The good communists, really? - Babylon Berlin (2018) Discussion

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9173) 2 years ago

> Communists (international socialists) were (and are) the far-left brothers of their national counterpart (national socialists).

That's total nonsense. Nazis are far-right wing, Communists don't exist.
Socialism and Communism have been used mostly as bait and switch for gullible populations who hand power over to a group they think is going to save them - and no group ever saves the people - the people have to save themselves.

The Nazis broke up the Socialist Labor Unions and crushed the Communist Party. Hitler came into power promising the German industrialist capitalists that he would destroy the Communists and Socialists.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (24952) 2 years ago

"Communists don't exist" - Just like "cancel culture does not exist"!

Many of the communists flipped to national socialism because they both are fascist. Destroying the remaining Commies was the best thing Hitler did!

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9173) 2 years ago

Playing word games is like playing with yourself. Enjoy, but keep your wacko ideas to yourself. Communists are fascists who lie, and fascists are just honest fascists proud of their fascism.

Anyone who thinks Hitler did anything good is not someone I want to devote more than a few seconds to crap on.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

"That's total nonsense. Nazis are far-right wing, Communists don't exist."

This is the result of indoctrination.

Nazis are economically far-left wing. And all the characteristics that you call "far-right" had been present in the USSR as well.

Economically the left is about community/state controlled economy. The right is about market freedom.

Both Nazi and the communists implemented a state controlled economy. That's NOT right wing and for SURE NOT far right.

Communists do exist, learn some history ffs.

Yeah, the leading party of China doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party

Fucking ignorant Americans ...

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9173) 2 years ago

At least we can speak intelligible English, Ahole.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

Yeah, another ignorant answer. The majority of the world is not English native idiot.

But most Americans ARE idiots and highly indoctrinated.

Half voted for a senile pedo and half for a stupid narcissist.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

Nazis are economically far-left wing.

Which parts of their politics were left wing, exactly?

Yeah, the leading party of China doesn't exist.

That's not an argument. The nazis had "socialist" in their party's name, yet they were anti-socialist. It was a gimmick.

Both Nazi and the communists implemented a state controlled economy. That's NOT right wing and for SURE NOT far right.

The nazis did not have a state controlled economy. That's, like, nearly the opposite of the truth. They had a mixed economy which combined free markets with centralisation. Like most Western countries following the Great Depression, Germany had increased state ownership - under the Weimar Republic. Ie., before the nazis had any power. When the nazis did assume power in '33, they started an extensive programme of privatization. They embraced capitalism, but distinguished between what they called "raffendes" and "schaffendes Kapital" - ie. exploitative and constructive capitalism.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

Read more.

Start with:

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform - clearly left wing.

"yet they were anti-socialist." only that they were not. They were left wing but anti other socialists. They were all fighting over the same electorate, it's normal for them to clash.

Economically fascism and nazism were quite close. Read:

https://fee.org/articles/fascism-socialism-with-a-capitalist-veneer/

The economy might had been "private" but it was state controlled and run "for the benefit of the people/country" under the control of the state.

And the privatization? Was mainly a mean to gather some financial support and to consolidate nazi power.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

Read more.

Start with:

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform - clearly left wing.

Clearly not. Did you read that yourself?

"yet they were anti-socialist." only that they were not. They were left wing but anti other socialists. They were all fighting over the same electorate, it's normal for them to clash.

Can you hear yourself? If they were anti other socialists then they weren't socialist, were they? That would make them anti socialist by very definition. If you're not like the socialists, then you aren't a socialist - even if you call yourself one. It is not uncommon for the far right to include an absolutely false promise in the names of their organisations. "Freedom Party", "Progression Party" etc.

Economically fascism and nazism were quite close.

Yes indeed, but fascism isn't left wing. Fascism rejects both socialism and capitalism. Nazism i between capitalism and fascism, but closer to capitalism.

The economy might had been "private" but it was state controlled and run "for the benefit of the people/country" under the control of the state.

The state controls the economy in every country, through legislation. By your logic, every single country in the world is socialist.

And the privatization? Was mainly a mean to gather some financial support and to consolidate nazi power.

So? Privatisation is still privatisation, which is still not remotely what you'd expect from a socialist government.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

First of all, I said that they are left wing, not the same as the socialists. Learn to read.

Second: Socialism is not just how Marx imagined it, there are a lot of different types or socialism. Nazism/Fascism is closer to Saint Simone socialism rather than Marx's socialism - closer but not the same. Different but with the same name. They are both called socialism.

"Clearly not. Did you read that yourself?"

Let me help you:

"7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the notion of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
21. The State must ensure that the nation’s health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
25. To put the whole of this program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states."

Clearly a left wing program. NOT a right wing. If you don't see how those points are purely left wing ... sorry but I cannot help you.

Yes, a socialist can be against other socialists in their quest for power. Just how the Bolsheviks killed, imprisoned or exiled the Mensheviks in USSR. Bloody clashes for power between socialist organizations is not a new thing, maybe just for you.

Again, read more.

"The state controls the economy in every country, through legislation. By your logic, every single country in the world is socialist."

The difference is the level of control. The Nazi government directly controlled the economy, production, markets and distribution. Just like the socialist economy in the USSR. It was a direct control, not just a frame to guide the economy as it is in capitalism.

"Yes indeed, but fascism isn't left wing. Fascism rejects both socialism and capitalism. Nazism i between capitalism and fascism, but closer to capitalism."

So you think that the only possible organizations are - socialism left wing and capitalism rihjt wing??

Sorry but I have bad news: on the scale are nazism and fascism as well. And they are A LOT closer to socialism than to capitalism.

