Woman shot trying to remove Nazi flag from mans yard in Enid

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,581
4,683
1,743
Somewhere
#22
not so much a rally, but the BDS movement supported by many on the left (including members of "The Squad") seems pretty anti-Semitic to me.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/bds-the-global-campaign-to-delegitimize-israel
That is not the same thing at all. State of Israel =/= the Jewish people. A lot of people have a difficult time understanding that. Even if you agree with the state of Israel's actions (I do not), hopefully you can see why there is controversy surrounding them. Jimmy Carter's book, Peace Not Apartheid is an excellent read on what is going on there.
 

John C

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
1,079
1,083
743
65
#24
"...but Fascism has always been an extreme right wing ideology.
Not even close. This is from the Library of Economics, authored by Sheldon Richman.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

‘The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)‘

Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

‘The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)‘

Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives

Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,720
7,579
1,743
Spring, TX
#26
That is not the same thing at all. State of Israel =/= the Jewish people. A lot of people have a difficult time understanding that. Even if you agree with the state of Israel's actions (I do not), hopefully you can see why there is controversy surrounding them. Jimmy Carter's book, Peace Not Apartheid is an excellent read on what is going on there.
I can see the difference, but the tactics often lead to anti-Semitism.
Is BDS Anti-Semitic?

Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination – along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns are anti-Semitic. Many individuals involved in BDS campaigns are driven by opposition to Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state. Often time, BDS campaigns give rise to tensions in communities – particularly on college campuses – that can result in harassment or intimidation of Jews and Israel supporters, including overt anti-Semitic expression and acts. This dynamic can create an environment in which anti-Semitism can be express more freely.

And, all too often, BDS advocates employ anti-Semitic rhetoric and narratives to isolate and demonize Israel.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,965
6,008
1,743
Gondor
#27
That is not the same thing at all. State of Israel =/= the Jewish people. A lot of people have a difficult time understanding that. Even if you agree with the state of Israel's actions (I do not), hopefully you can see why there is controversy surrounding them. Jimmy Carter's book, Peace Not Apartheid is an excellent read on what is going on there.
Ha! Do I need to post a comprehensive list of anti-Semitic tropes put out there by BDSholes, including Tlaib, Omar, that lunatic Roger Waters, and Justin Amash?
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,581
4,683
1,743
Somewhere
#28
Not even close. This is from the Library of Economics, authored by Sheldon Richman.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

‘The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)‘

Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

‘The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)‘

Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives

Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
I didn't write this, but it addresses your challenge very well:

