Notional Socialism

At least use the right ideology you retarded Holla Forumsack

Because unity came about through different means. Yes, it is true that there was hierarchy and a difference in class, but this was not where the Germans had found their unity. They found it in blood, and in a much more spiritual sense.

"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!"

With that in mind the entire viewpoint of Germans had also been altered as presented to us through Gottfried Feder's works. They removed the "for-profit" way of life that allowed financial magnates to create a form of state within the state. You no longer conducted business for the highest amount of profit but conducted business for the well-being of the nation and the wellbeing of your volk.

"We don't say to the rich 'Give to the poor', we say 'German people help each other'. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there's someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman."

Class existed, but this was not a problem as class was often dictated by the person's skill or lack of skill. If you saw a man who works in the factory while you yourself are an officer in the military you don't look down upon him for his wages and he does not look upon you with envy or hate because you earn a higher commission. You look to one another as brothers in a common struggle against international entities that had ruined you not even a decade prior.

And the works did not have it worse than before, if anything many of them had it better. Through state power the Reich was able to do away with the "for-profit" practices of business owners that saw the individual as a replaceable thing that had no value outside of what it could produce for him or her. Instead every man and woman was looked at like a piece in the machine and if they were not taken care of the machine would fail.

Jobs were created to help with the rebuilding of Germany and the plans of the Fuhrer and other Reich officials.

No one could say workers had it worse than before when a worker could barely afford to feed himself weekly, assuming he could even find a job in a collapsed country that had blood being spilled on every street corner by both the revolutionaries and the freikorps.

Nazism united people by looking beyond class and looked at the individual and their place in the German volk. Nazism united people by giving them an ideology that said "You are each other's brother! Help one another!"

Nazism is unity through blood and spirit, and I hope that spirit is rekindled one day.

It's a false sense of unity based in nothing but a meaningless abstract. Hitler wouldn't allow the workers to dissent, the relationships between classes was not reciprocal. It was just as despotic as before - Capitalism with a German face. There was no unity, only coercion taken to its logical conclusion.

While what you say is indeed true there is one essential element that you have left out.

Nazism is the in-group - out-group dynamic scaled up to the societal scale.

For all it's fancy trappings and heroic rhetoric, at it's core it is defined only by its opposition to something.

While this in and of itself is not a problem, eventually there will come a point where the beast will have to turn inwards to sustain itself.

What happens when you run out of Jews? On to the next group of sub-humans right? That's fine but what about after that?

National Socialism exists only so long as there is a perpetual enemy to fight. Some greater foe that can unite people under the banner of patriotic fervor. But once that's gone what happens? The people start to look at the old inequalities that have never quite been resolved, they start to ask dangerous questions like "how come so and so is in charge of more than me?" and "Why can't I have more?". If you can't address the basic problems of human ambition and greed you can't expect things to last.

Beat me to it.

Do you want to establish production free from commodity production and controlled democratically?
than I don't care about your race identity spooks

the nazis openly said they were just trying to attract supporters from the left by giving a shit about working class and anti-bourg rhetoric

To be fair though, right up until they offed the fat homo known as Ernst Rohm for his scary idea that Nazism be a movement of the people and should get rid of the old aristocracy who had fucked Germany over, the Nazis had more in common with actual socialists.

Too bad man-child Hitler didn't want to share his tin-pot dictator throne with anyone else, the temptation of the Junkers was too much for him to overcome and he paid for it in the end.

ftfy

There's something hysterical about claiming the Third Reich was ever 'united'.

Firstly it was severely divided along departmental lines and was filled with infighting and bickering among bureaucrats - most of who had been former Weimar bureaucrats and reactionaries. Propaganda terminology like "blood" and shit was actually one of the most dividing and excellent areas in the Third Reich, with the notion of Volkish traditions upsetting the more modern, protestant and anti-pagan of the NSDAP. Basically people would fight over just about everything, and when you have a command structure that goes all the way from a blockfurher (someone maintaining party relations in a block of houses) all the way to Hitler himself, what you have is a massive spiders web - except everyone is trying to get to the centre. This was usually done by fucking everyone else over. See Himmler, Fegelein and Martin Bormann's little spat beginning in 1943.

Just look at how Germany's military operated - or more specifically how it struggled to operate. Each branch was engaged in constant infighting - from ground to command level. Waffen SS against Heer, Heer against Kriegsmarine, Kriegsmarine against Luftwaffe. The whole military was constantly bickering and was rife with massive divisions. You know that Heer units refused to fight under an army because it was called an "SS" army? People were *so* united they were refusing to fight because of the name of the unit they were fighting in.

