The Nazi's socialist?

[The Original Sixth]

If white nationalism is supposed to be a liberal moderate position than sure.

Hey dick licker, if you want to argue a point, then argue the point. Don't link me to someone else running a hit job.

No he very clearly says you cannot be British if you are not "white".

Supply a quote, the time index, and the source material.

I am not wasting three hours of my life combing through some fat shit stain's video of about how much he hates white people.

As someone who has followed Spencer since he first appeared on the scene.

If that's the case, then why the fuck are you accusing Sargon of being a white nationalist when Sargon had a very public debate (and pathetically, defeat) against Spencer about the very subject of white nationalism? Just how fucking stupid are you?

Ya. No. Not buying it. The fact that he was the power behind the Alt-Right movement from the beginning means you are factually wrong.

The Alt-Right was a laughably weak movement that was carried only by its pro-Trump rhetoric, its deep state rhetoric, and evaporated by end of 2017 or early 2018.

His influence is still strong and still there. He just isn't allowed out in public anymore.

And? He's a useful idiot who leads other useful idiots to be cannon fodder. Just like Antifa and communists.

Except lets not play games. That was never his real intent as his insane rant proved. That was part of the normalization process for what was supposed to come later. He blew his load to early though. I hear Nazi's have that prolem.

You a mind reader now? Or is this something he started peddling later? I admit I haven't paid a lick of attention to him since...um, early 2018? If that? The dude just never had any real staying power. Clean enough to get on TV, dumb enough to be everyone's whipping boy outside his little fan club. He's two steps below Milo in terms of popularity and relevancy.

The actual difference between the right and the left is the effectiveness of the parties in controlling their more radical elements. The right has been completely in effective in controlling its radical elements and this has caused the overton window in the republican party to shift hard right.

They're not radical elements. The core of the Alt-Right was radical. And what happened the first time they went on a march that looked a little too much like the KKK? They were basically ousted from the Trump Administration. They lost even a strong online presence after early 2018. Because the actual movement is that of nationalism, encouraged by American economic concerns. It's not a desire to start Nazi Regime 2.0. Anyone with half a brain would have realized this.

The fact that you're too stupid to realize that no one important is taking Spencer's ideas of deporting "all the blacks" to Florida or creating a white ethnic state really should clue you in who the radicals are and why they aren't taken seriously.

The left on the other hand has been too effective in controlling its radical element so the party has moved right (neo-liberalism).

That is a delusion on a grand fucking scale. The left empowered its radical elements so much that it is actually following the lead of the Left Coast and New Netherlands, rather than trying to properly regain the trust of Yankeedom and the Midlands. People like AOC who propose idiotic ideas like the Green New Deal are put front and center, while Pelosi tries to hold the center between the Neo-Liberals and AOC's crowd.

The difference is that the Republican Party needed Fascist and Racist voters to hold power so the party needed the base and so was moved right by the base.

Holy FUCK, did your dad catch you licking lead paint as as boy and beat you with a chair?

The Republican Party didn't increase its hold because it was gathering racists, it increased its hold because Trump started offering alternatives to Obamacare. Because he offered protectionism and a better economy. After 8 years of stagnant economy. And after Clinton did very little to ensure that the Blue Wall would hold, merely assuming that they would stay in line.

The Democratic party on the other hand was extremely powerful after the big switch and the leftist needed the party. The neo-libshits have admitted publicly that they know they can do anything they want to it's base because we have no alternative if we want to have any chance at influencing things.

How are you this fucking delusional? If they were that powerful, they would have ass-canned Sanders in 2016 and 2020. They wouldn't prolong a democratic candidate battle to the point where their preferred nominee looked like a weak-minded dolt.

The Labour Party Leaks have shown that the liberals are willing to sabotage their own chance if it means keeping a leftist out of office.

We're not talking about the UK, we're talking about America. Don't pretend parties from two different countries hold the same values.

And if you don't think the DNC does the same thing you haven't been listening to them gloating over Biden, or all but say as much on CNN.