The NSDAP were not socialists and it makes no sense to label them as such. Moreover, while the NSDAP had a "left" wing, Hitler was not among it. He showed little interest in the social question in his rise to power and put very little effort towards it once in power. Hitler was much more consistent in his interest in rearmament and Aryanization of German society. Much of the NSDAP's left-wing faction was sidelined or expelled in the 1926 Bamberg Conference and most of the remaining were either executed in 1934 or forced to tow the party line.
One of the reasons why it makes little sense to label the NSDAP as socialist is that it makes little sense within the context of early twentieth-century German politics. There was a clear socialist party in Germany in the interwar period (the SPD and arguably the KPD) and a whole intellectual and political tradition associated with what socialism meant. Moreover, there were a number of answers to the social question throughout the German political spectrum. The SPD's approach tended to emphasize that it would serve as a midwife to the terminal stages of capitalism and enable a classless society. The NSDAP tended to draw from conservative responses to the advent of capitalism. These ideas often prioritized racial or cultural solidarity would trump petty socioeconomic concerns if the right state structure appeared. The Christian Socials of nineteenth-century Vienna were one aspect of of this right-wing solution to class conflict and inequities. The German university system, which was a stronghold for German conservatism, produced a number of intellectuals arguing for close cooperation between the state and the economy. Many of the NSDAP's left-wing such as Hess or Goebbels developed their approach to economics in the German university, not from the SPD or other left-wing German parties. There was a longstanding intellectual tradition in the German university and in some German professions to see unrestrained capitalism as a foreign import that was fundamentally unGerman. In a similar vein, Hitler and his lieutenants' attacks on consumerism, department stores, and rampant profits had much more to do with cultural conservatives' critiques of so-called American styles of business penetrating Germany in the 1920s. There were very few partisans of free markets and open trade among the interwar German right; most tended to be clustered around the smaller bourgeois parties of the center-right. Most German industrialists and the DNVP favored protectionism and cartels, even if the DNVP also claimed to be the party of the small businessman.
One of the things that is very typical among Reddit discussions of Nazism being left-wing is to uncritically examine the NSDAP's party platform and zero in on its commitment to social legislation. The problem with this type of analysis is that the German welfare state predated Hitler by decades. Much of Germany's social safety net such as national health insurance, pensions, and other social insurance schemes originated with Otto von Bismarck. The Prussian Chancellor implemented these reforms- among the first of their kind- partly as a means to take the wind out of the sails of the socialists, but also because of longstanding Junkers' traditions of noblesse oblige. The Bismarckian welfare state proved to be quite long-lasting and all the major parties had to contend with them. Hitler's pushing of these programs was not an invention of his, but an adaptation to existing institutions. The few programs that the Nazis initiated such as the Volksprodukte- consumer goods produced by state subsidies- fell flat as ideologues like Robert Ley underestimated the complexities of setting up production and distribution lines. The replacement of all German unions by a single NSDAP one- the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF)- was much more about political power than fundamentally restructuring German labor relations. Some of Hitler's rhetoric was tactical in nature (ie "vote for us and you will get true socialism"), but there was also an element of trying to restructure socioeconomic relations along racial lines.
That was one of the key facets that distinguished the NSDAP from its contemporary rivals on the German left. German socialist tradition had an internationalist bent and officially eschewed racism. Discourse within the Third Reich almost always used national/nationalist in conjunction with socialist (eg National Socialist Welfare, National Socialist Automobile Club, etc.) or referred to it as "German socialism." This was not some arbitrary naming scheme as National Socialist ideologues constantly asserted that the Reich's solution to the social question was an unprecedented event in German history. And for all this rhetoric, the Third Reich did not really put that much effort in transforming the existing social welfare system. There were some false starts to centralize social insurance payments and rationalize the system, but this was too complex of a problem for the Nazi state to tackle. Outside of Aryanizing the system and pushing a racialized natalism, German social insurance under Hitler was not that much different from that of the 1920s or 1910s.
For reading material, Avraham Barkai's Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy is one of the major books on the origins and development of the NSDAP's approach to the economy. Barkai asserts that the hazy economic program grew out of "Nationalist Etatism" from the antiliberal right of the Kaiserreich. Jonathan Wiesen's Creating the Nazi Marketplace is one of the better recent introductions to the issue of consumption in the Third Reich. Jeffrey Herf's Reactionary Modernism details the complex evolution of a particular set of ideas that embraced technocratic solutions and reactionary politics. Although it is something of an older text with turgid prose, Fritz Stern's The Politics Of Cultural Despair; A Study In The Rise Of The Germanic Ideology does convey something of the intellectual milieu of right-wing German thought over the nineteenth century. Steven Remy's The Heidelberg Myth covers the ease of the Nazification of a German university and how many of its mandarins made the transition to the democratic FRG quite well.
For Bismarck's welfare programs, the relevant portions of both Lothar Gall's and Otto Pflanze's biographies of the Iron Chancellor are useful introductions. The Origins of the Authoritarian Welfare State in Prussia: Conservatives, Bureaucracy, and the Social Question, 1815–70 by Hermann Beck examines the wider climate of fear and reformism that pushed archconservatives like Bismarck to embrace a social safety net. Michael Stolleis's Origins of the German Welfare State: Social Policy in Germany to 1945 is a long-form survey of the evolution of the social question in Germany, including how the Nazis both continued and departed from older policies.
On a side note: one of the common traps when examining the NSDAP or any other European political movement from the early twentieth century is to transpose twenty-first century American politics and norms into an different context. Policies such as state-daycare may look like left-wing socialism from the vantage point of the 2017 US political scene, but had very different meanings in 1937 Germany.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6wf3po/is_nazism_right_wing_or_left_wing/
 
Last edited:

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,581
4,683
1,743
Somewhere
#29
Ha! Do I need to post a comprehensive list of anti-Semitic tropes put out there by BDSholes, including Tlaib, Omar, that lunatic Roger Waters, and Justin Amash?
The only person in that list I have a positive view of is Justin Amash. Please put forward what you find offensive and I will debunk each one. You have proven the lack of ability to understand the difference between opposing the state of Israel's actions and antisemetism in the past, and I doubt you have grown beyond that myopic tendency since then.
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,570
4,663
1,743
33
Keller, Texas
#30
Anyone else find how comical that all these alt-right posters are showing up and saying that antisemitism is more of a lefty issue when right wingers were chanting "the jews will not replace us"? Please name a single left wing rally where this happened.

