The Postmodern Socialist

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: scolai

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: scolai

Nope.

As I wrote, I can't be bothered to explain history and politics to someone who parrots a half understood load of bollocks that fits more neatly into his prejudice than it does into reality.

So you don't have anything to say? I mean, you can sit by and make idle threats about how much you know, but until you come up with something that can back up your sheer arrogance, I will not be intimidated by an argument that equates to "You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong." You did not attack the argument, just the character of the person making the argument.

I could spent ten minutes composing a post explaining who the Nazis were in suitably accessible terms but you'd simply deny what I was saying.

You know its true.

Give it a whirl I got some side money that says you CANT do that at all.

You might be right. I don't know if I can simplify it enough, but here goes.

Where did the Nazis come from? All classes, included the landed gentry and wealthy industrialists. The SS was overwhelmingly made up of people who grew up in politically conservative rural areas. The ex-servicemen that made up the Freikorps played an important part in the beginning. They also enjoyed close links with various churches, with Catholic priests giving communion to staff in the death camps.

Who opposed them? Socialists, communists, anarchists and a minority of christians, including the Jehovah's Witnesses.

What gave the Nazis their impetus in the 20s and the 30s? While its true that the fallout of the Wall Street Crash gave them a huge boost, the failed socialist revolution of 1918 - 19 - including the Kiel mutiny and the various city Soviets - meant the Red Menace was a clear and present danger.

Who financed the Nazis on their way up? Not the Communist International but a loose collection on international banks and businesses, including J P Morgan, the Rockefellers, Chase Manhattan, the Texas Oil Company, Standard Oil, Ford and General Motors.

Who gave them political support abroad? Their main supporters in the UK, for example, were in the Conservative Party - which is why Churchill remained sidelined until the sugar hit the fan. The Catholic church also helped because they believed the Nazis were a bulwark against the godless Soviets. The Vatican went as far as to declare the Spanish Civil War a Holy War, which meant it was every Catholic's duty to stand alongside Franco, Mussolini and Hitler.

Who opposed them abroad? Socialist, communists and anarchists, most notably in the Spanish Civil War.

How were relations between the Nazis and land owners? Although they reserved the right, on paper, to expropriate land, they rarely did. Farmers and the landed gentry knew their property would be respected by the Nazis.

How were relations between the Nazis and industrialists? Even on a war footing, the Nazis and industrialists worked hand in glove. German companies like Adidas, BASF, AG Farber and Volkswagen did so well under the Nazis that they came out of the other side of the war in pretty good shape.

How were relations between the Nazis and workers? Like any dictatorship, workers were mainly kept on side with bread and circuses. Independent trade unions were banned and left wing trade unionists sent to concentration camps. Unions were, on the whole, controlled by the party and heavily biased towards the employers interests.

And so on.

Now, which part of that sounds like a socialist party?

socialism persists because of the chimerical ability of corporatism to imitate and abuse capitalist structures to create immortal entities largely immune to prosecution and libel. The irresponsibility of corporations leads to unparalleled pollution, squandering of resources, destabilization of fragile economies, and migration patterns caused by hiring and layoffs. Corporations have all the negatives of multi generational concentration of wealth with none of the positives associated with an aristocracy that at least attempts to perpetuate the success of a family or community. The corporate charter is like a machination changing hands like the One Ring from a Tolkien novel, manipulating people all greedy for a piece of the throne, but after they all destroy each other, the ring simply finds some other patsy to continue plaguing the earth.

Chiefly, the sins of corporatism, are that if these same sins of capitalism were committed by an individual or a personally owned or family owned business, that person or family would be subject to the mob in the least, and more often the wrath of individuals, families, and litigation. A corporation is a faceless entity with an army of lawyers designed to crush the will of opposition and drain the coffers of its victims rolling on.

And because of the continued existence of corporations, models like the green party and socialism keep cropping up, speaking common sense shrouded in nonsensical policies, but that absurdity is often the only way those complaints get addressed. Sadly, many nation states fall to the rhetoric of anti corporate sentiment rebranded as anticapitalism.

a reply to: Justoneman

you say that like its a bad thing...

a reply to: Justoneman

You think Trump can curb the RINOs from these games?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

I'm not a left winger.

