Famrades, how do I explain someone that Nazi isn't socialism?
I have a friend that seems a little on the fence, but he genuinely believes that Not Socialism can be socialism if it works towards putting the means of production on the hands of the workers, just as long as it's the workers of the nation. How do I explain to him that it's bullshit?
fascism is racial statism and communism is statism of economic class. Communism advocates the abolition of private property; socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production
your welcome fam
kys asap kty
Fuck off tankie
No, the PEOPLE control the means of production, not the government you tankie
Just talk about how there was aspects of the Nazi party that took the whole socialism thing seriously (Strasser) but Hitler himself and the core Nazi command were rabid anti Marxists and socialists and the Nazi party was heavily reliant and indebted to industrials and corporatocracy for its growth. When the Nazis got power Hitler moved quickly to destroy and murder the socialist faction of the Nazi party
And how do I explain that Asserism is not socialism then? Because I don't think going from Nazi to Asserist is a lot of progress.
Well it could be useful as a way towards getting them to work with the actual socialists before they work with the nazis under legitimate concerns of getting straight up murdered by their supposed allies.
As said, the NSDAP had a left and right side. Asser's side was closer to Socialism, the winning side less so (although they did adopt more welfare policies than the capitalist countries).
I wonder how things would've turned out if Hitler was with Asser. Maybe they could have avoided the war with the Soviets, but I suppose that'd trigger the war sooner and the Capitalist countries would still win (and they did win, the Soviets "won" but lost 1/3 of the population, two more victories like that and they'd be gone).
Ask them why are they bothering with some special snowflake form of Nazism that will just end up getting purged as soon as they're inconvenient for the Nazi leadership's alliance with conservative and capitalist forces in the country. Also, Asserism wasn't even trying to put the MoP into the hands of the workers, the Asser brothers only suggestions that came close were basically land reforms, putting more aristocrats into the camps, and establishing a guild system organized by the German state. Sure, there are note-worthy changes from Hitler's plans, but it's not like Asserism was socialism with antisemitic sprinkles.
calm down.
I just copy pasta from google. get mad at google.
Goebells was initially part of the Asser faction in the Nazi Party too and he often wrote admiringly about the Soviets in his diary, saying that the Soviets and the Germans are natural allies and lamenting their hostile stance toward each other.
Goebells was a little spineless cuck and quickly scuttled back to Hitler's side though
Send them this, easily digestible blog post on Nazi political economy: pseudoerasmus.com
This blog is pretty good for information on economic history, I also recommend Unlearning Economics.
But it is.
wrong
Hitler never said that you retard, it was Asser.
Even if Hitler was a socialist, so what? Pinochet was a free-marketeer, but I doubt you'd think that disproves lolbertarianism.
Calling your opponent Hitler is the oldest trick in the book, you'll have to think better than that.
Does anyone have that image of a post that explained how nazis had absolute shit taste in music?
This
they had shit taste in art, that's for sure.
For the sake of inclusivity and argument would it not be better to take (Strasser) out of the word filter? He and his ideas don't seem that bad.
Even if we were to assume that this nation were fairly self-sufficient to where the nation could avoid participating in international trade and still enjoy the degree of abundance necessary to transcend capitalism (which is HIIIIIIIGHHHHLY UNLIKELY), a nation will border other nations. These nations fund their armies either directly through the exploitation of the producer class. In a nation with borders and the revolutionary mass subdued, even the most well meaning state has an incentive to exploit the workers in order to build an army and other border defenses. The nation will likely be caught in an arms race with the surrounding nations so the state, even if it only means to protect the workers' territory will have to exploit the workers more and more in order to defend itself. The state has an incentive to exploit its workers in order to compete on a world-scale. State capitalism essentially.
Further, during the revolution itself, the proles of one nation will not face the bourg of one nation. They will be forced against the whole of bourgeois society and all those who are loyal to the bourgeois (in the case of a nationalist revolt, this will be an even larger number of people).
