Holla Forums, pay attention

I appreciate Mussolini a lot more than Hitler. Mussolini actually developed an ideology while Hitler was a opportunist.

They both suck though.

...

wtf I love national 'socialists' now

Ideologically speaking Fascism was better than Not-Socialism.

Also Futurism is better than crudely aping muh volk.

that's rich coming from a fucking commie
also sage for shit falseflag thread

Wages went way up under Hitler. And the real victim of genocide was unemployment.

That's made-up, same way the reds are baby-eating satanists was made-up… or was it? Germany had allies all over the world. There' s a huge difference between being racist and wanting to eliminate all other races on the planet.

Fascism and National-Socialism have more in common with each other than with any other ideology. See Umbero Eco's essay Ur-Fascism.

Besides, totalitarianism doesn't depend on what the State is referred to as but on how it operates. A totalitarian State is a State that recognizes no limit to its own authority, attempts to control every aspect of life and ensure reality cannot be interfaced with through anything other than the official ideology. Both Fascism and National-Socialism qualify and the latter, in fact, arguably went way further into the development of a totalitarian State.

The only core difference between Fascism and National-Socialism was the (initial) lack of racism and antisemitism of the former.

but destroying every other party and opinion is also pic related, people who watched a bad movie

How about no

...

Mussolini passed antisemitic laws to appease Hitler, anyway. Nobody liked them, and they got repealed after he got deposed by other fascists.

...

what did he mean by this

I agree with this…

This

I've always wondered what the world would be like if Mussolini never had his thunder stolen, presumably by not pissing off the allies.

I mean presumably it'd have collapsed all the same because fascists tend to be the most efficient people in the world at finding new ways to be inefficient, but still. [spoiler]quotes like that and the one about agreeing with everything in Keynes' book make me feel almost like he came dangerously close to being /myguy/ as far as non-socialist authoritarian dictators go.)

also this quote is also from him.for REAL

books.google.it/books?id=tkHqP3vgYi4C&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The problem with Benny wasn't his opinion left over from his day in the Italian Socialist Party.

"Not wanting to destroy all others"
The Nazis were the worst calamity to befall Europe since the 30 years war, the black death and fall of the western Roman empire.

No, it wasn't — the Nazi Party won thanks to a combination of manipulative electoral politics and outright street terror. Besides, Hitler only turned to parliamentary democracy after the failure of his not-so-democratic coup attempt in 1923.

There were 4 elections within 16 months with increasingly bent rules at that.
Vote until the results fit, very democratic

Also you failed to explain how it is different from fascism.

"In the most circumspect of manners, Fascism could be said to have a few reasonable statements, even if coincidentally - the Paul Krugman of crazy. Not-Socialism is by comparison Chicago school to the end, totally without merit or redeeming feature."
Or something.

He would still be a dumbass at warfare that turned the most badass army in Europe into a paper tiger.

No, they didn't. That's factually wrong.

it looks like Holla Forums is trying to do shit in this thread to change our mind and is working. Get your shit together Holla Forums fascism is bullshit.

Is that original? It sounds like something Zizek could have said.
Sauce?

(Heil'd)
Check those Hitler dubs.

Holla Forumsyps BTFO

I made it up on the spot. The quotation marks are just like I'm saying it but also partially disavowing it as I say it because
Writes itself.

There are 0 self-professed fascists that don't worship Hitler, or bring up that fascism had no history of anti-semitism until he got involved with Italy. So somebody has to do it for them.

THIS

...

The only national “socialist” who was a socialist was this guy.
youtube.com/watch?v=Y0AjHeTyuxg

There were two of them, btw.

Not surprising. Asser was literally just an orthodox fascist, who supported the corporatist economic policy that Hitler and Mussolini abandoned.

The extent of his socialism was traditional Fascist economics plus welfare.

They wanted to nationalize Germany's industry and an alliance with USSR.

Nationalization does not socialism make. Nationalization and state capitalism are policies of right wing nationalists, just as they can also (primarily the former) be policies of certain leftists seeking to build socialism.

An alliance with the USSR seems more out of sheer pragmatism than any ideological dedication to socialism.

Holla Forums is worse than I thought
They clearly don't even know what socialism is (or at least the correct true interpretation)

Mods do your jobs.

...

...

If there was any other meaningful way to achieve our goals aside from revolution, we would support it 100%. Our goals are not to kill people, as opposed to Nazis, in which case this was one of their explicit goals. Our goals are to restructure society for the benefit of the working class majority.

But going off from the revolutionary standpoint,
Rich, absolutely rich. And this assumes that we necessarily want to kill every single member of the bourgeoisie. In reality, all we want to do is take control (or abolish, if your an ancom) the state, which does not necessarily mean we need to genocide masses and kill every bourg in existence. In fact, pragmatically speaking, only the most powerful would need to be stopped. (Yes, stopped, not killed per se) The bourgeoisie lose their power as soon as the workers stop serving them.

