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

quote:

---

quote:
“It was a definitely a political rally. I’ve not often seen a Confederate flag at the state capitol—and there were a few of them. There was someone who had signs that had a swastika on it…It was really a very political demonstration and rally,” Whitmer said. “And It flies in the face of what we know we need to be doing to keep ourselves safe.”

---

yes sir.
and just like that the governor stated May 1st she will begin to slack up on the restrictions.

will see how that goes down.
i can see more protest coming soon in Michigan.

quote:

---

Well, it was - universal health care

---

Which was a part of the social welfare program of Bismarck.

quote:

---

In neither system - National Socialism (or Facism, which was essentially the same thing in Italy or Spain) nor Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyite "Communism" was the individual supreme. It was either the party and nation embodied by its leader , or a less tangible notion of "Communism" and party embodied by its leader. Only subtle vagaries in language, tone and target distinguish the two - the methods and motives were largely identical.

---

I mean, individual versus state power is a better way of delineating the modern right (coming from classical liberals), but the individual is also subsumed in all forms of authoritarian governance. That each had a "party" focus does form a good basis for why each is similar, but the actual methods of each differed on the ground level in a significant and meaningful way. The emphasis on the leader, and his deification, moves each system into totalitarianism, but the methods each leader employed is meaningful, and the source by which distinctions are made.

I don't know if you've read that 3-volume biography of Stalin by an author whose name escapes me, but in that book he makes a compelling case that the purges were enabled by Trotsky and Lenin leaving Stalin to his own devices, allowing him to build a parallel administration and solidify his own power. That there was a centralizing authority upon the single individual. This also took place in the milieu of deconstructing the Russian Imperial system, which gave the leader in this system more importance. In contrast, the Nazis mainly adopted previously existing structures, with an economic program that differed in execution to a meaningful extent. What I mean here is that Stalin created the Soviet state more in his "image" than the Fascists, including Hitler, were able to, partly because the fascist in Europe still had differing, distinct interests upon which their power rested. Private industry in Nazi Germany, though secondary to state interest, was still allowed to plan its own production and seek out its own customers, which was not a feature of the Soviet planned economy. This tension is best exemplified by Krupp (and the steel industry at large) resisted Nazi calls to increase capacity, instead using the years of 33-38 to manage its debt. That the steel industry at large resisted those demands to increase capacity is one reason for the introduction of rationing in 1937.

While both countries still had totalitarian structures, the interests upon which their power rested still differed significantly, and how each employed state power was meaningfully different.

quote:

---

This is anathema to us in the United States where, at least the theory and principle remains, the individual reigns supreme.

---

This is where much of the anachronisms lie. Comparing traditional definitions of right (which include monarchs and the Church) isn't an instructive illustration of the shape of the current "right-left" debate.

quote:

---

Bruh, you're responding to the wrong one.

---

I know - I was responding to the most recent salient point.

quote:

---

But the nationalism vs internationalism (and, corporatism vs collectivism, for that matter), is just the sales pitch tailored to an audience.

---

But "nationalism" and "internationalism" during the time period were well-defined. It's not as though I'm pulling definitions out of thin air. That they don't retain the same relevance, or even meaning (as nationalism is now synonymous with patriotism, whereas the nationalism I'm describing has a distinct history dating to 1648 and that time period) is an entirely different discussion.

That the German socialists of the period rejected the overt ethnic nationalism of the Volkisch movements is not something I think you can ignore and toss aside. It complicates the very nature of the characterization, because internationalism was a defining feature of the Left at that time (and still is).

quote:

---

quote:
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.

this is a very thoughtful explanation of what i have been saying here for years when this topic comes up...that for the sake of simplicity, think of fascism as right-wing socialism. it is not a perfect description of course. but for a lot of readers of this forum, it is inconceivable that socialism might have left and right wings. we recognize the possibility of right-wing anarchism (anarcho-capitalism) and left-wing anarchism (a la kropotkin) but not the possibly of right-wing socialisms.

it is also worth keeping in mind distinctions among the different fascists, especially when we are discussing "the state". for sure, the motto of the italian fascists was “nothing above the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” – this was a nice encapsulation of fascist ideology generally.

the state existed in and for itself and was the highest object of veneration. but nazism added racism and anti-semitism to fascism, and that is one of german fascism’s distinguishing characteristics. nazi ideology emphasized the volk, race, and lebensraum above all else. the nazi state wasn't to be revered in and for itself. instead, the german state was revered to the extent that it could guarantee the persistence of the german people, race, and territory. the german fascist state was secondary to Volk, Rasse, and Raum – so much that hitler was content to destroy germany (see: the nero order) if those ideals couldn't be maintained.

