Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Rise of the far right in Limerick
Options
Comments
-
I always wonder about the people who liken the Nazis to socialists.
Are they genuinely stupid or just taking the piss?
It’s some kind of coping mechanism, to foist the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Nazis onto THE LEFT.
Few sides get off lightly in WW2, all committed terrible acts, especially Stalin’s USSR, but there is far too much historical record to mistake national socialism with socialism.0 -
-
-
-
I always wonder about the people who liken the Nazis to socialists.
Are they genuinely stupid or just taking the piss?
Actually, both Horst Wessel and Joseph Goebbels thought that they (the National Socialist German Workers Party), had more in common with the Communists (who would no doubt have maintained that they were Socialist) despite regularly violently clashing with each other, than the other Nationalist parties in Germany at the time.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually it was textbook socialism. In all the ways that matter, Hitler was little different from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez/Maduro and all the other "left" socialists.National socialism espoused by the Nazis had nothing to do with socialism.
It was anti-democratic, anti-communist right-wing thuggery.
They merely wished to redefine socialism, implying a national solidarity under their control.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism?s=t
Any system in which the control of the means of production is vested with the State (by any arrangement) is Socialist.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
More broadly, all forms of Socialism (whether based on class or ethnicity) adhere to the idea that the individual is subordinate to the State, all forms of Socialism are fundamentally authoritarian.
And this is what unites the Marxist class-based socialism, with the Nazi ethnicity-based socialism. Both believe in a Leviathan state. Both agree that's OK to kill people - as many millions as necessary, in order to lead the Collective to some higher state of being. Whereas the National Socialists killed millions of "untermenschen" such as Jews the Marxist Socialists killed millions of "kulaks" and "bourgeois"
What's the difference? There is none. Both ideas are predicated on the same kind of thought.
And the opposition to both ideas is also predicated on the same kind of thought - individualism. An individualist, libertarian, or other who believes in limited government rejects the ideas of Collectivism. The best way to stop a "left wing" or "right wing" government from violating peoples individual rights, is to limit government power and for people to stop looking for the government to solve all their problems. If unchecked government power should be accepted for any reason, it can lead to disaster. At an extreme, if one accepts that the government can kill millions of people - as both Class and Ethnicity based Socialists do - then I would argue that the justification is a secondary concern.
Might want to have a look at this, which explains the foundations of Fascism and its basis in Collectivist thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA0 -
To illustrate the similarities between all forms of socialism, consider the Political Compass, a 2 dimensional chart of political positions.All forms of Socialism are heavy in the Authoritarian direction
0 -
They wont accept him he is holding the wrong hand up !0
-
Do you have any original ideas of your own are you just going to regurgitate D’Souza?
Hitler’s Germany was fascist and right-wing. It did not allow workers to seize the means of production. It did nationalise some sectors of institutions of the economy - it also privatised them. Whenever possible it preferred private business interests over state ownership with the exception of rearmament or war related industries.
It actively conspired with industrialists to destroy the threat of socialism and weaken trade unions so as to increase productivity without any protection for workers.
It did allow the theft, vandalism and destruction of private property so long as the owners were Jewish but all other forms of private property continued to exist.
It invaded a Socialist country in order to destroy the political system of that country. Though Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR, merely an act of political expediency, he also created an anti-Communist alliance - the Anti-Comintern pact.
Socialism involves replacing the existing class-based society with an egalitarian one in which workers owned the means of production.
Capitalism was very much left in place in Germany under Hitler.Actually it was textbook socialism. In all the ways that matter, Hitler was little different from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez/Maduro and all the other "left" socialists.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism?s=t
Any system in which the control of the means of production is vested with the State (by any arrangement) is Socialist.
More broadly, all forms of Socialism (whether based on class or ethnicity) adhere to the idea that the individual is subordinate to the State, all forms of Socialism are fundamentally authoritarian.
And this is what unites the Marxist class-based socialism, with the Nazi ethnicity-based socialism. Both believe in a Leviathan state. Both agree that's OK to kill people - as many millions as necessary, in order to lead the Collective to some higher state of being. Whereas the National Socialists killed millions of "untermenschen" such as Jews the Marxist Socialists killed millions of "kulaks" and "bourgeois"
What's the difference? There is none. Both ideas are predicated on the same kind of thought.