Who would gloat over Biden? I wouldn't be gloating that my nominee is a man whose 80 years old, has dementia, has a #MeToo problem, and had to basically bribe everyone else out of the field in order to beat a closet communist who only joined the party so he could hijack the party. In fact, I'd be shitting myself.

Allowing the Christians to take over the party lead to exactly the consequences he was afraid of. Now the Republican Party which built it's power around Christian White Nationalism in the Southern Strategy is looking at it coming back to bite them in the ass as 2035 approaches.

Holy shit, put the bong away dude.

The "Southern Strategy" is more or less a myth.

The reason why the South votes the way it does is not because they're stupid or ignorant--they literally vote for the things they want. The Deep South votes because they generally see themselves as separate people from other races and have a long suspicion of federal power, after they were defeated in the Civil War. Because at that time, the Fed was a tool of the northern Yankee states. That was ingrained upon their culture.

Appalachia resents any federal authority period and has resented such power long before there was even a federal government. Appalachia has fought with Midlanders, Yankees, Deep Southerners, and the fucking English Crown to preserve their way of life, which was always that American frontier aspect of our history.

Yes, some of it still involves xenophobia, greed, and even downright racism. That is not why Trump won.

Whites will still be a majority but they won't be a hegemonic majority and the Party rather than distance itself from racism and racist policies is doubling down as that train prepares to dive over that political cliff. I have to give Michael Steel credit. He tried.

And pray tell, where are all these minorities concentrated?

 

[The Original Sixth]

Yeah, conservatives do have some institutional power, but like you say it’s neoconservative and neocons just about blend together with the neoliberals in the halls of DC power. Civic (not white) nationalism is relatively mainstream within the GOP base but is disproportionately powerless when it comes to DC and other influential institutions. Trump’s rise to power was just one step towards rectifying that power imbalance.

The right doesn’t have any equivalent to universities in terms of both power in society and ideological extremism.

They don't need to.

1. The successful expansion of internet platforms and communications has allowed conservative media to break the lock that liberals managed to obtain over conservatives.
2. In the 2000s and 2010s, universities were bolstered by politicians from both sides of the political isle, who wanted to sell the idea of higher education as a means of moving forward economically to a frustrated group of middle class parents. All while they continued to sell blue collar jobs to China and reap the profits. The media supported them, the universities supported them, and countless companies supported it.
3. Big shocker, but 10-20 years later of poor college training results, college is seen more as an extended high school than some hollow temple where one goes to learn and become super smart and super competent. Indeed, the illusion of the genius has been more or less discredited over the past four years, as very intelligent people were proven wrong time after time.
4. America put a pause to not only general world geopolitics to fight the Cold War, but it also put a pause on its own internal geopolitics or at least kept it under the blanket. Just as we are no longer interested in playing world police, we no longer need to pretend that we don't have internal differences. I've seen a few possible indications that this might actually accelerate. It probably won't lead to Civil War II, but I think we'll see a major shift in states returning power from the federal government to the states.
5. By the time this all sorts itself out, you will have more and more local media and social networks that act in accordance and speak to and for their own geopolitical group, instead of pretending to speak for the entire country. You know, the "REAL AMERICANS".

 

[The Original Sixth]

100,000 followers is not significant. A million is a bit better, but still not what I'd call "mainstream", for comparison Steven Crowder has about that many. He can get interviews with prominent figures every once in a while, but he's still largely following the wider right wing movement, not guiding it. And Crowder is explicitly a political figures, Carl's more of a generic right wing cultural commentator, and we've seen how well those numbers translate into real world power when Carl ran for office and got crushed immediately. He certainly has fans, but that fandom does not translate into real world power.

Carl got creamed for various reasons.

1. He had lots of "oopsies" he did not even try to get ahead of.
2. The people who supported (ie, the leadership) him were too stupid to try and get ahead of it.
3. Most of Sargon's fans are actually not British. Most are probably American.
4. Even those who are British are not likely to be conveniently geographically located within his district.
5. Popular as Sargon was, he was just popular enough to easily get smeared. People might have heard of him before he ran. They certainly didn't have a full understanding of him or his positions.
6. Sargon had little to no experience with media on that level. He was very experienced with the activists, but those are the grunts. He had very little experience with the higher tier politicians, journalists, and TV personalities who were more than happy to smear him, often by using his own words against him. Often times out of context, but since he refused to defend himself, people just assumed that he was guilty of what they charged him with.
7. Sargon was surrounded by really pathetic toadies who didn't last more than a month without Sargon promoting them.
8. Nigel got back in the game and essentially stole the entire party. Down to the kitchen sink.

