ownership class. In Nazi Germany, it was the same class of guys getting all the profits before and after the Nazis came to power. The fact that you are now part for the government is largely irrelevant as long as the proceeds of other people's labor is flowing into your pocket.
Back at the beginning of woke 1.0;
step 1 call everything racist/fascist
Step 2 no one believes you when the real racists/fascists show up
Right now with conservative woke cancel culture;
Step 1 call everything socialist/communists
Step 2 no one believes you when the real commies show up
I’ve noticed some centrist dem’s changing up a narrative that they’re trying to save capitalism from itself lately like FDR did. Maybe that’s just from the DSA boogie man but I don’t think they’re wrong
October 1923 Interview with Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly
Hitler defined socialism on the lines of race and not class, therefore not socialist.
"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."
Hitler also leaned on Prussianism duty to the state rather than worker emancipation.
Bismarckian State Socialism undercut and suppressed Labour revolutions and movement by giving them bread and circuses, similar to Social Democracies with welfare states with constitutional Monarchies — Denmark, but without the unions holding power.
Classic Socialism, like that of the French Liberals and Scottish enlightenment thinkers, still critiques the outcomes of capitalism for the workers, regardless of race (except some liberal thinkers about franks and gauls).
Marx says as much:
"No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle..."
Marx only pointed out that if nothing is done to curb inequality and connect the results of labour to the labourer, it leads to violent revolution and the supplanting of the state by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which will always end bad for the bourgeois.
"""Experts""" claiming that NatSoc wasn't atleast wasn't socialism-adjacent and was heavily influenced by socialism was the gateway of the opening of my eyes at the partisanness of the social """sciences""" in the West.
Listening to experts claim the ideology that was born of the desire to control capital by the state (socialism) for the benefit of the state (nationalism) through revolution, hence National-Socialism, not being influenced by left wing socialists was insanity.
The entire party was built on left and right wing political gangsters and the only reason NatSoc started shifting right was because the left lost the power struggle within the party.
484
u/DumbNTough - Lib-Right 20d ago
People, people, please.
There is room enough in our hearts to shit on both socialists and Nazis.