Hitler and the socialist dream - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Ambroise
#14744647
fuser wrote:Don't you know there is no difference between USSR, today's Sweden and Nazi Germany, Decky because words mean whatever I want them to mean.


Well, don't you remember that bit where Stalin held up Sweden as a paragon of socialism that we should all strive towards?

Image

:excited:
#14744658
"What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he [Adolf Hitler] told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."


The argument over whether national socialism is socialism or not seems to me to be something like the argument over whether protestantism is Christianity or not. If you are a Catholic then "NO protestantism is heresy!" If you are a pagan or a buddhist or a jainist then yeah protestantism sure looks like some kind of christianity, how can you say it isn't? Of course centuries have passed since Catholics and Protestants tore each other's throats out all across Europe over who can claim to be the real Christians, so it is just about possible now to debate without agenda or high emotion on the christian character of protestantism. Not so much time has passed over socialism for that to happen also for the question is National Socialism some kind of socialism?

I think the answer has to be somewhat relative to one's own position. If you are a bolshevist then national socialism is as much a filthy heresy as protestantism is to the catholic. On the other hand if you aren't any kind of socialist at all then it looks like some kind of strain of socialism, mutated from the main line, the product of a schism, but yet recognisably a fruit from the same tree.
#14744664
On the other hand if you aren't any kind of socialist at all then it looks like some kind of strain of socialism, mutated from the main line, the product of a schism, but yet recognisably a fruit from the same tree.

Both Bolshevism and Nazism shared some superficial similarities (as well as major differences). This is a result of the fact they both had similar historical and social origins as differing responses to the crisis of Modernity in late 19th and early 20th century Europe. The rise of capitalism had vastly expanded the productive forces of society while at the same time immiserating large swathes of the population, challenging and destroying traditional moral and social values, and was triggering massive conflicts between the European nation-states as they competed with each other for the spoils of capitalist-imperialism. Communism was an attempt to resolve this crisis by abolishing capitalism itself and putting a state-planned economy in its place, whereas the Nazi response was to retain the capitalist system (under strict state direction) but seek to harness the enthusiasm and collective will of the masses for national expansion at other nations' expense. The differences between them are also highlighted by the differing responses of the capitalist ruling elite to these movements: the Bolsheviks were opposed tooth and claw by the capitalists (very sensibly; the Bolsheviks, after all, wanted to expropriate and then destroy them), whereas the Nazis were funded and supported by German industrialists and capitalists as a bulwark against Bolshevism. These industrialists and financiers knew perfectly well that Hitler was no Marxist.
#14744679
Potemkin wrote:These industrialists and financiers knew perfectly well that Hitler was no Marxist.

Well sure, Hitler shows them a straight jacket and a gilded cage to live in, whilst the bolshevists shows to them an abattoir. Hitler will allow them to use soap, the bolshevists will process them into soap...

It ain't much of a choice though.
#14744688
Well sure, Hitler shows them a straight jacket and a gilded cage to live in, whilst the bolshevists shows to them an abattoir. Hitler will allow them to use soap, the bolshevists will process them into soap...

It ain't much of a choice though.

They, as a class, had created that situation for themselves. They counted themselves lucky they had even the Nazis to fall back on - they had lost control of Russia, there had been a failed proletarian revolution in Germany, Spain had gone anarcho-syndicalist, and there were even tanks being deployed on the streets of Britain's cities in 1918-19. They were losing control of their own capitalist-imperialist heartlands, and they had only themselves to blame for this. It was their rapacity, arrogance and incompetence to actually rule over society which had brought them to this pass. Either the Bolsheviks would take control from them, or the fascists would do it. They therefore threw in their lot with the fascists; as you say, the alternative was even less appealing to them.
#14744697
[youtube]ny6SJCNUzqY[/youtube]

Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while, you shouldn't have fucked with? That was Adolf Hitler.