---

did not read. i'm sure it is informative though.

quote:

---

it is also worth keeping in mind distinctions among the different fascists, especially when we are discussing "the state". for sure, the motto of the italian fascists was “nothing above the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” – this was a nice encapsulation of fascist ideology generally.

---

I can't help but think of people using anachronisms to make justifications and judge historical events that way. It's extremely popular now, but looking at the evidence itself, there isn't a clear way of defining organizational structure that is clearly delineated along modern notions of what constitutes the "left" and the "right." Not only is it anachronistic, it does a disservice to the complexity of the time period itself.

The most interesting aspect of studying Europe from 1880 to 1945 (and especially after the Russian Revolution) is that there exists the same tension then as it did in the post-war era, to find an "answer" for capitalism. This anti-capitalist, anti-communist rhetoric is a sort of proto-Third Way-ism, which itself was driven by concerns about the extremes of each system. It's a fascinating time period that people talk about in really sloppy ways. Someone whose conception of "right-wing" is founded upon notions of individual liberty, would of course, refuse that the Nazis might be considered right wing, because after all, why wouldn't they? But they don't get nearly as upset with the characterization that monarchs and imperial systems were considered right wing, with the Jacobin "left-wing" made up of anti-royalists, among other groups.

quote:

---

I appreciate your assimilation of a lot of material

---

I read it recently and it was great. If I'm not right, I'm not right.

quote:

---

Nazi Germany was very much in the image of Hitler, himself a more perfect and fully "realized" version of Wilhelm II, at least he thought. He wasn't making a "new" German thing, he wanted to be the Third (German) Reich.

---

Again, there was no "de-Weimarization," for lack of a better term. The structural aspects of the German bureaucratic state still existed, like the Bismarckian universal health care. Imperial Russia isn't my specialty, but I don't get the sense that the Imperial Russian bureaucracy was as robust as Germany's, in the Imperial or Weimar era. Much of the claim of that Stalin biography was that Stalin had room to build a bureaucracy and administration of his own.

quote:

---

BOTH Nazi Germany AND Soviet Russia pushed their businesses more into line with state interests than in previous eras

---

But they used specifically different means, and that is a meaningful distinction. The Nazis, when they first came into power, privatized numerous industries. That maybe speaks to your point that they didn't have to collectivize in the same way as the Soviets, but it created an entirely different power dynamic.

quote:

---

I guess the point some of you are trying to get at is that "nationalism" is de facto, right wing. Maybe in the European tradition, that's supportable, but internationally, it's just as prevalent on both sides in my experience and analysis.

---

In the European tradition, it is regarded as right-wing in academic circles. The fusion of movements post-WWI mean with elements of nationalism and the anti-imperialism of Marx created movements unlike what existed in European movements, though I would suspect that you could find corollaries in national movements against Imperial powers in Eastern Europe and later national movements for autonomy.

quote:

---

I mean, the entire impetus of Hitler was to avenge the loss of the Great War. The Great War itself was largely fueled by this German "progressive" notion that they "knew better" on how to propel society in the industrial age, rather than the barbaric Russians or hedonistic French, and that the world would be better off if they were in charge of everything.

---

You are being anachronistic here with your use of "progressive." While the loss of the Great War was a major reason, lebensraum was developed in the Imperial era, and was also a driving force for moving east and ultimately confronting the Soviets. I don't find textual justification for that anachronism when looking at the source material, because "knowing better" was also the justification for English and French imperialism to Africa and India, among other places, and there was contemporary opposition to that imperialism from the Left then.

quote:

---

guess the point some of you are trying to get at is that "nationalism" is de facto, right wing. Maybe in the European tradition, that's supportable, but internationally, it's just as prevalent on both sides in my experience and analysis.

---

Its a false point he is making. Nationalism is absolutely prevalent in several socialist movements. Like nazism.

Still socialists.

quote:

---

Paid democrat operatives.

---

look at the fat bitch with the Don't Tread On Me flag



she's all about govt funded convenience store cheese dip

quote:

---

Nationalism is absolutely prevalent in several socialist movements.

---

Name some.

You understand what definition of nationalism I'm using, correct?