Neither were the Nazis.

I know its not covered on the History Channel, but find out how the Nazis worked hand in glove with industry and the Junkers.

Plenty of socialists did, and do that. Ted Turner a multi-billionaire who happens to be a socialist, among many others also make business with corporations and own corporations...

The NAZIS under Hitler's command gave instructions for business owners on how to operate, and what to do "for the collective good". If they didn't do so they would lose their businesses.

Not to mention Hitler and the NAZIS also introduced "firearm registration". In 1938 the "Third Reich" introduced the "1938 German Weapons Act". Under this act "handguns" were restricted, and all weapons manufacturers had to give the police all purchases of weapons, who purchased what, and who they were. They also banned sections of the population, minorities like the Jewish people, from having any sort of firearm, as well as white weapons, ie truncheons and knives.

Under the Third Reich "the collective good" was more important than "individuality."

Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz – "The common good before the self good."

People, the left in general, forget the 25 points of Hitler's Nazy Party.

"Nationalization, universal healthcare, profit sharing from large companies to the people, agrarian reform, the abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land, the calls to wage war against anyone who would work to the injury of the common welfare. The extremist environmental laws implemented by the Third Reich, the use of "animal cruelty" in religious ritual to demonize certain groups, the "abolition of the regular army to create a national folk army, etc, etc. All these policies were socialist. AS for the "nationalist side"... India is another example of "national socialism" being sought by the people, which included Gandhi.

Oh, and let's not forget, the left these days in their latest attempt to dominate what news people can access are using point 23 of the Third Reich...

...
23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
...
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.
...

www.historyplace.com...

Of course, since the left in the U.S. these days is more "internationalist" they do not follow the "nationalist" tenets of NAZI Germany. But the same type of suppression of the press is being used these days by the left in general. Not everyone in the left, but the left in general.

Oh, and to end with the truth of who the NAZIS really were, at the end of the 25 points of the NAZI party there is this...

...
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

www.historyplace.com...

The NAZIS under Hitler, and Hitler himself were all "socialists". They created alongside another life long socialist, Mussolini, a new branch of socialism called fascism.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, to summarise, you think the Nazis were socialists because they did some of the things socialist did.

Let's take a few of your points.

Yes, they told industry what to do during the war. All countries do. But it wasn't brutally top down like in Stalin's Russia. They worked together for mutual benefit. Like I said, industry did pretty well out of it at the other side of the war.

The firearm registration act made it easier for native Germans to own a gun and impossible for Jews and undesirables. That's not a socialist policy - that's an authoritarian one. Two different things.

Yes, the collective good was more important than the individual. Just look at the way they clamped down on gays, ethnic minorities and young people. That's not a socialist policy - that's an authoritarian one. Two different things.

It's worth noting the irony on that point: if the Nazis were socialists because they had some policies in common, what does their policy on gays and ethnic minorities make them?

The Twenty Five Points were written in 1920, when the NSDAP was a very different party from 1936. They were a platform but, in practice, interpreted loosely.

Nationalisation, for example, didn't happen to AG Farben.

The National Folk Army? Maybe the Wehrmacht didn't get the memo.

Extremist environmental laws? Didn't seem to affect industry or the autobahns, even if that were a socialist policy.

Using "animal cruelty" to demonise ethnic minorities? That was implemented. There are plenty of people who would like that implemented now for halal meat, but they're not on the left.

Control of the news? Not a socialist policy but an authoritarian one. Two different things.

And so on.

I think the key note is at the beginning when you say plenty of socialists work closely with industry and hereditary landowners. Like the OP, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of socialism. If someone works closely with industry and hereditary landowners, they are not a socialist. Crony capitalist, corporatist, call them what you will, but what they are doing is inimical to socialism.

All your cherry picking and internet "research" is meaningless if you don't know what socialism is.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Oh, and to end with the truth of who the NAZIS really were, at the end of the 25 points of the NAZI party there is this...