Much like their man Trump, they must think there are "good people on both sides". :derp:
Not a rally, Just the Squad members who are, and they are the new democratic party.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/7009...an-ignites-debate-on-israel-and-anti-semitism
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,965
6,008
1,743
Gondor
#31
The only person in that list I have a positive view of is Justin Amash. Please put forward what you find offensive and I will debunk each one. You have proven the lack of ability to understand the difference between opposing the state of Israel's actions and antisemetism in the past, and I doubt you have grown beyond that myopic tendency since then.
Says it all when you claim you will debunk everything I post before I've even posted it.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,581
4,683
1,743
Somewhere
#32
I can see the difference, but the tactics often lead to anti-Semitism.
It could, but this argument is also very similar to wanting to ban guns, because a few people misuse them. I think AIPAC and the pro-zionist lobby has been very effective in shifting the conversation to where any critisim directed toward the state of Israel is considered anti-semetic, which is not the case.

One can be critical of US policies, it does not mean that a person is anti-american. I think we all can find a beef with some.
 
Last edited:

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
8,010
5,791
1,743
Edmond
#33
There. Is. No. Comparison.

But if you wanted to, the Nazis and fascism both combine socialism (current American Left) with nationalism (current American Right) and authoritarianism (everyone if we aren't careful).
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,581
4,683
1,743
Somewhere
#34
Says it all when you claim you will debunk everything I post before I've even posted it.
I am very familiar with Justin Amash's stance on this issue and know exactly which quotes you are going to try to run with.

I think it says more about your confidence in your argument, personally.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,720
7,579
1,743
Spring, TX
#35
It could, but this argument is also very similar to wanting to ban guns, because a few people misuse them. I think AIPAC and the pro-zionist lobby has been very effective in shifting the conversation to where any critisim directed toward the nation of Israel is considered anti-semetic, which is not the case.

One can be critical of US policies, it does not mean that a person is anti-american. I think we all can find a beef with some.
Nice shift there. Not even talking about guns, so I'm not going to argue that.

In the context of nazi/antisemitism, you asked for left wing anti-Semites. BDS contains A LOT of them. Publicly. "Squad" members have publicly made statements interpreted to be anti-Semitic. Reps in Congress. BDS wants policy changes, that sound great, but would effectively end Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Sounds pretty anti-Semitic from the get-go to me.
 

John C

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
1,079
1,083
743
65
#36
Mises, in fact, answered this question in 1951 in his essay “Planned Chaos.” (Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most famous economists of the 20th century)

During the nineteenth century, when socialism was becoming fashionable in Europe, there was no distinction between “socialism” and “communism.” There were different forms of socialism, of course, but these were not distinguished by the different terms. Different thinkers had their preference, but the terms were used interchangeably, even by Karl Marx. Mises writes, ”In 1875, in his Criticism of the Gotha Programme of the German Social Democratic Party, Marx distinguished between a lower (earlier) and a higher (later) phase of the future communist society. But he did not reserve the name of communism to the higher phase, and did not call the lower phase socialism as differentiated from communism.”

According to Marx’s theory of history, socialism was an inevitability. According to his deterministic outlook, every country was destined to progress from a feudalist society, to a capitalist, and finally to a socialist society. To Marx, this progression was inevitable.

In Germany, the first purveyors of “State socialism” emerged shortly prior to Marx. Johann Karl Rodbertus, like Marx, rejected many of the existing socialist theories as untenable. Rodbertus was the first socialist thinker to advocate the control of both production and distribution, and to achieve this, the socialist must use the State. The greatest expositor of his ideas was Ferdinand Lassalle, whose proselytizing led to the rapid growth in popularity of what Mises would call “socialism of the German pattern.”

German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.” However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State. By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”

But the Soviets themselves also played a part in the crafting of the myth of the Nazi capitalist. The Nazis were not trying to hide their socialism (after all, snarky tweets aside, socialism was in the name); they were just implementing socialism according to a different strategy than that of the Marxist socialists.

