Anonymous #2 2d

you’d think after nearly a century you Nazi shitheads would learn to make new propaganda?

13

Anonymous #4 2d

collectivism isn’t necessarily socialist so no

29

Anonymous #5 2d

nice strawman

-10

Anonymous #4 2d

socialism for just one group of people in one country (the ubermensch) goes against Marxism and other common conceptions of socialism There’s a reason one of the most popular socialist slogans is, “Workers of the world unite!” It’s an internationalist ideology, at least in its original conception

23

Anonymous #5 2d

i didn’t claim hitler was a marxist, nice strawman x2

-7

Anonymous #4 2d

Define socialism

17

Anonymous #5 2d

any political ideology that centers workers and seeks to reduce class-based inequality, broadly speaking. obviously nobody thinks hitler was a marxist or was advocating worldwide proletariat revolution or something lmfao. but his contempt for the german bourgeoisie and anti-capitalist tendencies were very real.

-7

Anonymous #4 2d

I genuinely think this take is complicated by the fact that his politics prioritized racial and ethnic ideology, along with a nationalist zeal, over that of a working class ideology. Labor unions and such were outlawed save for government/party-backed ones that lacked any sort of independent function. Industrialists were eventually favored, a significant number of industry remained private.

21

Anonymous #4 2d

The Soviet Union, as a counter, was far from perfect in regard to ethnic relations, yet it simply didn’t put ethnic supremacist ideology at the forefront, Russian supremacy was implicit, acts against minorities were seen in a practical and strategic manner (plus Stalin’s possible paranoia) (none of this justifies such) rather than fulfilling ideals like “purity” like in the case of Germany

21

Anonymous #4 2d

his anti-capitalist tendencies of privatizing the economy further and allowing industry titans to remain in place if they followed his agenda

19

Anonymous #6 2d

this is all true, a lot of hitler’s idealism was compromised for pragmatic reasons; independent labor unions were banned because they were the cornerstone of marxist organizing, mussolini’s failure to ban italian labor unions was a major factor in his removal from office in 1943, and hitler had to cooperate with industrialists for re-armament, although he did constantly threaten them with nationalization as well as create a massive state owned industrial conglomerate with the goring reich works

3

Anonymous #5 2d

the “privatization” is overstated and poorly understood, he essentially just placed certain enterprises under the control of party members for what was meant to be a brief period. it was pragmatic and temporary, hitler planned to nationalize all industry in german colonies in the east if they won the war

0

Anonymous #4 2d

Pretty much, with the Nazis, a select group of workers (Germans/Aryans) were prioritized in ideology, explicitly and consistently, above all others, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, and so on under German occupation faced great persecution and restricted labor rights, often to the point of slavery as in Mein Kampf, Hitler saw them as subhuman. The “elite class” was identified as Jews, no same scrutiny was given to bourgeoise Germans who were non-Jewish

10

Anonymous #6 2d

all of this is true except the notion that hitler only criticized jewish capitalists and only opposed the german bourgeoisie on ethnic grounds.

1

Anonymous #4 2d

Never said he never criticized non Jewish bourgeoisie, simply that they were not given the same level of scrutiny. Plus, Hitler’s ideology emphasized a changeless and innate order of nature that justified traditional hierarchical views which influence economic and social standings. I just simply don’t see how he and the Nazis were socialist. As someone who identifies with no ideology, Ive often seen this narrative be pushed as a sort of propaganda tactic amongst those who are against the left

6

Anonymous #6 2d

1) well sure, nobody was subject to the same level of scrutiny as jews lol. i guess i misunderstood your initial implication. 2) i’m also not arguing on any ideological basis, i’m just interested in history

1

Anonymous #4 2d

Plus, being against capitalism does not equate to being socialist. Often differing ideological groups have different ideas of what “Capitalism” is. Who’s to say the Nazis followed the Marxist definition? Its worthwhile to call out the excesses of collectivism, I’d say hypercollectivism, much of which is found in the likes of Nazism, yet equating that with the phrase “socialism” seems rather disingenuous

8

Anonymous #6 2d

they didn’t follow marxist ideology and nobody is claiming that. i addressed that earlier in the thread.

1

Anonymous #4 2d

Yet is it not the case with the idea of one being against capitalism, we often envision one being against private property? Often this is the more Marxist sort, and overall traditional socialist sort. Indeed Hitler sought for private entities to be in alignment with the nation’s “best interest” yet this is still not a matter of public ownership in any fashion. He distinguished “productive capital”, which still was a matter of private ownership, from “speculative capital”

6

Anonymous #4 2d

“Speculative capital” being- as the kids say nowadays- “goyslop”, needing to be eliminated.

