History Split off derail: Discussion of Nazism vs Communism

[Zachowon]

I didn't say they were honest, period. I said they were more honest than Communists, which is a fact. Honestly, if you think Nazis are the "biggest liars of all of time", you really need to brush up on your history.

And yes, Hitler was quite open about genocide:

Hitler's prophecy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

30 January 1939 Reichstag speech - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When Communists genocided you, they said it was for your own good. Nazis at least admitted they hated your guts, even if they attempted to spin a yarn about how it was for somebody else's good.

Not that "more honest than Communists" is something to brag about, mind you.

Also, when did Nazis say that they cared about tradition and religion? Nazis were quite open about their progressive ideas, IIRC, them "caring about tradition" I believe is merely much later Communist gaslighting attempting to disassociate Nazis from socialism. And they hated Christianity.

As for property rights, again, Hitler was quite open about being a socialist. I mean, just read this excerpt of his speech:

EDIT:

No, it doesn't. But neither is it an open denial of plans to genocide anyone.

I think tje idea they were traditional is due to a lot of people latching onto aspects of how the destroyed the what we would now call woke things that were going on in the Wiemer Republic, and think "imagine the world we would be in if they won!" Kind of attitude.

 

[DarthOne]

I think tje idea they were traditional is due to a lot of people latching onto aspects of how the destroyed the what we would now call woke things that were going on in the Wiemer Republic, and think "imagine the world we would be in if they won!" Kind of attitude.

It would be trading the hell we face now for a different but no less terrible hell.

 

[Zachowon]

It would be trading the hell we face now for a different but no less terrible hell.

I agree, but it seems like it has become an aspect I have seen people on the right latch onto in a misguided way.
They take one good thing the Nazis did, and think it would have been better then what we have now.
Nit taking jnto account thier religious ideals are worse in many ways

 

[Agent23]

No, the Nazi's weren't honest at all, they were in fact the biggest liars of their time or all of time, the greatest among those yarns they spun being that they ever cared about things like property rights, Christian religion or Tradition.

If they cared about tradition, they would have reinstated the Kaiser, if they cared about religion, they shouldn't have subverted and derided the Church, if they cared for property rights then why could they arrest you or have you killed on it for no reason before confiscating it on a whim?

Um, they weren't about Christianity because they thought that they had to go back to the real roots of their civilization, which was basically nordic pagan stuff mixed up with a lot of Asiaboo hindu-insipred larping and philosophy.

They were also fighting against modernity, and I think that channel, TIK history had a nice video on the ways how Marxism is a wierdo new age religion.
One that saw itself as "restoring" the old volk beliefs, existing or non-existing.

Much like Slav nationalists might start claiming they are from Hyperboria or like some historians claim the OG bulgars are Chimerians (yes, like Conan, not the stupid U.S. comedy show host, the brawny barbarian dude with the big sword.)

 

[mrttao]

I didn't say they were honest, period. I said they were more honest than Communists, which is a fact. Honestly, if you think Nazis are the "biggest liars of all of time", you really need to brush up on your history.

And yes, Hitler was quite open about genocide:

Hitler's prophecy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

30 January 1939 Reichstag speech - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When Communists genocided you, they said it was for your own good. Nazis at least admitted they hated your guts, even if they attempted to spin a yarn about how it was for somebody else's good.

Check the date. That is 1939. years after Hitler seized absolute power and no one was allowed to question him anymore.
It was also just before the start of WW2 between germany against the USSR and USA

I want today to be a prophet again: if international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.[39]

That is either a threat or prediction of the results of a war.
A "don't start shit, or else" statement.

Interestingly the prediction was wrong on both counts
1. aside from hitler nobody else tried to punish jews for WW2.
2. WW2 resulted in the mass spread of communism (bolshevism is lenninist communism) all over the world. Where it plagues humanity to this day.

Interestingly enough, according to the page you linked, jewish news publications either downplayed or outright refused to print this threat
Which suggests that at the time, most people were not even aware of the threats existence as it was being suppressed by MSM.