Actually a lot of capitalist countries of today are not even on the right but on the center, some even center-left.

Left/right is not as you might believe a binary, 0 and 1, type of separation. Is more like a scale.

With socialism at the extreme left and libertarian on the extreme right side.

There's NOTHING in the Nazi program that would define it as a right wing, economically speaking.

What people use to define it as "right-wing" are: racial/ethnic injustice and oppression - practiced on a large scale in USSR and other socialist countries, authoritarianism - all socialist countries had been extremely authoritarian, etc.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

Ok, as for the party programme, that's just fluff which should never be taken as gospel (like "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it"). It's to attract voters. The 25 point programme - presented in 1920 - was so much populist drivel. That's what tiny but ambitious parties tend to do: they pick up on popular talking points and present them as their own. But let's break it down, all the same:

7. This is something all politicians say, regardless of affiliation. It is so vapid that they might as well not mention in.
10. This is more in line with right wing values: focusing on workers' duties rather than rights.
11. Definitely a right wing value. The left is for unemployment benefits.
13. 16. 17. These are points which, on the face of it, belong on the left. But what they're not saying here is that these is aimed at land and businesses owned by Jews. They certainly didn't follow through with this for anyone else. So in the end, this is not so much a leftist thing as a racist thing.
14. Meaning what, exactly? That's right, they don't say - because it's meaningless fluff.
15. Any political party which doesn't feel that way?
18. A typical talking point of the right, if there ever was one. Not that the left supports crime, but the left typically seeks rehabilitation rather than deterring.
20. This is probably the only point which truly does belong on the left. But it's hardly enough to tip the scales.
21. There is nothing in this point which talks about how this is to be achieved financially, so it cannot be placed either left or right. It only refers to core values shared by both sides of the isle. If you thought you read universal health care in this, read again.
22. This point is starkly a-typical for both left and right. It's what the extremes on both end desire, but most have the good sense to keep quiet about it. The reasons the NSDAP put it in their programme here, is probably because they were a tiny party looking to draw attention. This was 1920, after all.

And that's something worth noting: the 25 point plan was presented in 1920, when the DAP had just changed their name to NSDAP. They had just added "Socialist" to their party's name (over Hitler's objections, by the way), so it is hardly a shocker that they would try to justify that somehow in their party programme. And at that point, there were socialist elements in the NSDAP. Hitler worked tirelessly to get rid of them, and finally succeeded in 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. After which, there was not a trace of socialists left in the party.

And in any case, the proof is in the pudding: what did the nazis actually do when they got in power? Should one judge a party by what they say they are going to do, or by what they actually do?

Clearly a left wing program. NOT a right wing. If you don't see how those points are purely left wing ... sorry but I cannot help you.

You omitted quite a few points there, which suggests you picked the ones you felt were "purely left wing" - but even then it was hit and miss, if I'm being generous. Most of them are not specific to the left, and a couple were even specific to the right. Only four points in total did belong on the left, and three of those only superficially so.

Yes, a socialist can be against other socialists in their quest for power. Just how the Bolsheviks killed, imprisoned or exiled the Mensheviks in USSR. Bloody clashes for power between socialist organizations is not a new thing, maybe just for you.

The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were not opponents of principle - their disagreement was mainly about how revolution was to take place. Both wanted to institute socialism. The NSDAP, however, were against ALL socialists, and were not out to institute socialism at all. The "socialist" part of the name was 1) tossing a bone to socialist members who were still useful/too powerful to kick out, and 2) courting the same voters the reds were courting.

The difference is the level of control. The Nazi government directly controlled the economy, production, markets and distribution.

Except this is utter BS. The nazis had an extensive programme of PRIVATIZATION. So LESS direct control, not more.

So you think that the only possible organizations are - socialism left wing and capitalism rihjt wing??

I believe you are the one who have been speaking in such absolutes. I have made no such suggestion.

Sorry but I have bad news: on the scale are nazism and fascism as well. And they are A LOT closer to socialism than to capitalism.

You keep saying so, but I have refuted you at every turn. Your only comeback is to reiterate your debunked point, which is tantamount to saying "nuh uh".

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

Not gonna spend too much on your post since it's utterly bullshit.

Yes, politicians lie. And guess what: socialists have lied the most. So no surprise here that a self branded socialist have lied as well.

"I believe you are the one who have been speaking in such absolutes. I have made no such suggestion."

Yes, YOU are. I specifically mentioned the differences between the socialists (Marx, Saint Simone, etc) and clearly specified that it's a scale, while you are stuck on Marx's socialism as being the only possible formation on the left.

"Except this is utter BS. The nazis had an extensive programme of PRIVATIZATION. So LESS direct control, not more."

You see? You cannot differentiate the owner from who controls the operation.

Giving the ownership to others doesn't mean that you release control as well. Two different issues.

And from your lack of understanding everything goes.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

Not gonna spend too much on your post since it's utterly bullshit.

In other words, you got nothing.

Yes, politicians lie. And guess what: socialists have lied the most. So no surprise here that a self branded socialist have lied as well.

"Socialists have lied the most". Wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you?

Yes, YOU are. I specifically mentioned the differences between the socialists (Marx, Saint Simone, etc) and clearly specified that it's a scale, while you are stuck on Marx's socialism as being the only possible formation on the left.

No, what you have been doing is squarely peg anyone as left wing if there's anything remotely leftist about any part of their decades old party programme.

You see? You cannot differentiate the owner from who controls the operation.

Giving the ownership to others doesn't mean that you release control as well. Two different issues.

Ok, so privatization is now a socialist thing because they are still subject to the laws of the government. Gotcha. So what country isn't socialist, then, according to your logic?