 

[Deleted member 88]

They don't need to.

1. The successful expansion of internet platforms and communications has allowed conservative media to break the lock that liberals managed to obtain over conservatives.
2. In the 2000s and 2010s, universities were bolstered by politicians from both sides of the political isle, who wanted to sell the idea of higher education as a means of moving forward economically to a frustrated group of middle class parents. All while they continued to sell blue collar jobs to China and reap the profits. The media supported them, the universities supported them, and countless companies supported it.
3. Big shocker, but 10-20 years later of poor college training results, college is seen more as an extended high school than some hollow temple where one goes to learn and become super smart and super competent. Indeed, the illusion of the genius has been more or less discredited over the past four years, as very intelligent people were proven wrong time after time.
4. America put a pause to not only general world geopolitics to fight the Cold War, but it also put a pause on its own internal geopolitics or at least kept it under the blanket. Just as we are no longer interested in playing world police, we no longer need to pretend that we don't have internal differences. I've seen a few possible indications that this might actually accelerate. It probably won't lead to Civil War II, but I think we'll see a major shift in states returning power from the federal government to the states.
5. By the time this all sorts itself out, you will have more and more local media and social networks that act in accordance and speak to and for their own geopolitical group, instead of pretending to speak for the entire country. You know, the "REAL AMERICANS".

1. Which is why they are fighting so hard for censorship.
2. The idea was everyone would have an office job and college is great for that. Turns out office jobs are limited and not everyone is suited for college or office jobs.
3. Oversupply. If I am a business recruiter, and I have 10,000 applicants all with MBAs, I have little way of distinguishing them. It becomes meaningless. The degree that is. So students stay longer, and the value of a college education decreases. As it becomes basically High School Grades 13-16.
4. On that note, that is why anti Russian hysteria is really promoted by our ruling class. The aim to unify the population against an external enemy, papering over, smothering, and ignoring internal differences. Which in the 2000s and 2010s, grew more apparent and intractable. For the status quo-this is a bad thing, so you want to suppress opposition and internal ideological acrimony for "Russia" bad. Hence all the accusations Russia is responsible for American political division and infighting. Basically americans would be unified, believe their government and media and more or less do as their told if not for big bad Russia. This new elite imposed Americanism is vapid and empty-social liberalism and "democracy". Which is why conservatives are now treated the way the left was in the 1950s. A political force needing to be suppressed and roped into the behemoth's jaws. If people have an external enemy to be whipped into hating and fearing, the fact that they themselves have little in common and vastly different beliefs can be papered over. Without an external enemy-these internal divisions become ever more magnified and the whole system totters.
5. I do firmly believe civil war or political violence at least is likely. In the coming decades. As the situation now is ever more untenable.

 

[Navarro]

Hold up here. Dirtbag has previously stated that he's fine with violence "in self-defence of the socialist revolution". Since his definition of "self-defence" seems to include pro-actively attacking "degenerate reactionaries"...

Connect the dots.

I mean, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, this is the exact same rationale the Soviet Union used for its purges. And Nazi Germany for becoming a totalitarian dictatorship. "Conspirators are plotting against the Revolution, we must make sure to strike first in 'self-defence!".

 

[The Original Sixth]

1. Which is why they are fighting so hard for censorship.

They will more or less lose that battle.

Primarily it comes down to the technology. Now that they've let the jack out of the box, they can't put it back in. Secondarily, but more importantly that won't work because when it does eventually get escalated to a federal battle, each major culture within the US will realize that they don't want to be censored by California. Add in Freedom of Expression and in some way, some form--this will fail. Now, it may be that Twitter and Youtube are permanent bastions for California's Left Coast culture. And the other major cultural centers establish their own versions. Or laws will be passed or SCOTUS will determine that tech companies cannot censor people based on their political opinion.