As for property rights, again, Hitler was quite open about being a socialist. I mean, just read this excerpt of his speech:

Yes. Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist, NaZi for short. it is literally in his party name.

It is pretty ironic that he championed the fight against communism while championing partial-communism.

 

[mrttao]

It is interesting how Hitler viewed people as cohesive groups.
Instead of divide and conquer, his policy was to unite his enemies.

He negotiated with jewish leadership to make collective deals between the aryan race and jewish race. Like the resettlement (haavarah) agreement.

He issued threats in a racial manner too. "If jews start a world war to conquer europe in the name of communism, the jews will be exterminated in retaliation" he told the world.

He also kept on trying to bring in the british because "they are just like me". which backfired spectacularly.

His entire world view revolved around racial groups and collectivism. Ironically similar to the communists.

If he hadn't had that mental issue, he could have found great success by campaigning against the bankers and the upper class rich jews. Probably turning the majority of poor / middle class jews against them.

Had he done so, communism would have died then and there.
But he didn't. he was not the right person to lead the fight against communism.
Resulting in failure and protracted suffering to this day

Not to mention that by collectively going after jews it let the jewish oligarchs brand any jew who was against the jewish oligarch as a traitor.

 

[TheRejectionist]

I meant in terms of ideology.

Nazis at least told you they wanted to genocide everyone.
Meanwhile Communists will also genocide you, but will do it while talking about "equality", "human rights", "freedom of the proletariat" and other bullcrap.

None were honest. Nazism wanted total annihilation of whoever was in the land they wanted and at best you end like either like Bohemia and Moravia or the Italian Social Republic.
Communism would have wanted your total submission and that accept their way of life, but you are still breathing.
If I had to make a comparison, Nazis are like Tyranids in WH40K and the commies are the Tau, only just more heavy handed and more hypocritical.
Both should be thrown in the dustbin of history but to a degree or another they keep crawling back in the West because of how easily manipulated have been certain generations. Or desperate. Who the fuck knows.
And now everyone is a Nazi or Commie thanks to this useless dichotomy of dead totalitarian ideologies.

 

[mrttao]

None were honest. Nazism wanted total annihilation of whoever was in the land they wanted and at best you end like either like Bohemia and Moravia or the Italian Social Republic.
Communism would have wanted your total submission and that accept their way of life, but you are still breathing.
If I had to make a comparison, Nazis are like Tyranids in WH40K and the commies are the Tau, only just more heavy handed and more hypocritical.
Both should be thrown in the dustbin of history but to a degree or another they keep crawling back in the West because of how easily manipulated have been certain generations. Or desperate. Who the fuck knows.
And now everyone is a Nazi or Commie thanks to this useless dichotomy of dead totalitarian ideologies.

People like to assume that there is always a "good vs evil" in every conflict when most wars are evil vs evil.

Additionally, people see the forces of evil constantly spreading PR that is blatantly fake about the nazies, censoring or jailing anyone who points out those blatant lies, as well as constantly calling them nazies for opposing evil things like castrating children.

This results in people going thinking that "maybe the nazies were actually the good guys after all".
They were not "the good guys", but it is an illusion we ironically create.

Also, the nazies stand as the only ones in history who truly fought against communism. USA propped up communism against the nazies, and then afterwards only engaged in some proxy wars against them on the surface, while constantly betraying their allies every time the communist party (democrats) took power.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

It is pretty ironic that he championed the fight against communism while championing partial-communism.

he hated the commies because he saw them as heretics and apostates who had perverted socialism.

 

[mrttao]

he hated the commies because he saw them as heretics and apostates who had perverted socialism.

I do remember seeing a speech where he angerly argues basically what amounted to "we are taking back the word socialism. their socialism is not real socialism"

 

[Aldarion]

None were honest. Nazism wanted total annihilation of whoever was in the land they wanted and at best you end like either like Bohemia and Moravia or the Italian Social Republic.
Communism would have wanted your total submission and that accept their way of life, but you are still breathing.
If I had to make a comparison, Nazis are like Tyranids in WH40K and the commies are the Tau, only just more heavy handed and more hypocritical.
Both should be thrown in the dustbin of history but to a degree or another they keep crawling back in the West because of how easily manipulated have been certain generations. Or desperate. Who the fuck knows.
And now everyone is a Nazi or Commie thanks to this useless dichotomy of dead totalitarian ideologies.