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

""Socialists have lied the most". Wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you?"

Yeah, I do. I lived in a socialist country.

"Ok, so privatization is now a socialist thing"

You do sure like a good strawman. Show me where I said that!!!

"because they are still subject to the laws of the government."

Stop conflating a legislative framework with direct control. You're just making a fool of yourself.

As an example: Winco: workers owned but the workers DON'T control the production or it's economy. Neither does the government.

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

""yet they were anti-socialist." only that they were not. They were left wing but anti other socialists. They were all fighting over the same electorate, it's normal for them to clash."

This is 100% true. Don't forget about Mussolini originally being a communist.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

Until he wasn't.

And no, the KDP and NSDAP did not have identical electorates. They had overlap,but they had their own blocs.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

Mussolini (and he wasn't just a communist, he was in their leadership):

"I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones."

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

"We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism ... We intend to be an active minority, attract the proletariat away from the official Socialist party. But if the middle class thinks that we are going to be their lightning rods, they are mistaken."

"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the state and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the state, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity."

https://troymedia.com/lifestyle/mussolini-fascism-more-left-than-right/

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>"I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones."

He said this in 1914.

>"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

This completely describes fascism too.

>"We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism ... We intend to be an active minority, attract the proletariat away from the official Socialist party. But if the middle class thinks that we are going to be their lightning rods, they are mistaken."

Fascists co-opt socialist rhetoric. News at 12.

>"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the state and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the state, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity."

Again, not contradictory of fascism.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

I guess you missed my point.

I didn't say Mussolini was not a fascist. I said that he retained his socialist roots and ideas in his fascism ideology.

Of course it's NOT contradictory of fascism, but are NOT contradictory to socialism either. Actually they are quite pretty much socialist ideas.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

And how did that work out in practice? How was fascist Italy socialist-like?

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union.

And again you are stuck on socialism = marxism.

No, that's NOT the only type of socialism.

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

Not calling himself a communist anymore, doesn't mean he did a 180 degree turn.

Lol, of course they had the same electorate, that's why they were constantly fighting each other.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>Not calling himself a communist anymore, doesn't mean he did a 180 degree turn.

I'll await examples for how corporatism is just the same as communism.

>Lol, of course they had the same electorate, that's why they were constantly fighting each other.

The Nazis had big voting blocs from rural farming communities, protestants and landowners.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

"I'll await examples for how corporatism is just the same as communism."

you do realize that the left is a bit bigger than just "communism", right? And that socialism is not restricted to marxism, right?

Saint-Simon's industrialism is pretty much similar to Mussolini's corporatism.

Who is Saint-Simon? A guy that Marx considered to be "the father of socialism".

"Karl Marx identified Saint-Simon as being among whom he called the utopian socialists, though historian Alan Ryan regards certain followers of Saint-Simon, rather than Saint-Simon himself, as being responsible for the rise of utopian socialism that based itself upon Saint-Simon's ideas.
Ryan also distinguishes between Saint-Simon's conceptions and Marxism's, as Saint-Simon did not promote independent working-class organization and leadership as a solution to capitalist societal problems, nor did he adhere to the Marxist definition of the working class as excluded by fundamental private property law from control over the means of production.
Unlike Marx, Saint-Simon did not regard class relations, vis the means of production, to be an engine of socio-economic dynamics but rather the form of management. Furthermore, Saint-Simon was not critical of capitalists as exclusive owners, collaborators, controllers, and decision-makers. Rather, he regarded capitalists as an important component of the "industrial class."

Yes, Saint Simon is a precursor to Marx, by almost 100 years.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>you do realize that the left is a bit bigger than just "communism", right? And that socialism is not restricted to marxism, right?

I didn't say it was only restricted to marxism. I asked how fascism, economically, functions like socialism.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

It doesn't have to, to be on the left.

And again: socialism is NOT restricted to just marxism (I assume that when you say "socialism" you understand "marxism" or even "marxist-leninism" as most people do).

But here, fascism and what you understand by socialism:

Everything is state planed and controlled in both economies (and I'm talking about socialism as it was implemented in the most countries).

Wages, production, etc. In both economies the economy would work for the society and nation (in theory at least, in reality is a bit more complicated).

The main difference is who "owns" the means of production - in socialism the workers (bullshit, we didn't own anything, the state owned everything) in fascism there is still private ownership but do you really own it if you have no control and no power over it? You just "own" it on paper, just how the workers "owned" the means of production in socialism.

In both economies the de-facto owner and master of the economy is the state.

Some people even call socialism (again, understood as marxist-leninism) "state capitalism" - which is wrong, of course, but that's a different conversation.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>Everything is state planed and controlled in both economies (and I'm talking about socialism as it was implemented and in the most countries).

Fascism ultimately supports private ownership, or allows it. And that's the point. It will weaponise (some) companies to serve the state in expansionism, cleansing, or some form of militarism or 'national revival' but they will still exist so long as they do not defy the state.

You are operating under a definition you haven't shared here.

>Some people even call socialism (again, understood as marxist-leninism) "state capitalism" - which is wrong, of course, but that's a different conversation.

No, people call specific systems (ie the PRC) "state capitalism" (ie: authoritarian socialist systems in decay) and not specifically just any system that purports to be socialism.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

"You are operating under a definition you haven't shared here."

Already shared it in a previous post. Saint Simonianism. Industrialism, considered (even by Marx) to be the start of the socialist ideas. Not my fault that you don't want to (or can't) read.