Only the international revolutionary movement of the proletariat will be enough to entirely overthrow capitalism. This cannot be subdued or halted by borders, but must be global.
what is a "fair salary"
...
Google is a disease.
but most of the fascist regimes and movement in europe before the war didn't really have any racial supremacy in their ideology
Its far better than crapitalism and """liberals"""
And the 3rd Reich wasnt really Not Socialist
Any real socialist society would emphasize the importance of class struggle. Nazi Germany was focused on idpol before anything.
True, but nazi germany does not equal all of Not Socialism
Fashbols showing their true colors
I've made this some time ago.
No. It's nothing but fascists pretending to be leftists trying to convert our most stupid and impressionable comrades.
nys
...
uhm it was [email protected]/* */ who said tgat
Bump
Nationalist ideology in general is identity politics to some degree or another, even civic nationalism. That said I think the world would have been better off if the Assers had their way in NS Germany.
This is some extreme autism.
Socialism is something I can imagine then. Communism, not so much.
Also, OP. Point your friend at the alt-left. He seems like he has already started down that path. He will be welcomed.
There's almost nothing about Not Socialism that reflects regular socialism. Many historians argue (and are likely correct) that Hitler grafted the term "socialist" onto the name of his ideology to be more popular among the left.
National Socialism*
Your friend seems smarter than you, Nazi is a form of Socialism. The only acceptable form of Socialism might I add.
Hard mode:
How do you explain to someone this to someone who has been a nat.ional socialist his whole life and really seems to have things figured out that hes not actually a socialist even though he thinks he is?
My friend is a nation.al socialist and he always says the important difference is the national part.
He just wants to share resources to people in his country rather than globalist socialism where you want to share resources with the whole world. Which he says is not sustainable.
And I cant really argue against any of that.
See
See pic
That was Asser you retard /po/yp
Ownership or regulation according to wikipedia.
Ownership is difficult. If I work at a giant forging plant that cost a billion dollars theres no way I can own the means of production in any meaningful way.
I guess thats why all socialist governments go for regulation.
youtube.com
Watch and learn please
I just read the top comments and judged it based on that. I hope that is close enough because Im quite busy at the moment.
People actually take youtube comments as a valid way of making an opinion about something?
But your comment make me think about something. Rather than "socialism for dummies" videos, we would need "socialism explained in 1 minute" videos.
Now this is bait
The first bit you underlined isn't sourced and wiki isn't a source in itself.
Usually they are better than the video content themselves.
Or at least, if a video is pushing a load of lies the comments will alert the viewer to it.
it is Not Socialism. There is (at least) 2 versions of Not Socialism.
One is 3 reich and the other one is socialism in one country.
Socialism in One Country (Russian: Социализм в одной стране Sotsializm v odnoi strane) was a theory put forth by Joseph Stalin in 1924, elaborated by Nikolai Bukharin in 1925 and finally adopted by the Soviet Union as state policy.[1] The theory held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1921 except Russia's, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. That turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held Marxist position that socialism must be established globally (world communism), and it was in opposition to Leon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution.
Stalin and lenin had different opinions how to to create communist state. lenin (and bolsheviks) were for international socialism.
Comintern was for international socalisam
And stalin was for socialism in one country. Hitler also. socialism in country is Not Socialism if you look at one country as nation.
Also, there is a difference in economic policy. lenin was for state capitalism. It is called NEP
The New Economic Policy was an economic policy of Soviet Russia proposed by Vladimir Lenin, who described it as a progression towards "state capitalism" within the workers' state of the USSR.[1] Lenin characterized “state capitalism” and his NEP policies in 1922 as an economic system that would include “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control” while socialized state enterprises were to operate on “a profit basis.”
As you can see there is 2 different vision of how to spread communism. It is lenin (and trotsky) and stalin vision. As is obviuse stalin policy (socialism in one country) is more successful. Hitler (and NSDAP) in germany used what was working in CCCP and made their own localised version. Which was exactly the idea stalin had. Socialism that is designed to specific nation. Not same socialism for every country in the world.