Of course, given that we live in a society founded upon violence it would be retarded to think that any meaningful restructuring of society can be achieved without conflict.

There was no social ownership of the means of production in Nazi Germany.
Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

t. I don't know who Saint Simone, Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and/or Mikhal Bakunin is

I forgot the sage

I don't have to they both suck horse dicks

the means of production were owned by the volk

By the same criteria, wouldn't USSR also not be socialist?

Marxist definition

Have a read through

pastebin.com/wV97RYQT

Correct.

But don't let the tankies hear that or they'll sperg

Found the Trotskyist.

Dear god. That's not how it works.
To explain I'll ask you this. Who ultimately decided what goods were produced, how and for what purpose? Was it the German workers, or party affiliated industrialists?

In the first case it would have been socialism, in the second case it's just capitalism playing dress-up.

wtf what happened???

Too late. The ice picks are already in the air. Hide your heads.

It's good to know that you can just completely ignore the history of the socialist movement

PS look these names up because not only are they extremely important to socialism their ideas are nothing like what the Nazi party did

This "Nazi diversity" meme really needs to die. The SS only opened its ranks to non-Aryans when they realized the war wasn't going to be that easy to win after all and that they would really need the help of anyone willing to give them a hand.

...

...

...

Both 1 and 2 are correct.

Just to add on to the whole "Nazism is not socialist" argument, Dr. William Luther Pierce, a well respected figure among Neo-nazis, said that the only real difference between Nazism and Fascism is the importance of race. This means Not Socialism is economically fascist, i.e. corporatism which is capitalist.

nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/dr-william-pierce-on-the-difference-between-national-socialism-and-fascism/

If central planning isn't socialism, and workers owning and managing the means of production isn't socialism…
Then what is socialism? After reading several leftcom works I still haven't figured it out

Coops are still socialism ofc

Yes, it was state capitalism.
Russia was a peasant society in 1917 and Lenin believed like Marx that capitalism was a necessary step before socialism could be instantiated (whenever they were right or wrong is another debate).
The Soviet state would have transfered the ownership of the means of production after everything would be set up according to the plan.
But then, Lenin died and Stalin decided to tell everyone this intermediary step was actually communism.

While Bookchin critiqued Marx on several aspects, he is still the basis of many of aspects of Communalism. Read Critique of the Gotha Program, Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit.

sage because off topic

What I'm trying to say is that you don't establish socialism by nationalizing an industry, but you also don't establish socialism by founding a coop either.

I think coops are definitely a major step in the right direction, and can cover the collective ownership of the MoP, but there's more socialism than just having coops.

Worker's ownership and control of the means of production doesn't mean jack shit if it doesn't abolish commodity production.

Not true fam.

marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol08/no10/marx-zas.htm

So if a CEO becomes an emperor and his corporation is an empire and no matter how much he claims he has a free market, due to a monopoly he would de facto run a planned economy, would his empire be a communist one?

underrated post

I was sort of arguing against that.

Thx. Will do.

Obviously. But what if you have a (con)federation of coops that coordinate planning while eschewing for-profit production? That sounds pretty socialist to me.

How do you satisfy the demand for basic life needs without producing commodities? And how do you efficiently distribute them without a market?

The ethnic group of white germanic people decided under the strong leadership of Adolf Hitler

By basing production on need and use, not exchange value.

And what did they "decide" exactly?

If you're producing for use what would be the point of a co-op? Why wouldn't the MoP be communally owned?
By producing for use instead of exchange.
Cybernetics dude.

Inb4 hurr I was onnly pretending to be retarded XXD

Why did he ally with hitler again?

That doesn't deal with distribution though, nor does it explicitly solve the problem of priority. (Who determines who gets what first?)

He thought it was the best way to gain the territories he had his eyes on.

he really pissed off the allies by invading ethiopia iirc.

Every time

Small unit of anti-partisan troops who were recruited largely as a propaganda piece to try and spur a pro-Axis revolt in the Mandate of Palestine. The unit ended up revolting, murdering its German officers and attempted to flee to Britain.

Once again, an attempt to spur a pro-Axis revolt in India. Small unit that never saw combat and was used during the war to garrison areas of France

Attempt to form a pro-Axis movement in the Middle East to push the British out. Tiny unit that didn't see any major combat and ended up being liquidated

Part of the Arab unit, and a tiny part of it at that. Disbanded by early 1943.

Note: All of these foreign formations were 'helper' units that existed to plug gaps in the increasingly small German army. They were poorly equipped rear-guard formations who often defected to the partisans they were recruited to fight. They often lacked training and usually didn't last long in stand-up fights. These were tiny compared to the foreign forces fielded by the French, British and USSR.