Let me paste again, maybe this time you will read:

"Unlike Marx, Saint-Simon did not regard class relations, vis the means of production, to be an engine of socio-economic dynamics but rather the form of management. Furthermore, Saint-Simon was not critical of capitalists as exclusive owners, collaborators, controllers, and decision-makers. Rather, he regarded capitalists as an important component of the "industrial class."

"specifically just any system that purports to be socialism" - false, people call "state socialism" ANY implementation of socialism (marxist-leninism actually) so far.

btw: "By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union"

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>Already shared it in a previous post. Saint Simonianism. Industrialism, considered (even by Marx) to be the start of the socialist ideas. Not my fault that you don't want to (or can't) read.

Most of the posts in this thread are years old.

This seems to be a rather esoteric interpretation of socialism that is simply not shared by most people.

>"specifically just any system that purports to be socialism" - false, people call "state socialism" ANY implementation of socialism (marxist-leninism actually) so far.

Do you mean "state capitalism"? Who does that? I've only ever seen it in context of the PRC.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

It was in our conversation, pay attention ffs.

It's nothing esoteric, it's the history of socialism. Most people are deeply ignorant. Not my fault.

And btw, I specified SEVERAL times that I'm NOT limiting socialism to marxism AS MOST PEOPLE DO. Pay attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

"Some scholars argue that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modeled after it, including Maoist China, were state capitalist systems"

Your ignorance (you not knowing about it) is not proof that it didn't happen.

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

"I'll await examples for how corporatism is just the same as communism."

Ooh, me too! Who said that?

Corporatism can surely exist within socialism, though.

"The Nazis had big voting blocs from rural farming communities, protestants and landowners."

Yeah, I'm sure they found the NSDAP more appealing than the communist party. So what's your point? That they weren't rivals who targeted the same working class? Ever heard of Beefsteak nazis?

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>Corporatism can surely exist within socialism, though.

Explain how that worked in fascist italy.

>Yeah, I'm sure they found the NSDAP more appealing than the communist party. So what's your point? That they weren't rivals who targeted the same working class? Ever heard of Beefsteak nazis?

That they did not have identical voting groups. You claimed they did. This just is not true.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

"By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union"

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

I don't really see that little factoid in itself as evidence of socialism. You're operating under a niche concept of socialism. In a way it's akin to saying that social democracy in theory, could be socialist if they nationalised enough industries.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

Not me, YOU are operating under a niche concept of socialism and anything that doesn't fit in that niche is not socialism.

Wrong. Socialism is wider. Social democracy WAS a branch of socialism ... the dissociation from socialism is rather new, few decades.

Dude, learn some history, really. it's tiresome to fight your ignorance.

"In the 19th century, social democrat was a broad catch-all for international socialists owing their primary ideological allegiance to Lassalle or Marx, in contrast to those advocating various forms of utopian socialism."

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>Wrong. Socialism is wider. Social democracy WAS a branch of socialism ...

Social democracy is decidely **NOT** considered any form of socialism. By your logic most of Europe are socialists. Go to any communist-adjacent community and try to argue that social democracy is a form of socialism.

>"In the 19th century, social democrat was a broad catch-all for international socialists owing their primary ideological allegiance to Lassalle or Marx, in contrast to those advocating various forms of utopian socialism."

And that's not what it means now. At all.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

Again, read some history.

You are deeply ignorant and don't know shit about history ...

IN USA, as am example, even today a lot of people conflate democratic socialism withe social democracy (the third way).

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

Definitions change.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

That doesn't mean that you should be ignorant of what those definitions are/were and how they changed.

You are just using some niche definitions and don't understand the history and how they affect said history.

You are asking why aren't the fascists (in the 30's) socialist according to YOUR (very narrow) definition of socialism as you understand it today.

Can you understand how stupid that is? Specially after you realized that definitions and terms can change?

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

I wasn't talking about the definition of social democracy in the 1920s. I am talking about how it is *now*. It's not regarded as a form of socialism.

>You are asking why aren't the fascists socialist according to YOUR (very narrow) definition of socialism as you understand it today.

I don't think just taking control of companies to maximise factory production for the upcoming war they want to start makes it socialist.

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

Again, you are looking at very narrow definitions and elements.

"taking control of companies to maximise factory production for the upcoming war" - that's not the fascist idea (as ideology). Fascism take control over the economy (as stated in their ideology) to serve the society, the population, the state, the nation. The same idea that socialists are using, without the need of ownership transferred.

Socialism (marxism) and fascism use the SAME ideas with the sole difference being who owns the means of production.

And I said there IS a different branch of socialism (SaintSimonism) that has the EXACT same principles. Esoteric or not IT IS STILL CONSIDERED socialism.

You are like "the way I understand fascism has no connection with the way I understand socialism".

And that's the problem, you don't understand fascism and you have a very narrow understanding of what socialism is (marxism) ...

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>"taking control of companies to maximise factory production for the upcoming war" - that's not the fascist idea (as ideology). Fascism take control over the economy (as stated in their ideology) to serve the society, the population, the state, the nation. The same idea that socialists are using, without the need of ownership transferred.

But they still allow private companies to exist, to make profit, they just co-opt or control companies of importance.

Social Democracies could be so described as "taking over the economy" when they intervene to "serve the society" (which they very much do). It's just the social values of social democratic countries don't tend to be anything like fascist states, yet you would only apparently suggest fascism is a variant of the socialism. Unless you're going to call any country with socialised healthcare and education socialist.

>Socialism (marxism) and fascism use the SAME ideas with the sole difference being who owns the means of production.

Do you not think these distinctions that you so describe matter here?

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

Not really.

The results are the same, a nationalist authoritarian state with total control and very beligerant and expansionist with a large part of the economy war-oriented.