Furthermore, Nazis had a thing for opportunism, such as the time Rohm was betrayed. Why? Because Hitler was directly told by the army if Rohm was not removed, Hitler would be dumped as well in favour of a continued Reichswehr dictatorship. There was no unity. There no loyalty. Himmler too was ready to sell out Hitler to the Western Allies in hope of taking control of the Reich. Himmler's own secretary, Hermann Fegelein attempted to sell him out to Bormann. You should read Herr Gobbels diaries; he swings from hating Goering to loving Goering to hating Goering. The same with Himmler.

My favourite story about German unity is the story of Austrian soldiers captured at Stalingrad. They told their captors they were not German, but Austrliasian - which in cases saved them from having to eat each other. In fact the Austrian - German divide resulted in favouritism and infighting as well. Just look at what happened to the first Commandant of Treblinka, Franz Stangl, who was only saved from demotion because the inspectors sent to remove him from the camp for incompetence were likewise Austrian.

Also, no, profit was made for profit - specifically to improve the lives of the leading figures. Living standards fell within the Third Reich, even if wages temporarily stabilised. Furthermore, a majority of historians agree that the Nazi economy was heading for disaster and that the large public works plans of the Reich would prove a long term mistake.

This plus Görings sheer incompetence led to the failure of the Battle of Britain where the Luftwaffe proved itself ill-equipped for the operations it was expected to do.

Hence Hitler declared war on Poland way earlier than it was planned - the original concept was to be ready for war at 1942 or something but since the whole economy was based on debt they eventually needed another country to exploit once they seized all the shit from the richer Jews (who mostly bribed themselves out of the camps, it was mainly Jewish proletariat or middle class that was suffering while the big cats got away).
Anyway, the Wehrmacht wasn't technically ready for a full-scale war in 1939, most of the army still relied on horses, was not motorized at all and didn't have a single heavy tank.

Fascism is, by definition, the height of capitalism. Fascism means an autocratic government that uses corporations to make itself stronger.

I do not consider Nazbol or Stra$$erism (inb4 word filter) fascists, authoritarian policy or not. I *do* consider them socialists, and I find it babyish of many here to deny that when they are evidently socialists because they generally believe, especially Asserites, that it should be the workers directly who own the means of production, or democratic ownership. Either way they seem to advocate worker ownership and revolution, which is socialism.

Fascism is definitely capitalism in decay though.

There were worker councils and tribunals in Nazi Germany

there are worker councils in germany now, that doesn't make it not capitalist

Pic related

No, there were state-operated "labor fronts" controlled by Nazi party members which ruled in favor of capitalists in labor disputes 90% of the time.

Isn't fascism supposed to be the last stop for capitalism though? After everything has gone to shit and you need violent military suppression of the people to ensure porky's property is safe?

Yes. That is why capitalist run countries waged war to end fascism.

Also don't forget that the mainstream population largely hated the Nazi party, but loved Hitler.

People don't seem to realise this, but the Party itself was tremendously unpopular due to it's public image as being invasive, controlling and the poor appearance of figures like Goring, Gobbels and Himmler. Hitler on the other hand remained largely popular right up until the end, likely because from 1940 onwards his public appearances were few and far between - keeping the collapsed mental and physical state of Hitler a secret.

It's an unstable and temporary stop that is supposed to halt a Left Wing revolt and consolidate a Right Wing power base. The Axis powers understood they were on borrowed time and thus had to engage in these long term conflicts. The German's believed they'd be fighting the Russians for several hundred years in a long term near perpetual war which would require a 'living border' of SS peasant villages armed to the teeth.

They will tell you this themselves. Pic related. Scratch a "classical liberal" or a "libertarian" long enough and you reveal a fascist.

Capitalist countries waged war to defeat fascist countries because those countries had become at threat to them. It was not an ideological conflict. Appeasement was pursued until it became impossible. The installation of fascist regimes in the Third World remained a policy for capitalist countries following the Second World War.

I never had any respect for the austrian economists in the first place.

Christ.

...

this. even fucking an-caps joke about Pinochet style helicopter purges

I want to be a leftist I just can't believe blacks are equal

Equality is a spook.

You don't have to. Nobody cares what is going on in your head. What you have to recognize is that the capitalist class needs all your wages - whether you are black, white, blue or red - to get lower. They need to increase your working hours. They need to exploit you all indiscriminately. "Globalism" in the sense of free trade deals is not a product of a conspiracy to destroy the nation, it is a product of a system that is utterly indifferent to anything but generating more profit for the capitalist class. And whether you love or hate them, you're in the same boat as black workers in this respect. Just like them, you are just another labor unit to be exploited and disposed of when no longer useful.