:lol: Oh dear I can't help laughing when I think about the Second World and All. Yeah that somebody was Adolf Hitler alright. It was also Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin was fucked over by his national system. Under the Russian system he had no opportunity to become Tsar, no opportunity what so ever. Stalin set about righting this outrage. Stalin is one of the greatest Liberal individualists of all time. Like his great Liberal individualist forbear Thomas Jefferson, he believed passionately in equality of opportunity. Thomas Jefferson had the same problem as Stalin, he had no opportunity, he had zero opportunity to become King. Jefferson like Stalin wasnot willing to let this terrible injustice stand. Jefferson, like his fellow insurgents Stalin, Donald Trump (and yes even Adolf Hitler on occasion) realised that in defeating injustice you sometimes have to shade the truth a little.

Of course while we mentioning warriors of liberty, freedom fighters, SJWs we mustn't forget to mention Nat Turner. However I do feel particular affection for Joseph Stalin, because like me he had the filth that is the Bible rammed down his throat as a child. Like me he managed to reject Christian doctrine, while maintaining the Bible's angry, vengeful, unforgiving spirit. Like me his rejection of Christianity caused parental disappointment. Later in life Stalin's mother asked him what exactly he did. He explained that he was a sort of Tsar, to which she responded, he'd have been better becoming a Priest.

Adolf Hitler was a Conservative, He wasn't fucked over by the national system, like Nat Turner, Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Stalin, but by the international system. The international system imposed on the German nation after the terrible war of aggression perpetrated by France, Russia, Britain, Serbia and the United States of America. This was a war that caused 38 million causalities. 38 Million. Meditate on that the next time some Conservative / Libertarian whines on about the Obama Care premium. And not just this horrendous loss of life, injury and life long disability, but conscription, rationing and censorship. Remember that the next time some Conservative Libertarian whines on about some tax, government regulation, or infringement of personal liberty. Because the First world war was led by Conservatives / Libertarians. The Left played their part but this was war created by Conservatives, Libertarians and moderate centrist Liberals.

Was Hitler a socialist? Of course he became a socialist in August 1914. There's nothing more socialist that the military. The First world was industrial scale socialism, a socialism imposed by Conservatives and Libertarians. Starting with call up of the reserves, the debasement of the currency, censorship and border controls. Moving on to conscription, where the Conservatives and Libertarians hadn't already imposed it, taxation increases, price controls, wage controls and rationing. Remember that the next time some fucking Conservative / Libertarian starts whining on about socialism or government or infringement on individual liberty.
#14744728
@fuser
I do not think similarities between Communism and national movements (Nazism and Fascism) in the inter-war period means they are the same. Communism and Third-Positionism at the time were very different movements, with different ethos and what they were trying to achieve as their end goal.

As Potemkin had pointend out they were dealing with then industrial reality of where capitalism or industrialism was rapidly changing society and the world around it. Yet with this change also a lot of negative consequences came about that needed to be addressed. Communist had proposed some very practical approaches that were needed to resolve negative consequences coming out of industrialization. Naturally many people too on similar approaches. Even liberals began to move away from classical "laissez faire" approach to economic issues, I would say as early as 1850s. As faults within liberal idealistic approach could not be ignored by that time. That period coincided with creation of Social Democratic approach within Europe.

In principle also Nazis and Facsist shared the same approach on economic issues with hardliners like Communist, who also fully rejected the Liberal order. That principle was that the state should have final authority in the matters of economy. That industrialist, business or capitalist interest should not supercede interest of the state, who's (state's) interest should be that of the people as a whole.

As those movements of the past had died out. We are still left with the same baggage of industrialization unresolved. Especially modern neo-liberalism has again made a mess of things today. Hopefully perhaps this time around we can put an end to it and resolve the social issues once and for all. Or at least for a good long time, as human ambition and ego will surely make some more mess down the line as usual.
#14744738
So just to be clear Albert you are using the fact that Hitler made trade union membership illegal and replaced unions with a branch of the Nazi party to argue that Hitler was pro union? :eh:
#14744743
I believe Communist did something similar with unions in Russia as well. From what I gather it was done with intent to keep stability in production and social order. I don't know how it effected the bargaining power of the workers but I guessing it still gave them platform and organization to have some say.