Socialism or fascism, they kinda end in a similar place.

And as I said: there ARE forms of socialism THAT don't make that distinction. That you refuse to acknowledge that (quite close minded I would say) doesn't change the fact that they exist.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

Do you think authoritarianism here is a required component of socialism? Social democracy isn't exactly authoritarian, but it can intervene and nationalise industry for the common good. Does that make it socialistic?

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

Social democracy (the third way - or as you called it - modern social democracy) is not socialism, not anymore - although at origins it is a socialist movement, one that tried to replace capitalism with socialism in a natural, evolutionary way and NOT as marxism argues that it should happen, revolutionary and by force).

Authoritarianism is the natural evolution of the state in socialism (marxism) and even more IT is required.

Without authoritarianism socialism (marxism) cannot survive. During history socialism (marxism) was NOT supported by the majority of the population so naturally it needs to be authoritarian to survive.

Also even if somehow it would gather the majority of the electorate it would still need to oppress the minority that doesn't support socialism (marxism) since YES it requires the seizing of means of production and wealth from the rightful owners - wouldn't you agree that it is quite totalitarian?

That's the vast difference: you CAN have a socialist (marxist) community in capitalism. You CANNOT have a capitalist community in socialism (marxism).

I took the time to make sure you really understand I'm talking about your version of socialism, as you understand it - marxism.

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

Read his other posts and you'll notice he's a marxist fanboy.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

Where did I say anything remotely supportive of marxism?

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

you are pretty much defending it ...

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

And where did I do that?

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

In all your replies.

You are trying to deflect everything that it's bad with socialism and you don't really like when we associate aspects of fascism with socialism.

Just how a socialist apologet would do

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>You are trying to deflect everything that it's bad with socialism and you don't really like when we associate aspects of fascism with socialism.

I don't consider myself a socialist dude, especially not a marxist.

>Just how a socialist apologet would do

No, that's you and the other user just assuming my motives.

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

"Explain how that worked in fascist italy."

Why?

"That they did not have identical voting groups. You claimed they did. This just is not true."

It IS true. Both targeted the working class. The NSDAP (notice the word Arbeiter in their name) did not start out as a rural party and they were pleasantly surprised to discover their own appeal among the agricultural working class. But the urban working class had always been the target of the NSDAP from the very beginning.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>It IS true. Both targeted the working class. The NSDAP (notice the word Arbeiter in their name) did not start out as a rural party and they were pleasantly surprised to discover their own appeal among the agricultural working class. But the urban working class had always been the target of the NSDAP from the very beginning.

I'm gunna have to ask for a citation here really.

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

So you're saying the NSDAP was NOT a party founded in the city of Munich who tried to appeal to the local working class?

Okay then, have a nice day over there in Bejing.👍

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

No, I'm asking you for evidence that the majority of their initial vote came from the working class.

"The new statistical analyses by King and his coauthors show that the two groups most affected by the Depression followed separate political paths. The unemployed turned primarily to the Communist party, which catered to them with a program calling for community property. The working poor, including independent artisans, shopkeepers, small farmers, lawyers, domestic workers, and family members of the working poor, disproportionately supported the Nazis. These groups responded positively to Hitler’s denunciations of big business and government, promises of intensive development of Germany’s own economic resources, support of private property, and plans for expropriation of land from Jewish real estate owners and resettlement of the landless in eastern Germany. Hitler’s support was higher in Protestant areas than in Catholic regions, in part because the Catholic church strongly encouraged the faithful not to vote for the Nazis, and in part because the church ran relatively well-financed social welfare programs."

The votes were not identical.

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

I'm sure you're capable of understanding that two parties try to appeal to the same person, but only one gets their vote...or maybe you're not...

Anyway, tell Xi I said hi!👋

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>I'm sure you're capable of understanding that two parties try to appeal to the same person, but only one gets their vote...or maybe you're not...

I am still waiting for evidence that in the earlier years the Nazis specifically tried to do this. Also most parties in the Weimar Republic likely tried to appeal to working class people. But they aren't a cohesive uniform bloc.

>Anyway, tell Xi I said hi!👋

I have no idea why you are acting as if I remotely defend the PRC on anything.

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

The word ARBEITER might be a hint...🙄

And I'm sure it's okay to quote Wikipedia since they're left wing:

"The party was created to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[14] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti–big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric; it was later downplayed to gain the support of business leaders."

I believe I've made my point, good luck cherry-picking.

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

>"The party was created to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[14] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti–big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric; it was later downplayed to gain the support of business leaders."

And yet its base for most of the 1920s was Bavaria. It was downplayed before their breakout in the 1930 election.

>I believe I've made my point, good luck cherry-picking.

You mean where you decided to try and smear me as some CCP supporter?

reply

[–] asom (6709) a year ago

Marxist doesn't necessarily mean CCP supporter ...

dude, you are so narrow in everything...

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

"Okay then, have a nice day over there in Bejing.👍"

"Anyway, tell Xi I said hi!👋"

He is clearly implying I am a CCP shill.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7098) 2 years ago

In what way are Nazis far right-wing? Nazism is the endpoint of the far left of the political spectrum, and only different from socialism in minor ways. The endpoint at the far right of the spectrum is anarchy, which is the complete opposite of fascism/nazism/socialism.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9173) 2 years ago

There are plenty who keep pushing this Nazi on the Left idea which is totally false and a deliberate propaganda lie.

First, the Nazis made a bargain to get to power with the Far-Right industrialists to squash the labor unions, the socialists and communists/anarchists which wanted the same thing the working class always wants, decent pay and working conditions. That is not Left-wing at all.