This is a pretty good talk on fascism and when it appears.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ic4Cq2-3QZc

What do you mean by "equal" here?

Lenin said that.

How is economic equality a spook?

Actually, Fascism proper (as practiced in Italy and theorized in France and Spain) can be a considered a form of socialism in decay.

The originator of a lot of the more left-leaning ideas of Fascism was Sorel, who helped formed the Cercle Proudhon. Sorel was a syndicalist who believed in using myths to mobilize people. For example, the general strike is the myth that motivates the working class to revolt.

Now, Sorel's stances were fluctuating, switching from radical nationalist syndicalism to being a corporatist who aligned with monarchists back to being a nationalist syndicalist who aligned himself with Lenin AND the Italian fascists. (Before Italian fascism was solidified.)

There were plenty of nationalist syndicalists in France and Italy who roughly came up with similar ideas. The French ones rallied around Sorel, despising what they called "democracy". (They were actually frustrated with the Third Republic and social democrats and wanted rule by the syndicates. Ironically enough, the Third Republic was meant to be a temporary government made by monarchists who would then bring back a Bourbon as king. Unfortunately, the Bourbon didn't accept the tricolor.) This frustration made them particularly susceptible to monarchists, though it was also that men like Boulanger, earlier in the 19th century, attempted to connect left and right by appealing to working class voters' democratic, nationalist, and socialist aspirations AND getting funding from monarchists. Not only this, but the French left supported Dreyfus, which alienated a lot of antisemitic leftists from the Republic and "left-wing" politics.

Eventually, a lot of those nationalist syndicalists would break their ties with monarchists/fascists and unsuccessfully try to create their own part in the political landscape of early 20th century France.

Back to the Italians. There were two main strains of Italian ultranationalism before "modern" Italian Fascism was a thing. The national-syndicalists, who still believed in class struggle in addition to fighting Austro-Hungary, and the corporatist Italian Nationalist Association. Oddly enough, Italian nationalism had a long, democratic history and the Italian Nationalist Association was originally a big-tent coalition of nationalist Italians of all political alignments. But, the corporatist-authoritarian (though not really dictatorial) ideas of Enrico Corradini took full sway over the party. These corporatist "nationalists" then started to appeal to the national-syndicalists, with whom they found common ground with. However, the national-syndicalists initially rejected these overtures due to an ardent belief in class struggle and (unlike their French counterparts) were ardent republicans. World War 1, however, came in and the national-syndicalists, being on the interventionist side as opposed to the pacifist side, were expelled from all conventional leftist organizations. This made the "nationalists" ever more appealing. The national-syndicalists then made "Fasci" which then combined to form the "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento". The fasces actually has a significance in leftist movements AND Italian nationalism, being a symbol of Rome, republican values, and the Sicilian Fasci. It meant something like a league. (Their leftism can be confirmed in that they striked WITH anti-interventionist socialists after a worker got killed by the police during a clash between the fascists and traditional socialists.)

Continued

These fascists, consisting of a lot of WW1 soldiers, increasingly adopted the platform of the ANI, rejecting class struggle in favor of the idea of "Proletarian Nations" and "Plutocratic Nations" and class collaboration. And when Italy didn't get the victory that it wanted in 1918, Italian nationalism spiked. This is where you get Fiume, where an Italian adventurer, poet, and decadent aristocrat named Gabriele D'Annunzio marched an army of angry veterans into the city, claiming it for Italy in the "Italian Regency of Carnaro". They established a constitution, written by both D'Annunzio and a syndicalist. (The syndicalist did the actual politics while D'Annunzio just made it more "musical".) The constitution was actually pretty democratic and vaguely resembled syndicalism, though it was more corporatist than syndicalist. (Corporatism meaning having industrial associations have a seat in government along with class collaboration. Basically, interest groups have a direct seat in society. Worker and boss.) It was notable for giving women the right of vote as well.

The only country to recognize Fiume was the Soviet Union, funny enough. And, it was the Italian army who ended up cracking down on the Fiume occupiers.

D'Annunzio would be the rallying for all fascists, especially those who would be against Mussolini.

Mussolini was the leader of the Fasci and actually became a shill for the Entente, getting money from them. He also quickly absorbed the ideas of the ANI, though remained an ardent republican.