While I agree with everything else, bolded part is not entirely true.

On one hand, Nazis were willing to make exceptions to their genocidal policies. If you were useful, it didn't matter whether you were a Jew, a Slav or whatever. They'd just slap an "Honorary Aryan" title - like they did for the entire Japanese race - and that would be it.

On the other hand, Communists also genocided various biological groups. Hell, Marx himself believed that some peoples are inherently reactionary and should be wiped out. And Yugoslav Communist Party, while not genocidal in the way Nazi party was, was still quite racist against Croats.

So this belief that Nazi and Communist genocides were fundamentally different is not actually correct. They were on a sliding scale - Nazis focused more on racial elements, Communists focused more on class elements - but both Nazi and Communist genocides had both.

His entire world view revolved around racial groups and collectivism. Ironically similar to the communists.

Nothing ironic about it.

Nazism is literally application of racism / racial principles to Marxist theory of class struggle. That's it, that is all there is to it.

Communism = Nazism
Bourgeouise = Jews
Proletariat = White race
Class struggle = Racial struggle

It is pretty ironic that he championed the fight against communism while championing partial-communism.

To repeat above: nothing ironic about it.

Socialism, any brand of socialism, is a totalitarian ideology. And one thing that totalitarians hate even more than people who reject their ideology are the hereticts from within.

In short,
For Communists, Communism is the only brand of socialism there is. If you do not accept that, you die.
For Nazis, National Socialism is the only brand of socialism there is. If you do not accept that, you die.

One of reasons why Socialists lost the Spanish Civil War was because Communists were too busy murdering other socialists to actually fight against Franco (and frankly, between the Republicans and Franco, latter was likely lesser evil).

 

[mrttao]

I do remember seeing a speech where he angerly argues basically what amounted to "we are taking back the word socialism. their socialism is not real socialism"

Ok, so. as amusing as it is. I shouldn't fall into the trap of such mockery and dismissal.

There was a lot of very good reasons to hate commies. Not just "economic heresy"

As for his socialism.
Hitler saw jews everywhere. He said the capitalists were jews, the communists were jews, the socialists were jews.
Thus he wanted to push a "brand new jew free model"... which...
ended up just being socialism, without jews.

And when it predictably had issues, they blamed it on saboteurs.
Like the infamous "coal thief"

which... very similar to what communist countries did too.

 

[mrttao]

Nothing ironic about it.

The anti communism champion being himself a variant of communist is irony.
It is an ideal example of irony at that.
Irony does not mean "not believable"
It is the juxtaposition of the inversion of the expected and the actual.

In short,
For Communists, Communism is the only brand of socialism there is. If you do not accept that, you die.
For Nazis, National Socialism is the only brand of socialism there is. If you do not accept that, you die.

Good points about the rest of your post.

 

[Aldarion]

The anti communism champion being himself a variant of communist is irony.
It is an ideal example of irony at that.
Irony does not mean "not believable"
It is the juxtaposition of the inversion of the expected and the actual.

Both are socialist ideologies, and Hitler used to be a member of the Communist Party of Germany in 1919 I think, but that doesn't necessarily mean Nazism itself is a variant of Communism. I'd rather say they are sister ideologies.

 

[Abhorsen]

Both are socialist ideologies, and Hitler used to be a member of the Communist Party of Germany in 1919 I think, but that doesn't necessarily mean Nazism itself is a variant of Communism. I'd rather say they are sister ideologies.

Agreed. It isn't quite communism. It swaps the class organization for race. TBC, I do see it as a philosophy of the right even though it's very similar to communism, and that's because there's some truth to horseshoe theory.

Basically, instead of a the traditional political compass being square, I tend to view it as a diamond. Perfect authoritarianism and perfect anarchy don't care about how right or left you are. So the more authoritarian a country gets, the more it starts to look like communism and fascism simultaneously.