Second, those who supported the Nazis in America were the oligarchs and big corporations. That is also not Left-wing.

All you have is the fact that Hitler to get to power infiltrated the National Socialist party, made a lot of lying speeches, and eventually purged and killed all the socialists in the party, which is not Left-wing.

It is an overly simplistic Right-wing BS point to try to undermine the Left, democracy, worker's interests, and rule of law by associating all that with Nazis. Simple-minded dishonest BS.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7098) 2 years ago

You're talking about how certain groups achieved power, not about ideology. That the Nazis were able to dupe a certain group of industrialists is no different than pointing out how they duped a large portion of the German populace into believing in them. Though you are wrong about their American supporters. The American Communist Party was the one segment of American society that was pro-Hitler.

That aside, what's being discussed here is the Nazi and fascist ideologies, which are in line with the left side of the political spectrum.

The left, and fascists, want the state to control most everything-- banks, schools, the media, welfare programs-- and expect the populace to fall into line, and foot the bill through high taxes.

The right is in complete opposition to those ideas. They want individuals to have control, and for the state to exist in only the most limited way. The government's role should be to set and enforce the laws, and let individuals work everything else out on their own.

So sure, Hitler may have convinced a group of industrialists that he'd help them by breaking up a labor union, but that doesn't somehow mean that his politics are right wing. Hitler and the Nazi's politics represent the left side of the spectrum, and only differ from those of Socialists and Communists in minor ways.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9173) 2 years ago

> the Nazi and fascist ideologies, which are in line with the left side of the political spectrum.

I don't see any point in arguing with you when you just keep asserting a blatant lie. You either do not know what you are talking about or you are pushing some other agenda than truth and rational discussion.

Socialism is a system that puts the people and the people's welfare, specifically the average citizen's and the average worker's before money and the interests of the economic and power elites. Democracy evolved from the struggles of the common people throughout history to have rights and representation in the way their countries work - that is, Marx's class struggle, the Left. The Left is all about democracy, the right is about protecting the power and wealth of the elites and extending it though lies like your blather, economic or military force.

This is not to argue with you but to clarify for anyone stupid enough to give your POV any credence. I'm done with you.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7098) 2 years ago

What you fail to understand is that those who support fascism, socialism, capitalism, and most forms of government, all believe their form of government is the one that "puts the people and the people's welfare, specifically the average citizen's and the average worker's before money and the interests of the economic and power elites." The difference lies in how they go about it.

I believe in free market capitalism. It isn't perfect-- nothing can be because humans are imperfect-- but more than any other method of running a society, it best protects the interests of the people. You seem to believe in socialism, for the same reason. We can discuss all day and into tomorrow why we think the way we do, but we're talking about something else here.

The method by which socialism attempts to put the people's welfare first is very similar to the method by which fascism and/or Nazism attempt to do the same. All of those ideologies are grouped towards the left of the traditional political spectrum, because they all believe that an all-powerful government is the key.

The method by which capitalism works is the opposite. Nearly no government is required, as the belief is that when left to their own devices, people will be better off. The government is only needed to curb the tendencies of people towards greed, corruption, theft, etc. The farther right you go, the less government is considered necessary, to the farthest extreme, which are the anarchists.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9173) 2 years ago

What part of " I'm done with you" do you fail to understand? See above.

I'm also done with your fairy tales ... the most well known criticism is that a free market economy does not account for externalities, side effects such as pollution that are borne by society at large and not by the individual supplier or consumer.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7098) 2 years ago

If you're done with the conversation, then bow out, but don't come back and add some new detail while simultaneously saying you're done. To respond to that detail, as I mentioned before, a completely free market, i.e. anarchy, is not ideal, and capitalism, while imperfect, is the best system there is. In a society based on free market capitalism, a government is still necessary, and one of its only roles is to address exactly what you mention. The government creates and enforces laws based on public safety, and something like pollution is front and center in that arena.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9173) 2 years ago

> If you're done with the conversation, then bow out, but don't come back and add some new detail while simultaneously saying you're done.

What do you think gives you the right to tell me what to do or how to interact on a chat board. Thanks, but I'll figure my life out without your input.

If you're going to wank-off to capitalist fairy tales, go have a circle jerk with Elon and spare me the rah-rah BS.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7098) 2 years ago

I'm doing nothing more than sharing facts, in the vain hope that you are a person able to admit when he's wrong. Clearly you aren't. You've decided that you are right, and you know it all, and nothing will ever change your mind. Not a healthy way to go through life...

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9173) 2 years ago

If I was wrong I would have admitted it.

I do admit you're both wrong and a jerk for playing stupid word games.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

That's the only problem I have with this series: the communists are portrayed as the good guys and the smart ones,

They weren't portrayed as "the smart ones". They were portrayed as smart, as were all sides, really. And no, that is not historically off the mark. Just because an ideology is stupid doesn't mean it doesn't have smart adherents. No one is either smart or dumb: we all have our intellectual strengths and weaknesses.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

Tell that to the communists (USSR and all East Europe, China, etc) which had, specially in the 50's, 60's, a clear policy of wiping out the intellectuals and promoting uneducated people from the workers and lower classes.

https://sites.psu.edu/antiintellectualism/2017/02/16/the-rise-of-anti-intellectualism/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-biggest-anti-intellectual-movement-in-history_2234683.html

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

Talk about missing the point. As I said: No one is either smart or dumb. There are some who have no particular strengths, but the vast majority of people are both smart and dumb. Education doesn't change that. A professor is someone who knows very, very much about very, very little.

reply

[–] mechajutaro (2788) 2 years ago

I'm just wondering what the connection between this series and The Babylon Bee is

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

"As I said: No one is either smart or dumb." and you're 100% wrong.