The second "stage" of Fascism was in the Squadstri and rural Fascism. Funny enough, these "fascists" have little to do with the original syndicalists and were mostly war veterans from WW1. Some of the disenfranchised syndicalists supported the blackshirts and became full on Fascists, but most simply slowly faded away from Italian politics. These blackshirts, angry at the anti-interventionist socialists who they considered to be destroying Italy with their strikes, fought for the landowners and industrialists and cracked down on strikes. Regional Ras grew to lead these blackshirts, and eventually, after Bienno Rosso ended, there was in-fighting between Mussolini, who wanted to consolidate power into himself, make peace with the Socialists, and centralize the party, and the "D'Annunzio" rural fascists, who wanted a violent, decentralized movement led by the Ras. Mussolini won and the National Fascist Party was formed, a merger of the small Fasci and the ANI. In a way, the National Fascist Party took more from the ANI than the Fasci it was based on, but one element of the Fasci remained. A revolutionary dedication to republicanism and secularism.

Mussolini quickly removed that aspect on his march to power, embracing dictatorial rule, monarchism, and making peace with the Catholic Church.

And what of corporatism? Mussolini abandoned that principle to ironically gain favor with the liberal capitalists of Italy, to the detriment of syndicalists and reactionary corporatists. The corporatist system he created was a joke and the bosses and state won every negotiation.

In fact, Mussolini actually grew depressed during the Italian Social Republic, decades later, due to looking back at his life as a mistake. He betrayed every ideal he had and tried to create a corporatist, nationalist republic, in theory…Except the reality was that the Germans occupied the land and used it as a den of slave labor, exploiting it of it's resources. Yet, the Germans still wanted him in power as a rallying tool, despite him despising his situation. He had no mouth, and yet he wanted to scream. (Whether you consider that to be a fitting fate for a man who betrayed his ideals is up to you.)

Basically, Fascism is a form of socialism in decay. It is what happens when the Left fucks up. Claiming that it's "ultra-capitalist" will do nothing to solve the problem.

?

Class collaboration =/= smashing the heads of strikers. Even then, it wasn't universally accepted. Some "fascists" were still in favor of class struggle and populist politics, to the determent of the ANI. (The Italian Nationalist Association.)

The original "fascists" were relatively small in number. The Squadstri took in some of them who abandoned a lot of their syndicalist ideas as well as lots of war veterans.

I agree with most of what you said but I think fascism in theory and practice goes both ways - you can analyze its syndacalist roots all day (which you did well) but there is also an origin within the "conservative revolution" once fascism got co-opted by both porky and nobilty who were both in decay as you can see in Nazi Germany.

Tl;dr nationalism with racism.

It's still shit.

As for [email protected]/* */ socialism,

The irony is that Nazism is a reverse of Fascism's story. Now, there was a [email protected]/* */ socialist, in the sense of being nationalist and socialist, in Austria for pan-German aligned workers. But, the real meat of Nazism was created by the volkisch movement, neopagans, the Conservative Revolution, and German nationalists during WW1. Instead of focusing on resolving class struggle with class warfare or cooperation, the volkisch movement was more focused on maintaining a traditional, agrarian society, free from the decadence of modern, industrial, and urban life. Note that "Volk" can also mean people or even proletariat, but most volkischers were either ethnic nationalists or odd lifestylists. There was also the idea of the Conservative Revolution and Prussian Socialism, which actually was based more on military-rule than the volksgemeinschaft favored by the Nazis. (It did influence the Nazis though in giving them a framework to oppose both liberal capitalism and communism in. And, the Nazis approved of the militarism.)

There were a few nationalist antisemitic parties that promoted corporatism before WW1, but they all were very small. It wasn't until Germany's defeat in WW1 combined with a communist revolution in the cities that created the modern German far-right. The Stab-in-the-Back myth, neopagan occultism, volkisch agrarianism, corporatism (which offered overtures to workers like in Italy), and other spooked crap all combined to form volksich parties like the German Workers Party. Even reactionary conservative parties adopted Volkisch rhetoric, like the DNVP.

In addition, the Freikorps, who were used to crush said socialists and communists, as well as other war veterans quickly became a large base for reactionaries, Nazis, and volksichers to recruit from.

Hitler came in and infiltrated the DAP. The main change was that German Workers Party abandoned Bavarian separatism and had an influential speaker. (Though, Ludendorff's popularity as a war hero contributed to their rise too.)

Still, the German far-right was a mess of small parties who were disorganized and occasionally started putschs like the Kapp Putsch. However, many of the Volksich parties AND the Nazi innovated in that they started to appeal to German workers who traditionally voted left. This combined with Hitler attempting to unify all those elements culminated with the Beer Hall Putsch. Obviously, he lost that. (Yes, there was Ernst Rohm and the Brownshirts who had a working class demographic.)