Also in Soviet Union as in Germany public demostrations were outlawed. Effectively also outlawing any worker strikes.
#14744749
Albert wrote:Also in Soviet Union and Germany public demostrations were outlawed. Effectively also outlawing any worker strikes.


1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union wrote:ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
reedom of street processions and demonstrations.

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.
#14744754
As Potemkin had pointend out they were dealing with then industrial reality of where capitalism or industrialism was rapidly changing society and the world around it. Yet with this change also a lot of negative consequences came about that needed to be addressed. Communist had proposed some very practical approaches that were needed to resolve negative consequences coming out of industrialization. Naturally many people too on similar approaches. Even liberals began to move away from classical "laissez faire" approach to economic issues, I would say as early as 1850s. As faults within liberal idealistic approach could not be ignored by that time. That period coincided with creation of Social Democratic approach within Europe.

Precisely. The capitalist system was born out of Revolution - the English Civil Wars and Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of the 1770s, and the French Revolution of 1789 - and it has been in a state of crisis ever since. This has been a very creative chaos, however - capitalism, as Marx pointed out, has revolutionised all aspects of human society and has vastly expanded the forces of production, which is the very definition of what we mean by the word "progress". But the chaos constantly threatens to overwhelm the creativity, and the crises keep becoming more and more severe....

In principle also Nazis and Facsist shared the same approach on economic issues with hardliners like Communist, who also fully rejected the Liberal order. That principle was that the state should have final authority in the matters of economy. That industrialist, business or capitalist interest should not supercede interest of the state, who's (state's) interest should be that of the people as a whole.

Exactly. In a sense, the rise of the Left and of socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries revitalised faith in the legitimacy of the state. The capitalists want the state to be just strong enough to enforce legal contracts, but no stronger; they especially resent it taxing the profits which they extract from the toiling masses. In fact, every possible resolution of the crisis of Modernity - which is the crisis of capitalism - require this re-legitimisation of the authority of the state over the grasping, liberal, atomised individual.

As those movements of the past had died out. We are still left with the same baggage of industrialization unresolved. Especially modern neo-liberalism has again made a mess of things today. Hopefully perhaps this time around we can put an end to it and resolve the social issues once and for all. Or at least for a good long time, as human ambition and ego will surely make some more mess down the line as usual.

This certainty of future crises and future fuck-ups on the part of the ruling elite is in fact the best hope for the future. Capitalism, by its nature, can never rest; like a shark, it must keep moving, keep changing, keep developing, or die. It can therefore never achieve a final victory over its enemies, it can never achieve its 'End of History' state of calm repose, despite Fukuyama's premature declaration of victory.
#14744759
Potemkin wrote:They, as a class, had created that situation for themselves. They counted themselves lucky they had even the Nazis to fall back on - they had lost control of Russia, there had been a failed proletarian revolution in Germany, Spain had gone anarcho-syndicalist, and there were even tanks being deployed on the streets of Britain's cities in 1918-19. They were losing control of their own capitalist-imperialist heartlands, and they had only themselves to blame for this. It was their rapacity, arrogance and incompetence to actually rule over society which had brought them to this pass. Either the Bolsheviks would take control from them, or the fascists would do it. They therefore threw in their lot with the fascists; as you say, the alternative was even less appealing to them.

You are being a little weird here. "They", as in the German bourgeois, never had Russia under their control so they could hardly lose it. Russia belonged to the Tsar until the bolshevists took it from him; last time I looked Tsar Nicholas II was not a German Industrialist nor a subsiduary of them. Same goes for the "tanks on Britain's streets 1918"... It is part of your revisionist narrative to paint the big fat cat men with cigars and tophats as the secret elite of some malevolent international super collective wheras in reality they are really just ordinary people with ordinary concerns only with some above average economic ability. Real power is not theirs though, that always belongs to the soldier caste rather than the merchant caste; industrialism made the merchants more wealthy and also more useful to the soldiers but not more powerful. In the stakes of power, guns > coins, intimidation > persuasion.