"There are some who have no particular strengths, but the vast majority of people are both smart and dumb."

Nope. IQ is a thing, you know? And it's quite relevant even if it's not precise. As an example you cannot serve in the military if your IQ is bellow a certain threshold as being untrainable.

The US military uses IQ testing to determine potential recruits' cognitive abilities. the military forbids anyone with an IQ under 83 from joining. because their experience has shown that anyone with an IQ under 83 will be more of a liability than an asset to the military.

"Education doesn't change that. A professor is someone who knows very, very much about very, very little."

Correct and incorrect at the same time, but try to educate some dumb people.
You will never succeed. You will NEVER obtain a rocket scientist from an individual with an IQ of 84. No matter how much you will try to educate him/her.

At the same time education helps with forming new patterns, learning logic elements, etc etc. So while it will not make someone smarter it will make that someone a lot more efficient and flexible in how they think.

Doesn't matter how smart you are, without education you cannot solve differential equations.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

"As I said: No one is either smart or dumb." and you're 100% wrong.

I am willing to make an exception for you, if that makes you happy.

Nope. IQ is a thing, you know?

And no one who knows anything about IQ would ever claim it's an end-all, be-all of intelligence. It is a measure of intelligence, but to take it to be the measure is... well... stupid.

The US military uses IQ testing to determine potential recruits' cognitive abilities. the military forbids anyone with an IQ under 83 from joining. because their experience has shown that anyone with an IQ under 83 will be more of a liability than an asset to the military.

If you have an IQ of 83 or below you are so impaired that you have trouble with certain tasks. The average is, by definition 100 - but that doesn't mean a person with an IQ of 120 is smarter than someone with an IQ of 90 in every area. Einstein was a genius, but his social intelligence was lacking. As was his linguistic intelligence. He was also dyslexic, and didn't speak properly until he was 6.

And then there's the Flynn effect, which is the increase of IQ by three points every decade - meaning 100 IQ in 2012 is 97 IQ today. Which seriously complicates the application of IQ as a measure of intelligence.

Doesn't matter how smart you are, without education you cannot solve differential equations.

Sure you could, if you were told what the symbols represented. How do you think Newton and Leibniz managed to think of it? Education, however, allows people to learn such things without being intelligent enough to think of them themselves. Moreover, acquiring knowledge makes you more knowledgeable - not smarter. But absolutely, by and large education does train you to become smarter. Which does not in any way contradict what I said. As no one specialises in every field, however, they will remain dumb in the areas they do not train.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

"And no one who knows anything about IQ would ever claim it's an end-all, be-all of intelligence. It is a measure of intelligence, but to take it to be the measure is... well... stupid."

No one claimed that it's an end all. "It is a measure of intelligence" - bingo. I notice that you read a lot of times without understanding. Sorry for that.

"If you have an IQ of 83 or below you are so impaired that you have trouble with certain tasks."

and here goes your assertion that "no one is dumb". Btw, around 15% of the US population has an IQ of under 85. No one ;)

"The average is, by definition 100 - but that doesn't mean a person with an IQ of 120 is smarter than someone with an IQ of 90 in every area."

There is a difference between IQ and EQ.

Flynn effect has reversed in the last decades.

https://www.sciencealert.com/iq-scores-falling-in-worrying-reversal-20th-century-intelligence-boom-flynn-effect-intelligence

I don't see how the Flynn effect would support your thesis that "there are no dumb people". No it doesn't complicate anything, it just implies that humans had become, on average, more intelligent (or less intelligent).

"Sure you could, if you were told what the symbols represented"

ok, so if it told you that this symbol represents differential equations you could solve them ...

"How do you think Newton and Leibniz managed to think of it?" -

no, how DO YOU thing that they managed to think of it? 3 things: they were educated. They were smart and not dumb. They had the resources (time) to think about it. You failed with this one, big.

Why didn't some guy with 83 iq and without education think of those??? That would help your argument that "no one is dumb and no one needs an education".

"Moreover, acquiring knowledge makes you more knowledgeable - not smarter. But absolutely, by and large education does train you to become smarter. Which does not in any way contradict what I said. As no one specialises in every field, however, they will remain dumb in the areas they do not train."

Jesus ...

Typical left mind full of contradictions and double speak ...

PS: someone on quora:

"According to an IQ test I took at my psychologist's, I have an IQ of 72.

It's impossible to put my subjective experience in writing, even vaguely. I'll try anyway: I have a hard time understanding what I'm told (in books, on TV, in my environment) if I don't get a long and simple explanation. I am often accused of a lack of curiosity. I also realize while discussing that most people are smarter than me: their reasoning is much more complex than mine. However, I am a worker because I am good at manual work."

And you genuinely think that this guy would be able to solve differentials "if we would just tell him what the symbols mean". Rofl.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

and here goes your assertion that "no one is dumb".

It all boils down to the above, which proves that you simply aren't reading things properly. I never said no one is dumb. I actually said the exact opposite. Go on, go back and see what I actually wrote. Everything you said is invalid because it's either a gigantic strawman, or a huge (and very embarrassing) misunderstanding on your part - owing to your lack of reading comprehension.

I'll just quote one more thing:

There is a difference between IQ and EQ.

Yes, indeed. And also SQ, which is what you actually meant here. Guess what they all are, though: they are all different measures of intelligence. Meaning if your IQ is high, you're smart - but if your SQ is low, then you are dumb - at the same time.

Your last paragraph is another example of your ineptitude when it comes to reading. Or, if it's a strawman, how inept you are even at that. What I actually wrote is there for all to see. Yes, even you.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

"I never said no one is dumb."

That is what you textually said: "No one is either smart or dumb".

And you forgot what you said???
"Sure you could, if you were told what the symbols represented."

My man, you use too broad and general statements and then you say that I don't understand when I prove to you that you are plainly wrong. Or plainly stupid.

No, that guy will NOT be able to solve differential equations just by you explaining to him "what the symbols represented" - as you said.

This is a long time used cop out, you use stupid, general and untrue statements and then "but you didn;t understand what I was saying". Sorry, doesn't work.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

There's something called "context". Look it up.

I said no one is EITHER smart or dumb. Which means no one is ENTIRELY one or the other. Everyone is BOTH. Case in point: you know how to spell, and there is nothing particularly wrong with your grammar, so you're not stupid in that department. However, you are clearly disingenuous, and when it comes to the topic at hand, you are, indeed, very stupid.

I never did say no one is dumb, and your quote mining only shows why you are wrong.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

You're just trying to rationalize a stupid thing that you said.

That's not what it means. Without clarifying your point it means exactly that no one either smart nor stupid, literally.

A person with an IQ of 70 is dumb even if they have moments when they are less dumb. A person with and IQ of +140 is smart even if they might do something dumb from time to time. A smart person doesn't stop being smart because they do some stupid shit.

Shall I remind you that you stated some stupid shit like "Sure you could, if you were told what the symbols represented." - just tell someone with an IQ of 70 what the differential symbol means and poof, he can solve it.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

You're just trying to rationalize a stupid thing that you said.

No, I am having to spoon feed you what I obviously said, because you insisted on focusing on parts of the sentence while deliberately ignoring the rest - thereby trying to make out that I said something I clearly did not.

A person with an IQ of 70 is dumb even if they have moments when they are less dumb. A person with and IQ of +140 is smart even if they might do something dumb from time to time. A smart person doesn't stop being smart because they do some stupid shit.

IQ does not measure all forms of intelligence. A person with an IQ of 70 can still be far more musical than someone with an IQ of 140. You can score ever so well and still have a tin ear - and if you have a tin ear, you are musically dumb.

Shall I remind you that you stated some stupid shit like "Sure you could, if you were told what the symbols represented." - just tell someone with an IQ of 70 what the differential symbol means and poof, he can solve it.

There you go being stupid again. I suggested before that you looked up the word "context". Now I have to insist on it. My quoted sentence here doesn't even sound remotely stupid, because you presented no context in which it was stupid. Should I really have to explain these things to you? I wouldn't have to, if you were honest enough. Because I think that's where you are coming up short, rather than your actual intelligence.

reply

[–] asom (6709) 2 years ago

"No, I am having to spoon feed you what I obviously said, because you insisted on focusing on parts of the sentence while deliberately ignoring the rest - thereby trying to make out that I said something I clearly did not."

That's the problem: you provided no context. Your exact quote "No one is either smart or dumb: we all have our intellectual strengths and weaknesses." - and you clearly went for "intelectual" ...

A low IQ individual has NO "intelectual" strengths. Period. Hearing the musical structure is not an intelectual feat. And I would like to meet that individual with an IQ of 70 that can understand the musical structure ...

"IQ does not measure all forms of intelligence. A person with an IQ of 70 can still be far more musical than someone with an IQ of 140. You can score ever so well and still have a tin ear - and if you have a tin ear, you are musically dumb."

When we use the terms "dumb" and "smart" in a general sense, like you used them, we use them in a general sense. Like "a smart person is a person that is generally smart" you dipshit. Even if someone that's smart in the general sense has a tin ear it is still generally smart.

"Should I really have to explain these things to you? I wouldn't have to, if you were honest enough. Because I think that's where you are coming up short, rather than your actual intelligence."

In the context is stupid as hell as well. But you are too dishonest to admit.

I understand, you are too butthurt to admit your mistakes. I've seen plenty like you.

Express your idea more clear and without leaving space for interpretations or you really sound dumb and pretentious as shit.

And this is my last reply. Bye.

reply

[–] TimeTunnel (4769) 2 years ago

Interesting thread. ☺
One of the few who really understand the different socialistic streams is:
asom 💯
Yep, Hitler (Nazi) was a socialistic leader and a fascist.

Mostly I like this series for showing the circumstances how Hitler was able to become the leader of Germany. Nowadays the majority seems to think that Hitler landed like an Austrian alien here and seduced everyone.
"It wasn't me, Hitler did that!"
It was the lost WWI, the following merciless poverty of so many (people starved in the streets!), the shameless huge wealth of a few and the painful injustice what drove the people to fight on the streets...for a new system, for a new leader.
They didn't vote and fight for a funny little man with a Charlie-Chaplin-moustache.
The end of it all is well known.

Communism, Anarchism, National Socialism and New Left are all socialistic groups.
And Socialistic Leaders were the major mass murderers of all time.
1. Mao (China) 40-80 million deaths
2. Stalin (Soviet Union, USSR / CCCP) 12-40 million deaths
3. Hitler (Germany) 14-30 million deaths

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

Hitler was anti-socialist. Can you point to any socialist policy he had?

reply

[–] TimeTunnel (4769) 6 months ago

Yep.
https://moviechat.org/nm0386944/Adolf-Hitler/6507f4f866ca1c1f2a3bd0ab/Nazis-National-Socialism-WAS-Socialism 🚩

reply

[–] Skavau (14530) a year ago

I really have no idea how you conclude the show portrays the Communists as the good guys at all.

reply