And the opposition to both ideas is also predicated on the same kind of thought - individualism. An individualist, libertarian, or other who believes in limited government rejects the ideas of Collectivism. The best way to stop a "left wing" or "right wing" government from violating peoples individual rights, is to limit government power and for people to stop looking for the government to solve all their problems. If unchecked government power should be accepted for any reason, it can lead to disaster. At an extreme, if one accepts that the government can kill millions of people - as both Class and Ethnicity based Socialists do - then I would argue that the justification is a secondary concern.
Might want to have a look at this, which explains the foundations of Fascism and its basis in Collectivist thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA0 -
He could be blocking his dildo on the counter from view for all you know.0
-
Advertisement
-
What exactly is the difference between a Collectivist ideology that slaughters millions of Kulaks and a Collectivist ideology that slaughters millions of "Untermensch?" I propose that only the pretext is different.
Yes. I despise Collectivist murderers. Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao all slaughtered enormous numbers of people in the name of their Collectivist ideologies. I despise them all.Do you have any original ideas of your own are you just going to regurgitate D’Souza?
The "workers" don't control very much in Communist countries either. The State does. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm.Hitler’s Germany was fascist and right-wing. It did not allow workers to seize the means of production.
Private ownership was OK in theory, but only if the private property holders values and actions aligned with the interests of the State. The State was the ultimate authority. Indirect, but they were still in control.It did nationalise some sectors of institutions of the economy - it also privatised them. Whenever possible it preferred private business interests over state ownership with the exception of rearmament or war related industries.
The threat of Marxist socialism. Ethnic socialism was fine. As to the idea of "protection for workers" that's a laugh, have a read of Animal Farm, George Orwell warned us of the type of "protection" the average worker gets in a Marxist hellhole.It actively conspired with industrialists to destroy the threat of socialism and weaken trade unions so as to increase productivity without any protection for workers.
Because it was ethnic-Socialism.It did allow the theft, vandalism and destruction of private property so long as the owners were Jewish but all other forms of private property continued to exist.
Hitler invaded East to gain "Lebensraum" for the German people. The exact same as the Communists invaded Ukraine, the Baltic States and other small countries.It invaded a Socialist country in order to destroy the political system of that country. Though Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR, merely an act of political expediency, he also created an anti-Communist alliance - the Anti-Comintern pact.
Both the Nazis and the Soviets were genocidal. Whereas the Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews (and Slavs etc) the Soviets invaded Ukraine and the Baltic States with the express intention of exterminating the nation-state identities of the invaded peoples. Stalin did this through intentional starvation and forced population transfers. The reason why there are Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic States and Ukraine today is because Stalin did in those countries EXACTLY what the British Empire did in Ireland during the Plantations. And with exactly the same results.
He did this precisely using the authority of a Leviathan state, justified by the Collectivist claim that it was in the interests of the "Proletariat". Hitler just used the alleged interest of the "Master Race" to do much the same.
And it caused the death of 100,000,000 people in the last century.Socialism involves replacing the existing class-based society with an egalitarian one in which workers owned the means of production.0 -
What's the difference between the Soviet system of occupying foreign territory and murdering millions, the German system of occupying foreign territory and murdering millions, the British system of occupying foreign territory and murdering millions and the American system of occupying foreign territory and murdering millions?
You are correct.0 -
Actually it was textbook socialism. In all the ways that matter, Hitler was little different from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez/Maduro and all the other "left" socialists.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism?s=t
Any system in which the control of the means of production is vested with the State (by any arrangement) is Socialist.
Might want to have a look at this, which explains the foundations of Fascism and its basis in Collectivist thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA
I wouldn't take anything from PragerU as it's not an actual educational establishment. Dinesh D'Souza is a conspiracy theory pusher and convicted criminal who would be torn apart in genuine academia, his film Death of a Nation is pure cringe.
The go-to book on the economy of the Third Reich - at least it used to be, th I read it lmaybe 10 years ago - was Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze, but it's not the most entertaining read.
Basically the Nazi economy was highly privatised but with loads of corruption in who got contracts and the likes. The idea that the Germans were super orderly and industrially efficient is a myth. The whole state was broken up into different fiefdoms and competed with itself, as individuals were more interested in their own slice of the pie. Hitler largely encouraged this. They only really ramped up to a full war economy under Speer in 1944, and by then it was too late. (although Speer probably didn't achieve as much of that as he's credited with, a bit like Beaverbrook being held up as a miracle worker in the UK)
The Soviet Union with its centralised control was very different to the Nazi system and managed to outproduce the Germans with a later start and despite having to move a sizable chunk of their industry, workers and support East to keep it out of German hands. The Germans could only dream about that kind of centralised planning because their production was a patchwork mess.