 

[mrttao]

Agreed. It isn't quite communism. It swaps the class organization for race. TBC, I do see it as a philosophy of the right even though it's very similar to communism, and that's because there's some truth to horseshoe theory.

Basically, instead of a the traditional political compass being square, I tend to view it as a diamond. Perfect authoritarianism and perfect anarchy don't care about how right or left you are. So the more authoritarian a country gets, the more it starts to look like communism and fascism simultaneously.

which parts of it specifically are "right wing"?

also, fascism is literally a term used by pre nazi german communists to refer to everyone who is not them. the term is stupidly meaningless. it has no real definition other than "any non communist"

use an actual meaningful term like nazi or natsoc.

 

[Abhorsen]

which parts of it specifically are "right wing"?

also, fascism is literally a term used by pre nazi german communists to refer to everyone who is not them. the term is stupidly meaningless. it has no real definition other than "any non communist"

use an actual meaningful term like nazi or natsoc.

Fascism is actually the Italian version, with Nazism being the German version, but Fascism also has become the general term for Nazi-like ideologies. I'm talking about fascism in general, including Spain under Franco, Mussolini's Italy, and the Third Reich.

As for it being right wing, specifically it's nationalism focus. This sort of grouping is a traditionally right wing idea. It's emphasis on restoring national identity, the Italian's roman larping and other lionization of past success. It somewhat likes tradition, but it picks and chooses what traditions to keep.

Meanwhile leftism is very much "the past sucks, we're going to make something new and better." Even communists always say the past wasn't real communism, their new idea will fix it.

In general, the 'leftist' parts of fascism usually fall under authoritarianism generally: control over the economy, etc. This isn't motivated by an attempt to get to equity (which is why Communism is of the left) but by nationalism, a rightwing concept.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I didn't say they were honest, period. I said they were more honest than Communists, which is a fact. Honestly, if you think Nazis are the "biggest liars of all of time", you really need to brush up on your history.

And yes, Hitler was quite open about genocide:

Hitler's prophecy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

30 January 1939 Reichstag speech - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When the Nazis were elected to power, yes it took them a shocking matter of months to firmly establish control over the German State and crush significant resistance against it. But they wasted little time in passing the the first Anti-Jewish Laws were actually passed in April of 1933, about a month after the first Concentration Camp in Dachau was opened up. They had to remove the "moderates" from government power, crush the workers unions and Communists who numbered in the millions that opposed them, as well as co-opt or neutralize any churches and other political groups that could've challenged their authority. This was in addition to Nazis and Nazi-backed militia groups attacking German Jews along with the Communists, Labor Unions, Social Democrats etc. There was already a low level campaign of sabotage and harassment and assault against Jewish people and businesses when the Nazis took control.

Some German Jewish organizations especially didn't want to antagonize the Germans/Nazis too much by making making a fuss or acting conciliatory (which is something people would later use as proof of how Hitler and Nazis were totally willing to work with Jews) against them but eventually foreign Jewish organizations insisted on a boycott of Germany so Germany had a pretext to formalize the anti-Jewish boycotts in response which including a government backed campaign of intimidation and protest and boycotting of Jewish traders, shops and businesses including the stationing Brownshirts and SS militants in Jewish businesses and neighborhoods and marking their businesses and offices with special symbols to denote they were Jewish.

State and Nazi backed Anti-semitism and anti-Jewish campaigns were being conducted from the very beginning. That it took some time for it to ramp up to full genocide since Germany was also preparing to spread Nazism not just across Germany but across Europe and beyond is more of a case of practicality as opposed to lack of antisemitism.

Yeah, no one ever mentions the real genocide the Austrian degenerate wanted to do, which was exterminate all the Slavs.

Or that something like 40 million of us died in that war.