This is where Nazism took a turn for the left. During that time, Otto Asser, a patriotic social democrat who fought in the Reichswehr in WW1 and against both communists and far-right putschers, grew dissatisfied with social democratic politics and the Reichswehr when they put down a worker's revolt. A bit later, his brother, a member of the left-leaning faction of the Nazis, invited him in. Otto, wanting a form of German Socialism based on corporatism, joined reluctantly. The North German left-wing Nazis quickly took over and popularized the party. Hitler, when he was out of prison, found that his own party was practically split between the original spooked-as-fuck Bavarian Nazis and the Northern [email protected]/* */, who wanted to support strikes and turn the SA into a working-class nationalist militia.

This led to a lot of fighting between Hitler and Otto [email protected]/* */, who was stunned by the lack of a proper economic platform in the so-called [email protected]/* */ Socialist party. [email protected]/* */ was then expulsed from the party in 1930 and formed his own Black Front, which was dedicated to the destruction of the Nazis and forming a nationalist, socialist Germany. Note that Otto wasn't against democracy and was more for a guild system in Germany than for having military or one-party rule. He also wasn't anti-semitic.

His brother Gregor was, and he stayed in the Nazi party on the side of Ernst Rohm until they were all killed off the Night of Long Knives. Otto ran off and tried to sabotage Hitler's regime to the point of being public enemy number 1. Eventually, he had to leave Europe due to Hitler's invasions and the Gestapo chasing after him.

So yes, Nazism was more of a far-right reactionary movement that looked back to primitive agrarianism and German paganism as well as promoting militarism and authoritarianism. The far-right simply changed itself to appeal to workers, instead of it being leftists who decayed into right-wingers. It is an ideology built entirely on spooks, whilst [email protected]/* */ actually tried to give it a reformist platform that makes sense and actually benefits workers.

Sorry, I was going to answer that.

That post was meant to look at FASCISM'S history, not Nazism's.

They have completely different histories and can be said to be different movements that are somewhat similar.

Only nationalism. Fascism doesn't necessarily need race as an ingredient. Aside from Germany most fascist regimes were just nationalists.

But Hitler admired Mussolini in the beginning and bought a lot of ideas from him - I wouldn't say that [email protected]/* */ Socialism and classical Italian Fascism are two entirely different entities. You could say their subject was different: Fascism had the state as a subject, [email protected]/* */ Socialism the race.

Also, the DNVP were basically a party of Prussian Junkers, nobility, and they only adopted neo-pagan rethoric as it was the only way to get mass support. After the disaster of WWI, nobody actually wanted to deal with the old elites anymore, and the only reason Hindenburg and his entourage got elected was because they were the only alternative to Hitler. The DNVP never got mass support and cooperating with the Nazis was the only way to to keep themselves in power. Von Papen and Hindenburg probably aimed for the reinstallemnt of the monarchy eventually to which Hitler was massively opposed to, since he grew up within the "decadent" Austro-Hungarian Empire with its multiculturalism. In the end, they got all played by Hitler who disposed of them.

In the end I'd say the differences between Fascism and Nazism are mostly to be found within the cultural differences between Italy and Prussia.

Depends on the kind nationalism. Italy and Spain never really had ethnicity as the integral part of their nationalist movement, Germany yet did. Germany, and also Eastern Europe, is biologically/linguistically determinated unlike the civic nationalism of the West and the Mediterranean.

Yes, I know. But, most of this was aesthetic and the general idea of becoming an authoritarian strongman. They were related entities, not the same.

And yes, I knew this about the DNVP. I referred to them as a reactionary conservative party in the last post due to this. They merely adopted volksich rhetoric for votes. I clearly separated them from minor Volkisch parties like the [email protected]/* */ Socialist Volkisch Freedom Party.

And, I knew about Hidenberg and Papen as well as Hitler's opposition to monarchy. They already took power in 1930 and were they're own force. I was focused most on Nazism as opposed to them.

Again, this only confirms that German Nazism was the flipside of Italian Fascism. Italian Fascism was a left-wing movement that became syncretic, and German Nazism was a right-wing movement that became syncretic.

The Germans actually had a sort of civic nationalism focused on a Greater Germany in the 19th century. The volkisch stuff became popular later on.

By "Greater Germany", I mean a German unification (with Austria being part of Germany as well) under a German republic, as opposed to a Prussia-unified "Lesser Germany".

Tgsnt.tv

It really grinds my gears when people try to simplify their political perspectives by conflating capitalism and fascism.

Fascism is capitalism with an extra layer of spooks, this is a fact.

Facts are spooks.