Either way, lay off the PragerU, it's largely bull**** made with an agenda and no honest desire to represent the truth or educate anyone.0 -
There are big differences between Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR but what they both had in common was they were totalitarian dictatorships.
I really don’t understand the fixation with collectivism, do you think because an end result is the same that overall they must be the same? Tell me this, do you think the massive war mobilisation efforts undertaken by the US and UK to defeat Germany to be collectivist?
I’ve read Animal Farm before, it’s a great book and I enjoyed it a lot, but it’s not a historical document. It’s a great allegory, no doubt. There are plenty of sources that show how cruel life was in the Gulag system of the USSR or life under German occupation.
Animal Farm would not be one of them, for a start it was published in 1945 and heavily influenced by Orwell’s experiences during the Spanish Civil War (Hitler supported Franco’s fascists during that conflict btw),
With all of this debate there are far too many sources and far too much evidence to look at to ever confuse Nazi Germany as Socialist. That is dangerous revisionism.
I’ve no degree in history or speciality in that field but I’ve been reading literature on WW2 for years and I’ve never heard any writer talk about ethnic socialism. It’s nonsense. Germany was fascist, which is on the right of the political spectrum, and maintained an overall capitalistic economic system for the war.What exactly is the difference between a Collectivist ideology that slaughters millions of Kulaks and a Collectivist ideology that slaughters millions of "Untermensch?" I propose that only the pretext is different.
Yes. I despise Collectivist murderers. Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao all slaughtered enormous numbers of people in the name of their Collectivist ideologies. I despise them all.
The "workers" don't control very much in Communist countries either. The State does. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm.
Private ownership was OK in theory, but only if the private property holders values and actions aligned with the interests of the State. The State was the ultimate authority. Indirect, but they were still in control.
The threat of Marxist socialism. Ethnic socialism was fine. As to the idea of "protection for workers" that's a laugh, have a read of Animal Farm, George Orwell warned us of the type of "protection" the average worker gets in a Marxist hellhole.
Because it was ethnic-Socialism.
Hitler invaded East to gain "Lebensraum" for the German people. The exact same as the Communists invaded Ukraine, the Baltic States and other small countries.
Both the Nazis and the Soviets were genocidal. Whereas the Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews (and Slavs etc) the Soviets invaded Ukraine and the Baltic States with the express intention of exterminating the nation-state identities of the invaded peoples. Stalin did this through intentional starvation and forced population transfers. The reason why there are Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic States and Ukraine today is because Stalin did in those countries EXACTLY what the British Empire did in Ireland during the Plantations. And with exactly the same results.
He did this precisely using the authority of a Leviathan state, justified by the Collectivist claim that it was in the interests of the "Proletariat". Hitler just used the alleged interest of the "Master Race" to do much the same.
And it caused the death of 100,000,000 people in the last century.0 -
Grab All Association wrote: »Noticed this on Facebook recently.
Saw a Guard making this exact same hand gesture on a roundabout yesterday. Mind you, I think she was trying to stop traffic, but that didn't stop me calling her a far-right Nazi. They're everywhere.0 -
I’ve no degree in history or speciality in that field but I’ve been reading literature on WW2 for years and I’ve never heard any writer talk about ethnic socialism. It’s nonsense. Germany was fascist, which is on the right of the political spectrum, and maintained an overall capitalistic economic system for the war.
I studied history at a UK uni, lots about the Soviet system, but I chose modules in Russian and Soviet history so it was pretty hard not to mention.
There was one student who was a neo-nazi type there. He was kicked out for behaviour rather than the content of his work, but I can't imagine that was very good either.
The whole PregerU thing didn't exist at the time. Dennis Prager was still a talk-show host and D'Souza was coming out with conspiracy theories like the left/liberals being allied with Al Queda to take down Bush. Nobody with any real power took any of it seriously. Things have changed, now POTUS is a fan, although no historians consider it any more than propaganda. Conservative historians must find him particularly embarrassing as I'm sure he pops up in the odd first-year essay from the same students that used to quote David Irving.0 -
Might want to have a look at this, which explains the foundations of Fascism and its basis in Collectivist thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA
Please don't tell me that you think Prager U is some kind of academic institution?
