re: Michigan governor says demonstrators were carrying CSA and Nazi signs

quote:

---

Which was caused by the southern states attempting to leave the Union because of movement among northern states to ban slavery.

---

You are absolutely wrong on this and are simply parroting what you were told in school. It was about tariffs. Do some more research. This is a topic worthy of it's own thread.

quote:

---

It was about tariffs.

---

Horse shite.

Scroll back up and read the quotes of the various states about why they were seceding. That's not some abstract idea some 3rd party told me at a bar one night, it's their actual fricking words. Also review Stephens' Cornerstone speech, feel free to copy all the parts where he mentions the CSA was formed due to tariffs and then we'll compare those to where he mentions the formation due to the intended abolishment of slavery.

In other words, I have posted documented proof that comes from the mouths and writings of the actual leaders and institutions who were at the forefront of the succession.

What proof have you provided to back your claim?

quote:

---

The correct word is "seceded", NOT succeeded. Big difference. Pet peeve of mine. Come on NT, get it right

---

At work so kind of rushing my responses, plus piss poor spelling and spell check prefers succeed over secede. But yes it is a big difference.

They are CLEARLY calling THIS BITCH a Nazi!!!! Not advocating for Nazi rule. Are people this frickin stupid??

If you vote for a democrat you are an IDIOT!!

quote:

---

That's where "the right" has been too soft and milquetoast in pushing back against accusations of Facism and Nazism. While those ideologies did incorporate nationalism into their matrix, they were largely leftist and socialistic overall.

---

This is a very complicated claim you are making that I will return to in a second.

quote:

---

The main differences between "National Socialism" and Marxism (particularly Stalinism) are nationalism vs pan-nationalism and corporatism vs collectivism.

---

Nationalism as a political philosophy (as in specifically ethnic nationalism that coalesced after the Peace of Westphalia) versus an internationalism, which I guess is pan-national, though that term isn't used to describe it because Lebensraum and the Volkisch movements were also pan-national, but based on united Germans all across eastern Europe. The Pan-Turkic and Pan-Iranic movements in the early to middle part of this century took their impulse from "Blood and Soil" nationalism as well. Pan-Arabism is a movement that sprouted from elements of Marxist-Leninism, but it's appeal wasn't ethnically or religiously specific, necessarily, and is a complicated subject in its own right.

But to your original point, the problems with defining Fascism and Communism into the same umbrella of "leftism" is to openly ignore the complicated politics of the fin de siecle and Germany pre and post-war. The International Left was well-developed by that point, and the German socialists had a strong tradition to draw from, a tradition that was diametrically opposed to the Volkisch movements which later blended into the Nazis. To simply write off the Nazis as leftist is to also ignore the political context from which they arose as well, where there was already a popular socialist party with a rich tradition, one that eschewed racism and embraced internationalism. The overt racism of the German national movements stands in stark contrast to the German socialist tradition in the '20s. The fact that they eschewed both internationalism and favored overt racism clearly delineates them from the International Left that developed after 1880. Any suggestion otherwise doesn't hold up to the documentation, or even what defines itself as "left-wing" for the time period.

We can delineate why Hitler used the word "socialism" very clearly, as from his first major speech in 1920, he seeks to develop and categorize his own type of "socialism" for numerous reasons, but mainly to align himself with some of the prevalent rhetoric of the day, where the dialectical model divided the discourse into "Capitalist" and "Communist." In this sense, the Nazis were among a large number of groups attempting to find a "third way," which meant that they were always going to be a amalgam of whatever elements were thought to attract members. In addition, the socialism aspect was just as much about siphoning away support from the SDP and making a name for the party, first in Bavarian politics, and then in the politics of the country. Hitler was shrewd in the sense that the shadowed socialist rhetoric siphoned support away from the SDP, who German conservatives (made up of monarchists, capitalists and militarists) did not trust to run the country at all, as the events of 1928 showcased.

The use of "socialist" within the party itself was contentious, with Erich Koch in 1931 maintaining that what separated Italian and German Fascism was that the German one was specifically socialist. The same year, Hans Reupke, a member of the SA, wrote that the Nazis would have to disavow the socialist attacks on private property, with Reupke having numerous contacts within German industry.

While Reupke was eventually frozen out of power, his ideas did influence Robert Ley who was the head of the DAF, which sought to be "broker" between capital and worker interests. It also sought to provide consumers with a variety of goods, although the only long-lasting success was the People's Radio.

Indeed, there was left and right factions of the party, with most of the left wing sidelined at the Bamburg Conference, and the remaining executed in 1934 (or pressured into the party line). If people suggested that the Nazis were "left-wing" then why did they privatize numerous industries after they took power? Not only that, when the first New Plan was promulgated by Schacht in 1934, the Nazis could have created state firms to execute those state priorities. Instead, what did they do? They lavished private firms. But were the firms free to do business as they pleased? No, as many were subordinated to state interests. Did we see strict central planning? Not really, though it depends. It certainly wasn't a socialist economy of the Soviet type.

To suggest that the Nazis weren't left-wing isn't to suggest that they were similar to what constitutes the modern Right, and it is this anachronism that people often confuse. Fascism as an ideology was useful because it wasn't prescriptive. Though scholars have developed the "fascist negations" of being anti-materialist, anti-communists, and anti-conservative (as in the Monarch and the Church), we see varying levels of cooperation with each of these groups in all the Fascist states. Generally, they were more amenable to conservative interests (which is why German monarchists found a home in the Nazis) than they were to communists, but there was cooperation with communists and capitalist liberals as well. That the Nazis were not "left-wing" isn't to suggest they are like the modern capitalist "right-wing." Suggesting they are either is incorrect, but due to the fact they appealed more to types of traditional conservatives, and that they based much of their utopian ideals on ethnic grounds, with the direct appeals to militarism, means that they are generally regarded as part of the authoritarian right, closer in scope and activity to Latin American military juntas than to the Soviets of their era.

Your post is correct while conveniently ignoring that Hitler himself enthusiastically embraced state socialism and defined as such in his published writings and speeches.

National socialists were socialists. And the "right-left spectrum" is completely different in historical and geographic perspective.

You fail to note that national socialists were right of center in the Reichstag, but were NOT "old empirists"...

They were socialist. And they appealed to Freikorps types that were poor, out of work, and downtrodden and hated communism and the belligerent Roter frontkampferbund types. That doesn't remotely imply they were not socialist. They were absolutely anti-bolshevik, state socialists

quote:

---

Hitler himself enthusiastically embraced state socialism

---

No I gave a reason for that, as well as an explanation.

quote:

---

That doesn't remotely imply they were not socialist.

---

The economic program was certainly not socialist, as I pointed out in my post. The social welfare measures of the German state were mostly holdovers from the Bismarck era. I even differentiated their economic program from the only socialist state that existed at the time, the Soviets.

Not only that, I was hoping to show a spectrum of belief, in both theory and practice, that showed that the term "socialist" was contentious within the party. Do you want quotes from Koch and Reupke to illustrate this tension?

All of this is to say: Communists are fricking disgusting trash. Nazis are disgusting trash.

Both forms of trash were socialists. They happened to hate each other. They had as much in common as they did in opposition to one another and their methods and lack of value for human life were.... horrific and inconceivable.

Both ideologies were socialist. Modern leftists have AN AGENDA to distance themselves from their disgusting history, BECAUSE modern leftists are disgusting goddamned socialists too.

Facts hurt sometimes.