...
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

www.historyplace.com...

The NAZIS under Hitler, and Hitler himself were all "socialists". They created alongside another life long socialist, Mussolini, a new branch of socialism called fascism.

I refer you to my earlier posts.

All your cherrypicking and internet "research" is pointless if you don't know what socialism is.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The Nazi parties support from abroad overwhelming came from right wing conservatives both in the US and the UK.

His support in the German parliament came from the right wing parties and the only votes against the enabling act was from the left wing social democrats.

Amongst the very first groupsthe Nazis targeted were socialists and trade unions.

The Nazi party doesn't fit neatly into normal right/left paradigm. It was mainly right wing socially/politically and centre left economically however there are exceptions even to that.

And to address just a couple of the 25 points if common welfare and a people's army are socialist concepts the the US founding fathers were pretty socialist.

It really shouldn't need pointing out that there are always points of overlap and common policies between political movements.

The real world isn't made up of comic book villains out to destroy the world. In order to get public support even authoritarian regimes have to offer the perception that they are serving the public good.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Fools
Socialism has been redefined many times depending on many things. I suppose you could consider some things like roads and parks as a social program paid for by all in the interest of all. If that is someones definition of socialism and it stops there then I am ok with it.
My problem is that socialism is also in many cases interventionism. This means that they take from all for the interest of some. There are many examples of this. First example is corporate welfare - it does exist. Second example is geographical prioritizing - it does exist. Third example is class prioritizing. It does exist.

Another issue is that socialism by definition cannot exist without natural market conditions. That means risk as well as individual gains for those who are the best at what they do, or sometimes are just at the right place at the right time. Without people making money (symbolic item that is actually work plus production value) no socialist system can exist. This is why countries like Venezuela or the Soviet Union failed, they attempted to replace the nature of the market with the hand of man and central planning. Why? Well to make everything fair of course. But soon without any actual benefit to make the individual inspire to produce the product and work become nothing and then everything eventually becomes worthless.

I think that most who consider themselves socialist cannot stand for that alone. Because it is "unfair". And yet none of those same people would exclude themselves from any monetary advantage if it showered upon them. But it is truly hatred of nature and hatred of life that inspires most socialist. It is envy and just about every ugly human emotion possible that makes a person start demanding that everyone else take care of everyone else OR ELSE! And it will never end. People will clamor for this sort of thing as long as there are people. The best that can be done is to try to change the culture and the education system to make people understand that evil is not brought by the devil necessarily, but by individuals and groups of individuals answering initial bad decisions by more bad decisions. Never thinking past the moment but only about right now and what they want right now.

Roads and public services really do
Help the collective as long as it dues t do overboard. I find it ironic that many left leaning people criticize the spending of tax money on outrageous and unnecessary pork barrel projects yet have no problem with the redistribution of wealth from working citizens to others the State deems worthy, oh say like illegal immigrants who come here for services like medical care in hospitals like birthing and such or food stamps or feee public education or subsidized housing food stamps and leap(sp? Subsidized heating) zzz any ideas on this ?

The reason the commoners fall for that is it makes them feel good that they "are doing something good for those that cannot help their plight in life". The reality is they may be forcing some who disagree with these services and still have to pay into them whether they want to or not. The reality of welfare is that once a person or family is hooked into that system - it is very difficult to get out. Those receiving welfare, white, black, or in between, will soon believe that they deserve this assistance to live because other "rich" people are greedy and don't care about them. In some cases that is true in others it is not.

The reality is that all human beings actually feel better about themselves and the world around them when they accomplish any goals they have set for themselves. Welfare reduces the natural training of meeting goals. If you have no need to support your daily existence then you will find it hard to learn how to incorporate other goals into your lifestyle.

The reason the overlords like welfare is they can take in all of these funds and appropriate them how they see fit. Usually some amount of it is skimmed off the top to arrange people and energy to their benefit and to the benefit of their inner circle of family and friends. It is why nearly all democrats on the national level somehow become millionaires while not making enough to actually become millionaires. And many Republicans as well.