6

Anonymous #6 2d

i don’t think “capitalism=private property” is a worthwhile axiom for discussing any of this, not even marx would’ve agreed with that. to address the second part of your comment, hitler became increasingly in favor of nationalization and state ownership through the 30s, it just wasn’t possible given germany’s political situation at the time. he basically worshipped stalin and the soviet system in private, you can see this manifested in his plans for the east after the war. hitting word limit…

1

Anonymous #4 2d

as a follow-up question, would you consider fascist italy socialist (i’m talking about the 20 years, not salo)?

1

Anonymous #4 2d

Never said capitalism = private property. In Marxist analysis, pretty much any system allowing for it to remain was capitalist (this scrutiny extending even to the USSR and China, different topic), and in the case of Nazi Germany, “productive capital” was what would remain as private. The East was a matter of colonization, the east was to be… cleared… to make way for the Aryan people, so I’m not really sure this is equivalent to mainland Germany. Especially as this was a transformative aspect

1

Anonymous #4 2d

No, I would not consider it socialist, yet rather Corporatist, a distinction the likes of Mussolini made as opposed to Socialism.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

just wondering since the PNF nationalized like 75% of industry iirc… but you clarified in your other comment that you don’t think state ownership is equivalent to socialism so fair enough i guess

0

Anonymous #6 2d

allowing for private property to remain past what point? do you mean after industrialization?

0

Anonymous #6 2d

i don’t quite get what you mean with that last paragraph, you’re saying you don’t think hitler wanting to nationalize all industry in new colonies means anything about his beliefs? that seems like a stretch

0

Anonymous #4 2d

holy larp 😭 he was financed by huge corporations and had a business of his own, he burned socialist and Marxist literature and propped up monopolies that didn’t do much for the working class except for some slight reforms

5

Anonymous #4 2d

fighting tooth and nail to defend hitler’s propaganda is quite a choice

0

Anonymous #7 1d

so because the NSDAP had some bourgeois support hitler wasn’t anti-bourgeois? do you also think that the fact that there were jews who support hitler means he wasn’t an anti-semite?

0

Anonymous #3 1d

how am i defending hitler’s propaganda? i’m not even white lmao good try tho

0

Anonymous #4 1d

Do you think that only white people engage in white supremacy? You might need to read up on how common it is for white supremacists to outsource their campaign of hatred to the exact demographics they wish to oppress. Reinforcing hitler’s own attempts to manipulate and condition workers via co-opting leftist ideology without any material implementation of it, is indeed defending hitler’s propaganda. go ahead and go to town on those urinal “cakes” as others have mentioned.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

i haven’t defended white supremacy one time in this thread. racial topics are peripheral at best to the subject matter in question anyway. either read the thread or stop replying to it with unsubstantiated claims.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

You *chose* to defend Hitler and his propaganda, which is inherently defending white supremacy whether you publicly acknowledge that or not. And excuse you? His entire platform was built off race-based ideological beliefs, yet you think you’re able to defend his propaganda without facing that topic? No, racial topics are not peripheral as you sit here indirectly parroting white supremacy (via attempting to reinforce nazi propaganda). and as a final reminder, you’re the one who said:

0

Anonymous #3 1d

i haven’t defended hitler once in this thread. you’re illiterate.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

Is that why you chose to defend hitler’s specific propaganda co-opting leftist rhetoric? You’re totally “not” defending Hitler ;)

1

Anonymous #3 1d

i’m not defending anything. there’s no normative content in any of my replies throughout this thread.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

you dont need normative content to spread propaganda, but I’m sure you’re aware of that.

0

Anonymous #3 1d

it’s implied by “defend” lol

0

Anonymous #4 1d

maybe next time, don’t try to pull the “well ackthually the Nazis were socialist, they just didn’t get to do everything yet” bullshit. You’re not slick.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

you want to talk about implied meanings, after your utter trainwreck of nazi propo?

0

Anonymous #3 1d

you’ve made the same comment with different wording several times. i’m not a nazi or a white supremacist. this is redundant.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

Did I say you specifically were one, or that you were parroting propaganda that aligns directly with what Nazis (aka white supremacists) parroted? and you had the nerve to talk about illiteracy…

0

Anonymous #3 1d

i think it’s fair to assume that accusing someone of parroting nazi propaganda is equivalent to accusing them of being a nazi.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

all I did was call out your choices, but if the shoe fits ;) you’ve had ample opportunity to clarify against the initial confusion that most commenters shared, yet you consistently double down. yes, claiming the Nazis were socialist is indeed nazi propaganda; whether you’re willing to acknowledge it or not. it was a specific choice of propaganda for the third reich, but you do you

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

What state are you from

0

Anonymous #3 1d

Disregarding your poor grammar: from what State or Township do you hail?

0

Anonymous #2 1d

how stupid do you have to be to think i’ll dox myself to some fascists (or at best, dipshits doing the work for fascists without realizing it)? go watch a tv show or something.

1