2. The idea was everyone would have an office job and college is great for that. Turns out office jobs are limited and not everyone is suited for college or office jobs.

If that were the primary issue, the colleges would be better off then they are now. What people are realizing is that they lack any skills in any relevant industry. Either because they did not take college seriously, because they were given bad advice, or because they failed college. And they all have debt. Add atop this that many of them shoved many radical social classes to try and "give them a balanced view" and your result is a lot of angry college students who effectively got robbed.

The same sort of optimism that they went to college with will not be with their own kids. The universities will be lucky if we don't make their communist wet dreams come true by saddling them with the student debt and nationalizing them.

3. Oversupply. If I am a business recruiter, and I have 10,000 applicants all with MBAs, I have little way of distinguishing them. It becomes meaningless. The degree that is. So students stay longer, and the value of a college education decreases. As it becomes basically High School Grades 13-16.

Oversupply was an issue, but it's mostly for certain fields. I know in some areas, nurses were too abundant.

4. On that note, that is why anti Russian hysteria is really promoted by our ruling class. The aim to unify the population against an external enemy, papering over, smothering, and ignoring internal differences. Which in the 2000s and 2010s, grew more apparent and intractable. For the status quo-this is a bad thing, so you want to suppress opposition and internal ideological acrimony for "Russia" bad. Hence all the accusations Russia is responsible for American political division and infighting.

Russia was not really the bad guy of the early 2000s or even of the 2010s, until maybe around 2014. The reason for that is that while Russia was seen as antagonistic, Russia was not actually a threat to us and did not act in a way that alarmed us. In fact, them acting like jerks just seemed to fit our expectations of them. Honestly, Between 2000 and 2008, our primary focus was the Middle East. After Obama took over, we lacked any real focus. Impart because I think the media really wanted Obama to be the peacebringer they dreamed him to be.

The resurgence in 2014 was Russia own actions and 2016 was an obvious attempt at undermining Trump's election and later used as a means to undermine his office. In actuality, Russia is not really in the public's crosshairs. It's China that in the past two years, has seen more and more bad publicity. And after this COVID-19 debacle, China is officially on the shit-list.

Basically americans would be unified, believe their government and media and more or less do as their told if not for big bad Russia. This new elite imposed Americanism is vapid and empty-social liberalism and "democracy". Which is why conservatives are now treated the way the left was in the 1950s. A political force needing to be suppressed and roped into the behemoth's jaws. If people have an external enemy to be whipped into hating and fearing, the fact that they themselves have little in common and vastly different beliefs can be papered over. Without an external enemy-these internal divisions become ever more magnified and the whole system totters.

Actually, Russia does run its propaganda in the US. It's not the whole troll farm that everyone points to. Rather, they generally just try and run news that enrages the other side and encourages the US political groups to go at each other. The more we focus on ourselves, the less we can focus on Russia. That's not because Russia is plotting some great scheme, but rather because Russia is trying to close its massive open border issue on its western front.

5. I do firmly believe civil war or political violence at least is likely. In the coming decades. As the situation now is ever more untenable.

It's actually very tenable. Despite the damage that the coronavirus has done to our economy, we actually have a staggering amount of money to burn through. And it's not just our economy; everyone with money everywhere else in the world is actually investing it in the America right now. Trump is not a fiscal president. When we come out of this, he might even be able to sell the country on large scale infrastructure bills.

And do remember that our constitution and government was established with these differences in mind. It's only Cold War era rhetoric that has really eroded it in our minds. The day will come when we will snap out of the dream, but we do have a system in place to air our grievances that won't involve artillery shells. Despite our major differences, our political elites know on all sides that they can't risk a war without crippling their own economies.

So we will probably not see a civil war. Protests? Riots? Other forms of civil disobedience? Sure. Absolutely. You might even see a race war in the Deep South. But the entire country probably won't fracture.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Actually, Russia does run its propaganda in the US. It's not the whole troll farm that everyone points to. Rather, they generally just try and run news that enrages the other side and encourages the US political groups to go at each other. The more we focus on ourselves, the less we can focus on Russia. That's not because Russia is plotting some great scheme, but rather because Russia is trying to close its massive open border issue on its western front.