You keep saying this... There weren't forty million Jews in Europe (or the world for that matter) or even potentially ten million Jews in Europe to kill so the Jews would always underperform in that respect. Plus unlike Jews (unless we're boosting teenage George Soros to ridiculous levels) the Nazis hateboner for Slavs clearly wasn't as strong as it was for Jews. And that was true since the beginning of Hitler's Nazi ideology forming, with the main desire of reducing Slavs to serfdom/enslavement as opposed to actual extermination like the Jews and other assorted minority groups. Plus the Nazis were more then willing to ally and set up client states that were primarily Slavic like with your Bulgaria and Croatia/Slovakia respectively. Not exactly something you saw with Jewry. Hundreds of thousands of Slavs, willingly and unwillingly, were serving Nazi Germany wearing German uniforms while the Nazis were tossing even the German Jews who won Iron Crosses for military valor into the death chambers because they were Jews.

 

[Aldarion]

Agreed. It isn't quite communism. It swaps the class organization for race. TBC, I do see it as a philosophy of the right even though it's very similar to communism, and that's because there's some truth to horseshoe theory.

Basically, instead of a the traditional political compass being square, I tend to view it as a diamond. Perfect authoritarianism and perfect anarchy don't care about how right or left you are. So the more authoritarian a country gets, the more it starts to look like communism and fascism simultaneously.

Nazism is at best an extremist ideology of the center, as I have said before. Entire "horseshoe theory" is just a bullshit attempt to present centrist ideologies as inherently good, when reality is that any ideology can turn genocidal - yes, that includes liberal democracy as well.

Let's see what is the Left and what is the Right.

So...

Left Wing would be external locus of control (top-down, prescription, progress, human-made order).

Right Wing would be internal locus of control (ground-up, tradition, heredity, divinely ordained order).

(And yes, I see absolutist monarchies as a beginning of ideological leftward movement).

So what did Nazi ideology have?

• External locus of control: Nazi Party wanted to control everything and identify state with the party.
  • Socialism: one of primary tenets of Nazism was centralized economy. They even had five year plans!
• Callback to glorious past: primarily right wing, but also very common among the left (Communism itself is an attempt to return into glorious past!).
• Respect for tradition: Nazis had some respect for tradition (e.g. traditional family roles), but on the flip side they spat onto monarchy and many other traditions as well.
• Belief in progress: Nazis had basically unlimited belief in progress and science. Hell, their racism was caused by it!
• Belief in equality: Nazis believed in equality within the race, but that races form a hierarchy, with Aryans on top.
• Human-made order: Nazis had strong belief in human-made order. They despised religion and religious authority, and attempted to break away from the Church in order to create their own.

And of course, Nazis were socialists.

 

[Abhorsen]

Left Wing would be external locus of control (top-down, prescription, progress, human-made order).

Right Wing would be internal locus of control (ground-up, tradition, heredity, divinely ordained order).

See, I completely disagree with this definition. You've completely combined two axes into one. Right wing has very little reliance on being ground up. Frequently it is, frequently it's the other way around. It's utterly orthagonal to that.

Leftists also can do ground up stuff, like hippie communes and Kibbutzes. Those are still lefty though.

Hence, the ground-up/top-down is part of the Authoritarian/Anarchy axis. And I'd toss the human vs divine stuff as that's not useful for a discussion as it has the inherently different meanings based on the beliefs of the speaker.

Nazism is at best an extremist ideology of the center, as I have said before. Entire "horseshoe theory" is just a bullshit attempt to present centrist ideologies as inherently good, when reality is that any ideology can turn genocidal - yes, that includes liberal democracy as well.

No, I don't view centrists ideologies as good. I'm just saying that the only time debating about what sort of government to have matters (as opposed to more or less government), is when you are in the middle of the Anarchy/Authoritarian axis.

Basically, there is a lot of debate about what to teach in government schools, because we are somewhere in the middle of the Anarchy/Authoritarian axis (not right in the middle or even close, but definitely somewhere in the middle). If we were in an perfectly Authoritarian state, all that would be 'taught' is rigid obedience to the state, with no room for debate. In a perfect anarchist society, there would be no government run schools.

In fact, this is why I view centrism as bad: it causes political division. If we were further towards freedom, there wouldn't be so much political debates dividing the country as the government wouldn't have as much power to do stuff.