Image
#14744780
Albert, what point are you exactly trying to make? Was Nazism socialism or not? Be assured there are many similarities between Liberalism and Socialism, Fascism and Liberalism and Socialism and Fascism, no one is denying that but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing as the author of this article is trying to say.
#14744793
@Decky That is not how it was in practice though. In practice from what I gather, in regards to unions, Communist and Nazis took pretty much the same approach.


@Potemkin
Precisely. The capitalist system was born out of Revolution - the English Civil Wars and Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of the 1770s, and the French Revolution of 1789 - and it has been in a state of crisis ever since. This has been a very creative chaos, however - capitalism, as Marx pointed out, has revolutionised all aspects of human society and has vastly expanded the forces of production, which is the very definition of what we mean by the word "progress". But the chaos constantly threatens to overwhelm the creativity, and the crises keep becoming more and more severe....
I know we agree in principle Pote, but we diverge on some things. I think communist a lot of times are wrong in their analysis of history. What Communist refer to "capitalism" I believe began with industrialization. Where organizated production of goods or "means of production" began to be concentrated in the hands of very few individuals. In a sense a new class arose out of industrialization. Call them capitalist, industrialist, business class, or 1% we are speaking about the same people.

In a sense they are the new aristocracy of our time. Coincidentally industrialization came about in the background of revolutionary political upheaval and rise of liberalism. Which made things all the more messy. The power vacuum that liberal revolutions left was quickly filled by this new wealthy and powerful class of people.

So today, we essentially ended up with plutocratic Republic. Where the new industrialist class are our patricians.

Exactly. In a sense, the rise of the Left and of socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries revitalised faith in the legitimacy of the state. The capitalists want the state to be just strong enough to enforce legal contracts, but no stronger; they especially resent it taxing the profits which they extract from the toiling masses. In fact, every possible resolution of the crisis of Modernity - which is the crisis of capitalism - require this re-legitimisation of the authority of the state over the grasping, liberal, atomised individual.
Capitalist are following their narrow interest of profit, it is true. These interest are indeed conflicting with the interest of the state. Since this new class is very power naturally they throw their weight around and subdue the state when it interferes with their interest.

This state of affairs is dysfunctional in the end. That is why it leads to aften into instability and crisis.

This certainty of future crises and future fuck-ups on the part of the ruling elite is in fact the best hope for the future. Capitalism, by its nature, can never rest; like a shark, it must keep moving, keep changing, keep developing, or die. It can therefore never achieve a final victory over its enemies, it can never achieve its 'End of History' state of calm repose, despite Fukuyama's premature declaration of victory.
Today they messed up on global scale again on so many levels it is hard to even know where to start. Plus with liberal progressive social reforms the mess is even further exaggerated.

I believe it is primarily because interests of the state have been superseded by the narrow interest of the capitalist, thus creating dysfunction state of affairs. Primeval social structure of humanity was not upheld, so we got the cosequences of it. Plus revisiting neo-liberal idealism on state level in recent decades did not help either.

And as I have mentioned, also idealistic badly thoughtout social progressive reforms pushed by the state, made things even worse.

It is going wrong in all possible ways all at once. We truly live in one bizarre time.


@fuser
No, I don't believe Communist, Third-Positionism or Liberalism are the same. These are drastically different movements, even though they do share some similarity between them.
Last edited by Albert on 02 Dec 2016 18:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14744798
Albert wrote:No, I don't believe Communist, Third-Positionism or Liberalism are the same. These are drastically different movements, even though they do share some similarity between them.


Fine, we are on same page then. :)

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]