Great way to not address the actual point of the paragraph.

My point is not about Russia. Its that anti Russian animus and propaganda serve a social purpose domestically. I would cite Orwell but cliché.

Russia does troll operations, big fucking deal. My point is that internal political differences in the US are insurmountable.

It's actually very tenable. Despite the damage that the coronavirus has done to our economy, we actually have a staggering amount of money to burn through. And it's not just our economy; everyone with money everywhere else in the world is actually investing it in the America right now. Trump is not a fiscal president. When we come out of this, he might even be able to sell the country on large scale infrastructure bills.

And do remember that our constitution and government was established with these differences in mind. It's only Cold War era rhetoric that has really eroded it in our minds. The day will come when we will snap out of the dream, but we do have a system in place to air our grievances that won't involve artillery shells. Despite our major differences, our political elites know on all sides that they can't risk a war without crippling their own economies.

So we will probably not see a civil war. Protests? Riots? Other forms of civil disobedience? Sure. Absolutely. You might even see a race war in the Deep South. But the entire country probably won't fracture.

My gosh, your optimism is insufferable.

Dude, our political elites have long since discarded the constitution. And despise large sections of the country. Large sections of the country despise each other. Large sections of the country despise our elites.

Their won't be any national awakening or realization of "oh gosh we can devolve power to the states and get along together" and to think otherwise is just fucking naive and has ignored the past twenty years.

 

[JagerIV]

I don't think this is correct. People do lie about who they are. There are white supremicists who lie about being white supremicists. There are also socialists who lie about being socialists. The second one is worse, because the lies happen in both directions. There are people who think that the minimum wage or Sweeden are socialism, and there are people who want actual socialism, but hide behind other titles (think commies in Hollywood).

Eh, I think if you got nothing else to go on, from what they say they are is a good starting place. As he said, start assuming they are what they are, and ask more questions.

Now, I admit I don't always follow that, and will sometimes assume people are unconscious communists and tyrants, but that is potentially a flaw when your just meeting someone.

Edit:

Yeah, the elites willingly devolving powers seems... suspect. I don't see power being devolved without something like a civil war or mass violence of similar scale of things. Your assumptions seems to be that California will let the rest of the nation do its own thing without being dictated to.

I don't see California or the Eastern Elites being that gracious, and the centralization of power in their hands gives them an immense advantage over the vast disjointed hinterland.

It seems similar to saying the rest of Russia won't let the crazy communists in Pettersburg dictate to the whole country in 1910. Sure, the Reds might have been a smaller force compared to the whole of the whites, but the central location and internal coherence of the Reds let them isolate and crush the various white forces one by one, eventually granting them absolute, unquestionable power over the entire vast Russian Empire which was far less coherent and innately governable than the US. And hold onto that absolute power for nearly a hundred years. And then losing control not through some successful local rebellion, but by losing an international War which bled the treasury dry.

I think you overestimate how many people are actually relevant to the governance of 300 million people.

 

[ShieldWife]

One thing I'll have to say about DirtbagLeft - he's tenacious. He came in here and argued with lots of people at the same time, often far surpassing the combined word count as several other people. I wouldn't do that. If only that determination could be used for good instead of evil.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Socialists historically are remarkable in their conviction and dedication. Fighting in the jungle with nothing but rags on your back and an AK-47 in your hand, leading an uprising and engaging in urban warfare,

Leading revolutionary armies while under immense pressure.

I would say socialism/communism is in a lot of ways, a secular religion for its followers. A creed in which they are devoted and many have fought and died for.

And he is obviously devoted. I’ll give him that. I respect conviction wherever it is, even if I disagree with the object of said conviction.

 

[ShieldWife]

Socialists historically are remarkable in their conviction and dedication. Fighting in the jungle with nothing but rags on your back and an AK-47 in your hand, leading an uprising and engaging in urban warfare,

Leading revolutionary armies while under immense pressure.

I would say socialism/communism is in a lot of ways, a secular religion for its followers. A creed in which they are devoted and many have fought and died for.

And he is obviously devoted. I’ll give him that. I respect conviction wherever it is, even if I disagree with the object of said conviction.

Absolutely. It is a religion with a dogma, canon, original sin, demonic enemies, a time of paradise which is foretold, a set of morals.

 

[Zachowon]

If nothing else, claiming Sargon is some sort of white nationalist proves dirtbagleft is out of touch with reality.

Sargon openly, repeatedly, readily states his beliefs on his own channel. It's really easy to find out what he thinks, if you actually listen to him, instead of hard leftists criticizing him.

And no, the 'dog whistle' argument doesn't carry any water with people like Sargon, Steven Crowder, or Milo (back when he was still in the public eye). They tell you what they believe. They tell you what kind of policies they support. They say the same things on Youtube, in public speaking events, in livestreams, etc, etc.

The only way to conclude they're fascists, is if you let other people tell you what they really think, and that you need to ignore what they actually say and do.

Like usual, the hard left basically claim to be telepaths.

This thread has been an interesting case-study of someone who actually buys into all the modern leftist rhetoric, trying to push it in a place that isn't an authoritarian-controlled echo-chamber favoring his ideology.

I'm glad he's here. It keeps this place from becoming an echo-chamber by default.

The youtuber he posts videos of, iirc is a known Commie and claims any center right political youtuber is a Nazi or Facist or any variation of the normal rhetoric. I met Dirthbagleft in a youtube comments section where the guy is being brought up in a video about another person.

One thing I'll have to say about DirtbagLeft - he's tenacious. He came in here and argued with lots of people at the same time, often far surpassing the combined word count as several other people. I wouldn't do that. If only that determination could be used for good instead of evil.

I am glad I brought him here, even if I do feel bad at times for everyone dogpiling hom

 

[ShieldWife]

I am glad I brought him here, even if I do feel bad at times for everyone dogpiling hom

I feel a bit bad for participating in the dog piling too, though he is to blame in part.

 

[Navarro]

Absolutely. It is a religion with a dogma, canon, original sin, demonic enemies, a time of paradise which is foretold, a set of morals.

Most religions though, present paradise as occurring after death, or being brought into being by divine action. Socialism is a religion which tells its devotees that they can build paradise here and now, which is what really leads to the worst of their behaviour when coupled with their utilitarian moral system.

 

[ShieldWife]

Most religions though, present paradise as occurring after death, or being brought into being by divine action. Socialism is a religion which tells its devotees that they can build paradise here and now, which is what really leads to the worst of their behaviour when coupled with their utilitarian moral system.

Yeah, believing that an earthly utopia is possible can certain lead to atrocities. If you think that creating utopia is just a few more murders away, the it’s worth it right?

That is one advantage of Christianity - that its inherently less utopian, believing in the inherent sinfulness of humanity.

 

[Scottty]

Reviewing this topic - let's take a step back and ask why this thread happened at all. The answer has to do with how some people on the Left seem to think, and how they confuse things that we know are different.

First off, we all know that Hitler's National Socialism was not the same thing as the International Socialism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In fact, that the Nazis developed and espoused their form of Socialism in reaction against, and in rivalry with, the Soviet version (which Hitler saw as being controlled by Jews) just as much as they defined themselves against the Free-Market economic system of the Western democracies, which Hitler saw as being - you guessed it - controlled by Jews.

Second, we know that from the viewpoint of the Western democracies, in particular the Anglosphere, those two totalitarian regimes looked pretty much alike. They had far more in common with each other than either had with the West. So much so that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union even made a temporary alliance.

So what's the big deal about whether or not Saruman's custom-bred Uruk-hai were "really" Orcs, or if only Sauron's should be called that - sorry, I mean about whether National Socialism counts as "Socialism" or whether only the Soviet one should be called that?

The thing to understand about Communists, and other similar totalist ideologues, is that they see the world in very binary terms. Everything is either A or B. Anything that's not A must be B. The idea that there could be C, or even D and E, is alien to their thinking.
Secondly, a defect of their minds is that they cannot distinguish between two things that they have put the same label on. If they call you an A, to them you automatically share all attributes not only of A-ness in abstract, but of every other actual instance of A.
So if they admit that the Nazis were Socialists, that in their minds would stain all other forms of Socialism with the misdeeds of the Nazis.
Kind of like the old "you're a vegetarian? But you know who else was a vegetarian? Hitler!"
Since the Nazis were opposed to the Soviets, even went to war against them, anyone who opposes Communism is in their minds equal to Hitler.
Pointing out to them that "No, Hitler was actually one of yours, a Socialist dictator." makes them furious. Because the weapon they were trying to bludgeon their opponents with - the Holocaust - has been snatched out of their hand and turned back against themselves.

The irony is that we do not need to use the Holocaust as a rhetorical weapon against them - not when there was the Holodomor, in which even more people died (8 million IIRC).
Add in all the other genocides, democides, mass deaths from starvation, etc that happened in Communist lands, and one gets a total that makes the atrocities of the Nazis look small by comparison.

And they know this. Hence their desperate attempt to blame it all on anyone other than their own side.
"Oh but that never really happened that's just Western propaganda and anyway that wasn't real Communism that was Stalin and anyway those people had it coming to them for resisting the Revolution and anyway it was the West's fault because reasons and anyway What About that other bad thing that happened somewhere else?"

 

[Deleted member 88]

Reviewing this topic - let's take a step back and ask why this thread happened at all. The answer has to do with how some people on the Left seem to think, and how they confuse things that we know are different.

First off, we all know that Hitler's National Socialism was not the same thing as the International Socialism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In fact, that the Nazis developed and espoused their form of Socialism in reaction against, and in rivalry with, the Soviet version (which Hitler saw as being controlled by Jews) just as much as they defined themselves against the Free-Market economic system of the Western democracies, which Hitler saw as being - you guessed it - controlled by Jews.

Second, we know that from the viewpoint of the Western democracies, in particular the Anglosphere, those two totalitarian regimes looked pretty much alike. They had far more in common with each other than either had with the West. So much so that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union even made a temporary alliance.

So what's the big deal about whether or not Saruman's custom-bred Uruk-hai were "really" Orcs, or if only Sauron's should be called that - sorry, I mean about whether National Socialism counts as "Socialism" or whether only the Soviet one should be called that?

The thing to understand about Communists, and other similar totalist ideologues, is that they see the world in very binary terms. Everything is either A or B. Anything that's not A must be B. The idea that there could be C, or even D and E, is alien to their thinking.
Secondly, a defect of their minds is that they cannot distinguish between two things that they have put the same label on. If they call you an A, to them you automatically share all attributes not only of A-ness in abstract, but of every other actual instance of A.
So if they admit that the Nazis were Socialists, that in their minds would stain all other forms of Socialism with the misdeeds of the Nazis.
Kind of like the old "you're a vegetarian? But you know who else was a vegetarian? Hitler!"
Since the Nazis were opposed to the Soviets, even went to war against them, anyone who opposes Communism is in their minds equal to Hitler.
Pointing out to them that "No, Hitler was actually one of yours, a Socialist dictator." makes them furious. Because the weapon they were trying to bludgeon their opponents with - the Holocaust - has been snatched out of their hand and turned back against themselves.

The irony is that we do not need to use the Holocaust as a rhetorical weapon against them - not when there was the Holodomor, in which even more people died (8 million IIRC).
Add in all the other genocides, democides, mass deaths from starvation, etc that happened in Communist lands, and one gets a total that makes the atrocities of the Nazis look small by comparison.

And they know this. Hence their desperate attempt to blame it all on anyone other than their own side.
"Oh but that never really happened that's just Western propaganda and anyway that wasn't real Communism that was Stalin and anyway those people had it coming to them for resisting the Revolution and anyway it was the West's fault because reasons and anyway What About that other bad thing that happened somewhere else?"

Eh you have some points but you aren’t taking into account some things.

First off, all the communist regimes of the 20th century(well most of them anyway-Pot and some of the African socialists just kinda did their own thing) were inspired by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The founders of “scientific” socialism.

Nazism, Italian fascism, and the other “right wing” movements of the early 20th century were nationalistic. Not internationalist-now of course you have socialism in one country and ice picks and all, but the idea of world revolution is foundational to the communist enterprise, the idea of the new man, the new world is foundational to the Marxist enterprise.

Fascism is not interested in the global overthrow of the ruling class. At the national level, fascists co opted, subordinated or attempted to displace the ruling elites, often more then one. Or they sought to work with them. Often with under currents of tension and simmering mutual contempt but even so.

As for capitalism-fascistic movements saw western capitalism as decadent, soul destroying, and you guessed it internationalist. Business and industry along side profit making would still exist, and were not condemned, they were instead subordinated to the state, and the nation.

Marxian socialism is by contrast decidedly not nationalistic, and in fact rejects the “fatherland”, as “workers have no home”. Communists did support anti imperial nationalist movements, Trotsky had a formula for it in fact, “Fascist or Reactionary Brazil vs Imperialist Democratic UK-support the former due to it being an anti imperialist war”. All the same though, they believed that weakening imperialism was just a method, not a goal. Eventually nations would fade away, as after all workers everywhere share the same experience, and the same interests, the same world-historical task.

The contrast between that and Nazism which focuses on the nation and the unity or at least collaboration of classes for the former is pretty darn stark.

 

[JagerIV]

Yeah, I would say the Nazis were socialist, but were also at least centrist if not right wing. With being a radical centrist being I think a fair description of them, and has the added benefit of going with how they themselves identified themselves.

In the European sense, they where left wing in the sense of generally not being hard core monarchists and pro church: they were "republicans" in the broadest sense in their conception of the state, in opposition to "aristocratic" or "theocratic" conceptions of the state. They were right wing however in their nationalism as apposed to the leftism which had become explicitly international at that point.

Of course, left vs right is also a bit more nebulous distinction, or more properly has several different, potentially radically different definitions.

Socialism of course also gets confused definitions: the most basic tenant everyone can agree with, public ownership, is so broad that something like the National highway system is socialist. And by that definition Nazi Germany was also socialist. Most people thus seem to agree that a desire for public ownership is necessary, but not sufficient, to describe a socialist project/movement, than "government doing things".

 

[Navarro]

Eh you have some points but you aren’t taking into account some things.

First off, all the communist regimes of the 20th century(well most of them anyway-Pot and some of the African socialists just kinda did their own thing) were inspired by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The founders of “scientific” socialism.

Nazism, Italian fascism, and the other “right wing” movements of the early 20th century were nationalistic. Not internationalist-now of course you have socialism in one country and ice picks and all, but the idea of world revolution is foundational to the communist enterprise, the idea of the new man, the new world is foundational to the Marxist enterprise.

Then why did the various fascist movements spring out of socialism? Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley et al. - scratch a fascist leader and you'll find a discontented socialist. The answer is simple. WW1 revealed that the "international working class" did not exist to launch the World Revolution, and as a result socialists, mulling over their failure hit on plan B - use nationalism to the advantage of socialism, by inventing the idea that Italy, Germany and so on were "proletarian nations" being oppressed and exploited by the victors of WW1. Now of course this is oversimplifying it and there was no conscious movement in this direction, but it still happened.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The thing about categorizing Fascism that needs understood is that the Nazis were only moderately overlapping, as they weren't actually particularly traditionalist, unlike the Italian or Spanish Fascists, nor were they nearly as rhetorically flexible. The original version did come out of a disgruntled Socialist bothered by the lack of revolution, though, and was devised as more a general thesis on totalitarian nationalism than a concrete political philosophy.

That original Fascism explicitly rejected principal in favor of the pure pursuit of power, for instance. Yet the Nazis sacrificed a great deal of intellectual labor and monetary capital for racial purity, enabling the United States to develop nuclear weapons in time to deploy against Japan and starving the Third Reich of the saving grace of the unadulterated bullshit they could never quite get finished in time to turn the war.