Socialism without lobbyists almost necessarily means economic/regulatory decisions made without actual experts in relevant fields.

That's a recipe for disaster. It's a big part of what happened with Mao, Chavez, and a number of other socialist experiments.

So no. Just no.

What has worked for the short history of modern democracy is a combination of lobbyists, neutral bureaucratic institutions that have the trust of both the governments and people, democratic elections to double/triple check or make fundamental changes to society as necessary, and yes the free market to maximize economic output and distribute goods/services.

This is scary.

Lobbyist aren’t necessarily experts imo .
And imo , politics and government isn’t the same thing .

Lot politicians are bought by lobbyist and so the tax payers get screwed on multiple levels ....

its not just conservative media and think tanks funding this crap as indicated in the article. the CIA and the US govt is integral in putting it out there. esspoker is an example of your tax dollars at work.

Threads Not bad. Would probably read again. Needs a bit more trickle down fantasy about how Reagan saves the world through robbing the poor to give the rich their fourth homes...

OP is simply saying that a primary similarity between Socialism and Nazism is the diminished power of the individual. That's not controversial, and is actually lifted from the definition of fascism that jwax' linked-article provided.

That's basically his premise. Then he dares to suggest that Hitler was influenced by more than 1 set of ideas. Audacious.

So, the next natural consideration is a system that places greater value on the individual. Compare and contrast.

He even volunteered that Marx' critique of capitalism cuts deep, but that no preferable, proven alternative to capitalism exists with the nimbleness necessary to translate from Scandinavia to America.

OP is a breath of fresh air, and it's too bad people can't get past their own hang-ups and appreciate a different point of view.

Sure, he unabashedly favors conservative politics domestically, but if you think a global player can maintain its national interest and the interests of its allies (as the US has basically been tasked to do) without an influence that is sometimes dictatorial, I do not see it.

I concur, posters who seek to downplay Nazis and Hitler by re-classifying them with more socially acceptable political labels are always a "breath of fresh air". Jeez, why won't anyone give the guy a break?!

Again, to belabour the obvious, all you are doing is describing totalitarian ideologies. We use the terms "communism", "fascism", and "Nazism" to distinguish between totalitarian ideologies beyond the superficial similarities you have noted. They all have elements of "socialism", as does capitalism.

The thread title is literally "Hitler was a socialist".

The divide between Hitler's Nazi party (and fascists in general) and socialists at the time also was largely rooted in views of the nation. The former viewing the nation as the foundation for the state and the latter viewing it as an outdated and corrupt power structure.

Was there inspiration? Sure. Nazism arose in part out of the "Völkische Bevegung" ("People's Movement") which was basically tying socialist ideas to German romanticism and a hefty dose of occultism (best exemplified by the infamous "Thule Society"). Still, in the 1930s the NS was building concentration camps to deal with socialists, so it's safe to say there was a gulf between the movements.

If the larger points is to point out the similarities between a strongly centralized power structure and cult of personality that took place in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and their respective non-democratic states then great. Still, you could point to monarchy as having the same thing, and saying "Nazi Germany was a monarchy" isn't very useful. Because, well, it wasn't.

A more cynical man than I might start to suspect that this right wing talking point of "Hitler was a socialist"/"Hitler was left wing" is not being proffered in entirely good faith.

Standard Oil is now called ExxonMobil

It's a common talking point. And people like to see patterns and similarities in things. It's not in itself unhealthy to point out the similarities in a medieval king and a modern day dictator. It could even be interesting and useful.

But that it is also being exploited to push a specific agenda is without question. There are many alt-right populist leaders who seek to white-wash nationalism. So there is a clear goal to nurture the idea that it was "socialism" that made Hitler and the Nazis evil, not "nationalism". As a bonus point they can even get to point to people on the left and say "See? Literal Nazis".

As a case in point I in a post above made a point about the "Völkische Bevegung" and its strong ties to Nazism (giving birth to the Nazi Party effectively). Not long ago party leaders in Germany's far-right party "Alternative für Deutschland" wanted to make the term "Völkische" acceptable in politics again. Basically claiming that it points to healthy nationalism, not heinous Nazi ideology.

And make no mistake, extremist ideologies start with the language.

But it starves investment. Who the hells wants to take a punt on a venture if you end up having to share the wealth you create and have taken the risk in investing.

Probably the most obvious similary between Hitler's socialism and Marx's socialism is the undlerlying philosophy, which is structurally the same.

The core of marxism is its philosophical underpinning that individuals can't have their own thoughts outside of their class. Class identity trumps individual identity. Hitler essentially aryanized this, made it about race, not class. That's clear for anyone who actually READ the quotes in the OP.

Capitalism is founded philsophically on the individual's self interest, wheres marxism, and fascism (Giovanni Gentile the neo-marxist philosopher is the founder of fascism) is centered on class identity.

Well worth a read:
https://mises.org/library/what-nazis-borrowed-marx




For Marx, it was the capitalist. For Hitler, it was the Jew. They both considered Jews capitalists to their core.

Class is the underpinning's of Marx analysis of existing society, Marxist socialism therefore seeks to achieve the classless society. Thus your argument is completely upside down.

Hitler's Nazi party on the other hand even had in its party program that it wanted the creation of a strong and wealthy middle-class. The very thing that the Marxists despised above everything else.

I think its fairer to say that Marx's underling structure is historical materialism, i.e. that your access to wealth and materials is what defines you.

Nazism's underlying structure is Nietzschean philosophy, primarily the superiority of the Aryan race.

Both end up rejecting pure Capitalism, and both define enemies, but, structurally they come from very different places.

Marx was a jew.

That's just factually incorrect. Tax revenue grew in the Reagan years despite the tax cuts. He did increase the federal debt mostly for military spending, not because tax revenue fell.

And he hated Jews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...20in%20Prussia.




Marx was also funded by Engels' father, a capitalist. There's plenty of hypocrisy with Marx.

The commentary on Marx's On The Jewish Question is interesting. Have you read the piece?

It's really good, and makes a really good distinction between religion & identity.

Source on that?

Marx was a dialectical materialist. Nietzsche was a radical individualist. Some thinkers have tried to conflate the two, like Foucault, but they're dead wrong. Marx has no room for the individual.

I appreciate the informative post that this excerpt is culled from.

I'm not informed or educated enough in the relevant matters to comment on the rest of your post, but I would like to comment on this part. It is 100% true, and so few people realise it.

In this thread, for example, it might appear that we are debating semantics; but really, what is most of political debate really about? Hero says: Trump is x, villain says "Biden is y". "x" and "y" in this scenario are usually some combination of "socialist", "fascist", "liberal", "progressive", "conservative", "neoliberal", "communist", etc. etc. It seems that without any coherent definitions of these terms, meaningful discourse is a lost cause.

Maybe you could make one of your glossary threads like in RGT? I imagine it will be quite contentious, but it might be helpful to at least get the conversation started.

Edit: well, since I started writing this, I guess we can add "dialectical materialist" and "radical individualist" to the list.

No, he did not. He wrote critically of Jewish culture, of which he was very much part.

Dont pretend you understand a single sentence of Foucault. Also this does not include watching Jordan Peterson horrible misreadings of Foucault on lol tube.