The Soviets were able to brand the Nazis as capitalists only because they had already started redefining the terms “socialism” and “communism” to fit their own political agenda. In 1912, Lenin formed his Communist Party. The members of his party, the Bolsheviks, were now distinct from the other, rival groups of socialists. The terms “communism” and “socialism” were still able to be used interchangeably, and the Soviet Union itself was just a shorthand name for the “United Soviet Socialist Republics.” But by branding his group under the title of the “Communist Party,” the title “Communist” — now meaning a member of Lenin’s party — became a way of saying that this was a “true socialist,” so to speak.

“It was only in 1928,” Mises explains, “that the programme of the Communist International ... began to differentiate between communism and socialism (and not merely between communist and socialist).” This new doctrine held that, in the Marxian framework, there was another stage of development between capitalism and communism. That stage, of course, was socialism, and it was the stage that the Soviet Union was in.

In his original theory, Marx made a distinction between early- and late-stage communism, where true equality would be reached only in the final stage of communism, after the State had successfully followed all of his prescriptions and humans had evolved beyond their “class consciousness.” In the new doctrine, “socialism” simply referred to Marx’s early-stage communism, while true communism — Marx’s late-stage communism — would not be achieved until the whole world was communist. Thus, the Soviet Union was merely socialist, and the party members were Communists because they were the enlightened few who were working toward the ultimate goal of communism.

But the Nazis still claimed to be socialist and, in fact, were acting quite a bit like socialists with their heavy-handed economic interventions. However, there was still economic inequality among the citizens of Nazi Germany (just as there was in the Soviet Union, but that didn’t matter to the narrative). Furthermore, as Mises pointed out in his analysis of socialism of the German pattern, the Nazis retained some of the legal language of a capitalist society. Specifically, there was still the superficial existence of nominal property ownership.

When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin and his lackeys used the new communist narrative to redefine Nazi Socialism — which was never Marxism but was based on the theories of the original German socialists who directly influenced Marx’s later ideas — as “capitalists.” According to this new narrative, the Nazis were in the final and worst stage of capitalism.

At a time when many members of the European intelligentsia were still enamored with the Soviet Union, this narrative of the Nazis as capitalists was a welcome lie. But this idea is one that comes not from any grounding in economic principles, but rather the Soviet interpretation of the Marxian framework. The Nazis, who touted their socialism proudly and implemented socialist policies with great consistency, were now being referred to as capitalists for no reason other than they did not fit cleanly into the Soviet-Marxist worldview, and this false narrative survives today.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,630
6,708
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#37
So why did they call themselves the "Unite the Right" rally? Why does the klan support Trump so fervently? Why does Trump have members of his cabinet who have been outed as white nationalists?

You are in some serious denial right now. There is the political horseshoe theory, which holds some water, but Fascism has always been an extreme right wing ideology.
Yeah on a European political scale where you run the gamut between totalitarian communism on the far left and totalitarian dictatorships being the far right or traditional government (Think Monarchy). Everything else falls in the middle.

In the U.S. the right is the traditional government philosophy of the U.S. A constitutional small government capitalist philosophy. The left is a socialist philosophy.

Yeah the Klan votes R.
https://www.westernjournal.com/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-backs-democrat-2020-election/
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
8,010
5,791
1,743
Edmond
#38
Yeah on a European political scale where you run the gamut between totalitarian communism on the far left and totalitarian dictatorships being the far right or traditional government (Think Monarchy). Everything else falls in the middle.

In the U.S. the right is the traditional government philosophy of the U.S. A constitutional small government capitalist philosophy. The left is a socialist philosophy.

Yeah the Klan votes R.
https://www.westernjournal.com/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-backs-democrat-2020-election/
Face, meet palm.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
7,581
4,683
1,743
Somewhere
#39
Yeah on a European political scale where you run the gamut between totalitarian communism on the far left and totalitarian dictatorships being the far right or traditional government (Think Monarchy). Everything else falls in the middle.

In the U.S. the right is the traditional government philosophy of the U.S. A constitutional small government capitalist philosophy. The left is a socialist philosophy.

Yeah the Klan votes R.
https://www.westernjournal.com/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-backs-democrat-2020-election/
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,630
6,708
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#40
So why did they call themselves the "Unite the Right" rally? Why does the klan support Trump so fervently? Why does Trump have members of his cabinet who have been outed as white nationalists?

You are in some serious denial right now. There is the political horseshoe theory, which holds some water, but Fascism has always been an extreme right wing ideology.
Here read their philosophy. Then get back to me on what they have in common with a conservative.

https://www.americannaziparty.com/what-we-stand-for/