It's basically just a bunch of videos by a right-wing video host. The videos are well-produced which can fool people into thinking that the content must be legit they're mostly nonsensical revisionism aimed at uninformed Americans.
If this video is the one with Dinesh D'Sousa, then you might want to look up who D'Sousa is. Like Prager U, he isn't taken seriously by academics or experts and his output is also aimed at the kinds of people who think D'Sousa has some kind of meaningful expertise - namely, the largely uninformed.0 -
They all agreed on the main points.There are big differences between Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR but what they both had in common was they were totalitarian dictatorships.
The role of the State, and the relationship of the individual to the State. They differed only on the economic model they were to use, and also the group in whose name they were to slaughter tens of millions. The Nazis slaughtered tens of millions of Untermensch in the name of the Master Race, the Marixsts slaughtered tens of millions of Kulaks in the name of the Proletariat.
What precisely is the difference?
If they have largely the same ideas and the end result is largely the same, then yes.I really don’t understand the fixation with collectivism, do you think because an end result is the same that overall they must be the same?
The US and the UK remained democratic throughout the Second World and Cold Wars. The mobilisation was both temporary and backed by a democratic mandate.Tell me this, do you think the massive war mobilisation efforts undertaken by the US and UK to defeat Germany to be collectivist?
What is "dangerous revisionism" is failing to learn the lessons of history and the evidence that Marxism is as evil as Fascism.With all of this debate there are far too many sources and far too much evidence to look at to ever confuse Nazi Germany as Socialist. That is dangerous revisionism.
Venezuela was once a wealthy country with well-fed people and a vibrant economy. But the were unaware of the dangers of Socialism, so they voted for Hugo Chavez, back in 1998. The Venezuelan people made this fateful decision long after the consequences of Socialism in the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, Cambodia with Pol Pot etc were well known, now they're mired in poverty and hunger, generating hundreds of thousands of refugees and their country is nothing but a pawn for Russia, China, Hezbollah and so on. This despite the fact that they have a year-round growing season, the worlds largest reserves of oil, and awesome scenery for tourism.
The popularity of people like Bernie Sanders in the US and Socialist parties throughout Europe suggests that we in the West are ill served by our academics and those who are writing our history books.0 -
The US and the UK remained democratic throughout the Second World and Cold Wars. The mobilisation was both temporary and backed by a democratic mandate.
No, they weren't.
Try tell that to blacks in the US and NI Catholics in the UK.
And both the US and UK maintained empires during WWII, occupying foreign lands and not giving natives the right to a free, democratic vote.0 -
They all agreed on the main points.
The role of the State, and the relationship of the individual to the State. They differed only on the economic model they were to use, and also the group in whose name they were to slaughter tens of millions. The Nazis slaughtered tens of millions of Untermensch in the name of the Master Race, the Marixsts slaughtered tens of millions of Kulaks in the name of the Proletariat.
So are you saying that the two countries had different economic systems now? Because that's not what you were saying earlier. You said Nazi Germany was a case of textbook Socialism.
For me there's no debate that both countries were totalitarian dictatorships, but to the degree to which collectivism played a role in Nazi Germany in the way you are implying is questionable at best and very debatable. All the major war powers of WW2 were directed from above by massive government intervention.The US and the UK remained democratic throughout the Second World and Cold Wars. The mobilisation was both temporary and backed by a democratic mandate.
There were suspension of key democratic traditions during the course of the war in the US and UK, including internment without trial (the Japanese in the US), banning strikes (UK), press censorship in both countries but in any case, you would agree that there was a collectivist approach and that this collectivist approach - putting key sectors under government control, directing massive resources to projects, factories etc, drafting individuals to serve in the military service - to the war effort by the US and UK was positive?
The popularity of people like Bernie Sanders in the US and Socialist parties throughout Europe suggests that we in the West are ill served by our academics and those who are writing our history books.
Are we really ill served by people who've made a career of lifelong learning, producing volumes of research, peer-reviewed articles, carefully referenced and cited papers versus some lunatic conservative who thinks Nazi Germany was Socialist?0 -
Advertisement
-
China is actually called the People's Republic of China. China is socialist. Therefore, it follows, that Republicans are socialist. Socialism inevitably leads to genocide, therefore The Republicans are planning genocide.0
-
Heil Freezer!0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement