It's like how Christianity went from an exclusive, Jewish religion to the saving light to the globe.

Is it not admirable to see these ideals be taken to form even better ones? To better the folk?

Or is the simple word socialist triggering for you/

@Anglican We should also make a distinction between fascism and syndicalism, considering that fascism has it's own economic beliefs that syndicalism would otherwise counteract.

Hold up

We'renot talking about Fascism, but instead fascism.

Italina Fascism and the fascist world view are distinct.

Yes, Italian Fascism was social corporatism.

But fascism within itself is a world view which ideologies, like Italian Fascism, spring from.

However, fascism was not the origin of national syndicalism, it was a merger between two political parties in belief that they should band together.

Yes, and I take from these ideals to form better ones.

guys stop arguing it's not nice to argue 😢

Does it matter what the history ws of it? When my ideology isn't just tht?

can't we all just be friends 😢

@Deleted User is that a quiz? I'm interested in critics of Hegel because I like his pattern of thought.

I can just call myself a fascistic syndicalist if you really want to quote Wikipedia at me too.

We probably should not quote wikipedia.

Considering that it is often biased and the sources can be shit.

Like, I want you to understand that I am someone who adhears to the fascist world view and supports Syndicalism.

There for I call myself, obviously, a National Syndicalist.

@Firefly#9983 @Deleted User
True communism is impossible

Daily reminder

I don't follow any historical ideology, I haven't really even read up on the National Syndiclist movement in Falanglist Spain.

@Firefly#9983 I'm not qualified to answer that. I would only be pretending to know. Let's leave it for now.

I am just, and simply just. a Nationalist and Syndicalist.

@Anglican Reading up on your ideology is a need if you want to understand it's beliefs fully.

But that isn't my ideology.

It's just a fuckign similar name and similar principles, and base wants.

There is so much more then whatever historical movement in the way of what I believe.

*same name

So you're not a Nat Soc?

Yes, I am not a National Socialist.

National Socialism isn't socialist

don't tell the retards that

"its not marxist socialism"

"hitlers socialism was deeper"

Nazism, as it was practiced, was not Socialism.

The workers had little if any control over the means of the production.

By a marxist definition of socialism, it is not socialism in the slightest.

Marxist definition?

It wasn't socialism by any defination.

As I said, workers control ove rthe means of the production.

It was socialism by Hitler's definition :^)

Gregor Stasser was a Socialist.

Marxist definition of socialism is by far more accurate than the average Neo-Con definition

And by Saint-Simonian apparently.

"true socialism"

NOT TRUE SOCIALISM

@Dyno fuck you bitch

@National Trotskyist Son of a bitch, I was going to get that image earlier.

It's simple, he believed in his own thing which he called socialism.

While forever, socialism meant workers holding the means of production.

How this was is different across different tendencies.

But that is what it is.

Socialism isn't really workers control of the means of production

It's more of a range of things

https://pics.me.me/hitlers-definition-of-socialism-a-socialist-is-one-who-serves-14845086.png

Based upon social ownership

the same people that call Hitler a "socialist" are the same people that don't have a distinction between liberals and leftism

My heels hurt realy bad for standing all day

Meaning public, collective, or co-operative ownership

Ah, yes.

I believe syndicalism would fall under co-operative ownership

Yes, it would.

Same with market socialism

It's workers owning their own bussinesses, but not all of the public.

Collective ownership would be society owning it as a whole

And public would be the state

But I'm not so sure what that's supposed to mean

Eh, yeah. I guess.

So I don't know if the USSR would actually be socialist

Because it was "publically" owned

Unless there's a large difference between publically owned and state capitalism

But yeah, its important to remember that Marxism is an analyization of history and predictions, and a list of things which Marx suggest to reach the Communist society

(the manifesto)

Yeah

It is not all forms of non-private ownership.

But not the means of achieving the society

Or how the society would function

**Shrug**

I don't know that much

That's more what Kropotkin did

Kinda

It's about the different theories to achieve it, rather than the end goal

Marxism Leninism is what we've seen happen for the most part

@Deleted User You could read up what the creator of this image wrote.
http://yamalama1986.deviantart.com/art/Adolf-Hitler-on-his-definition-of-socialism-524438850
He noted that the Hitler's definition of socialism was very close to that of Saint-Simon, one of the fathers of pre-Marxian socialism.

Also yeah worker ownership of the means of production is a Marxist definition of socialism. I'm not sure if all anarchists and others even agree with this.
Originally Marx didn't even made difference between socialism and communism, it was introduced later by his students.

Oh! That's one of the very interesting parts of it all.

A lot of Pre-Marxian Socialism was religiously inspiried and influanced.

What is pre-marxian socialism? @Anglican

Socialisms before Marx?

How is it different from social ownership socialism which is apparently a Marxian definition

Or his writings? The more famouus ones.

I know there was socialism before marx

He didn't invent it

That is why I'm saying it.

Socialism/communism would still exist even if Marx was never born

Yes, but it would be different in the modern world